CIT Witness Account + Security Video Potentially Prove Aircraft Strikes Pentagon AND NoC Theory

reply to post by cogburn

---

Wrong.

The north side approach is absolute scientific PROOF of a flyover and the 13 independently corroborated eyewitness accounts we provide is direct evidence.

Do you still believe in the north side approach as you stated in the title of this thread?





[edit on 23-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by jthomas

---

Yeah so?

They all saw the plane on the north side PROVING it flew over the building.

But you failed to answer the question that you quoted.

Do you agree that if a north side approach in general, as independently reported by 13 witnesses, is accurate that it proves a flyover?

[edit on 23-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

It's not a matter of belief.

It's a matter of facts.

If Turcios says a north side fly-over and those photos are genuine, then a plane struck the Pentagon from flying on the north side.

There's no reason to doubt those photos unless you can prove that they've been doctored? They are not the same photos as submitted in the Moussaoui trial and are sourced as 4 years earlier.

If you can't prove that the photos are doctored then a plane hit the Pentagon and flew over the north side of the CITGO.

I'll leave belief to those more qualified... like priests.

[edit on 23-11-2008 by cogburn]

reply to post by cogburn

---

Sorry cogburn but once you accept the north side approach, you must scientifically accept a flyover.

No matter what you choose believe.

Science and physics trump your faith.

This has degenerated into bizzare-o-world. This is your retort? Accusations of an ontological argument? Against facts and logic? While claiming science?

The only thing that I've been convinced of in the past two weeks of this discussion is that the educational system in this country has degenerated into absolute shambles since I graduated... and I haven't even hit my 20th reunion yet.

The only argument you've made is that private school for my kid was a good idea.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by cogburn]

Government sequestered, controlled, and provided grainy videos are not valid evidence in favor of the official narrative when the officials are the suspects.

Physical damage is evidence. Eyewitness testimony is evidence.

The physical damage is 100% irreconcilable with a north side approach.

All of the independent verifiable witnesses place the plane on the north side.

These are the facts you must accept if you wish to live on earth in the current dimension.

This is what scientifically proves a flyover and not surprisingly you refuse to demonstrate otherwise.

Are you kidding me?

Besides the fact that I am shocked you're a father it's quite clear that you utterly refuse to support your completely fallacious and scientfically impossible conspiracy theory of an NoC impact by demonstrating how a plane on the north side could cause ANY of the physical damage.

There is a reason that none of the hardcore CIT skeptics including the resident bot jthomas are willing to state for a second that an NoC impact is possible.

It is impossible and you know it just admit it before you make yourself look even worse.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Actually I'm not but that's an excellent example of how you make assumptions not in evidence.

Perhaps I should have said "when I have a kid"...

Cheers!

EDIT: Just goes to show how well you DON'T know anyone based on forums posts.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by cogburn]

Obviously. The verified South Side approach is the ONLY approach consistent with ALL of the observed damage, eyewitness testimony, wreckage, and so on. So there was no flyover. Why would you contradict your own eyewitnesses and all the other eyewitnesses?

Even Turcios pointed to the South Side flightpath and motioned how it flew in the direction of the South canopy of the CITGO station to hit the Pentagon behind him in your own video.

When will you provide eyewitnesses that saw ANY jet fly over and away from the Pentagon or admit what we all know -- there are none.

CIT members wear no clothes.

1. I could care less about that irrelevant personal fact that you chose to lie about so I have no intentions of investigating it.

2. Obviously it goes to show that I was RIGHT about you and therefore know you better than you think.

3. It also speaks as to the demonstrated fact that you are willing lie as a means to insult people and avoid discussing the topic that you created.


So cogburn, do you agree that if a north side approach in general, as independently reported by 13 witnesses, is accurate that it proves a flyover?

Or are you sticking by your ridiculous and scientifically impossible NoC impact claim that you refuse to support and that NOBODY (not even jthomas) is willing to back you up on?

[edit on 24-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Actually it goes to show that you are a pseudo-scientist who twists everything to suit your purpose.

The logical conclusion to your statement was that you had a kid; yet you hypocritically criticized somebody else for YOUR error. Perhaps you are a waste of time to debate.

... or it could have just been tongue-in-cheek humor that so far each of you have taken a little too seriously.

Either way, it's cool. I would say the second thing I've learned is that 9/11 CT'ers in their search for truthiness are a rather humorless bunch.

reply to post by cogburn

---

Perhaps you think mass murder or your lame attempt at "humor" was funny but I don't.

Back on topic:

So cogburn, do you agree that if a north side approach in general, as independently reported by 13 witnesses, is accurate that it proves a flyover?

Or are you sticking by your ridiculous and scientifically impossible NoC impact claim that you refuse to support and that NOBODY (not even jthomas) is willing to back you up on?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

---

Ok.. once and for all... here is what I think and why, since I've never actually offered it.

I had family both at the WTC plaza and in ring F of the Pentagon on 9/11. We didn't know my grandmother was alive until we saw her wandering around in the background of a news report from Ground Zero. My aunt was on Wall Street that morning, but had she been at her desk she would be dead. All her co-workers are dead. Her entire company is gone. She's still in therapy. My wife's uncle is a Lt. Colonel in the Air Force and was working in his offices in the west section of Ring F at the time of the impact. I wasn't made aware of this fact until we got on the subject at a family gathering in 2005. Believe me or not, it's unimportant given we're discussing this on a conspiracy forum. If you really feel that it requires confirmation we can work something out. I'd wager that this makes me a bit more personally invested in the events of 9/11 than most folks, perhaps even you.

I think that the WTC and the Pentagon attacks need to be divorced in conversation because I believe there is more independent evidence to back the version of events at the Pentagon then there is to back the version of events for the WTC. There are ample websites, experts and commentators that support this, most notable being ae911truth.org.

I think that if there is a conspiracy that the Flight 77 FDR and radar data was altered after the fact (giving OpSec a smaller surface area) to directly contradict the physical and photographic evidence.

I think that your investigative and deductive skills leave a lot to be desired. Your questioning of witnesses is both leading and incomplete. Furthermore, you do nothing to verify testimony known to be different from earlier recorded statements. You even have witnesses admitting on camera that they have "looked into" the events at the Pentagon since that time and offered nothing as to how you separated their eye witness accounts from possible factual contamination. You take no physical measurements with the eye witnesses present and as a result your plots of the possible flight paths as witnessed by each person are wholly unsubstantiated.

The 25% manipulation of facts surrounding the events at the Pentagon has led to a cottage industry in which you participate, either knowingly or unknowingly. Your footage is included in a DVD for sale by P4T. One wonders if you are gaining royalties from the sale, if they used your material without permission, or if you granted open rights to the information... in which case someone is making money from your efforts without your being compensated.

I think you have taken the bait laid out by those who, if there is a conspiracy, set forth to confuse the issue in order to create just such a conspiracy.

I think that about covers it and until you are able to offer a cogent theory as to how the light poles were damaged the north side fly over (and subsequent fly off) remains only an intellectual curiosity.


[edit on 24-11-2008 by cogburn]

reply to post by cogburn

---

Your off topic rant is irrelevant to the discussion and the evidence.

Back on topic:

So cogburn, do you agree that if a north side approach in general, as independently reported by 13 witnesses, is accurate that it proves a flyover?

Or are you sticking by your ridiculous and scientifically impossible NoC impact claim that you refuse to support and that NOBODY (not even jthomas) is willing to back you up on?

You know... now that I mention it I really only know my family's stories in broad strokes. It's a tender subject to this day and I never felt it was appropriate to ask questions. I let it lie for sake of their healing (in the case of my aunt and grandmother).

However now my own curiosity is piqued and I wonder if enough time hasn't elapsed where they would be willing to tell me their stories.

If you allow me some time (it may take a month or more), I will attempt to obtain their perspective of the events for nothing more than posterity. I will post them here as new threads.

If you find it of use to you, all the better. If not, then at least I learned a little more about my own family's involvement in the events of 9/11.

For this, I thank you.

My theory is just a theory. It is as fully of holes as any unproven theory. However it shares many holes in common with your version of events.

My answer remains as follows: I think that about covers it and until you are able to offer a cogent theory as to how the light poles were damaged the north side fly over (and subsequent fly off) remains only an intellectual curiosity.

In my opinion there is simply not enough data to be able to be as certain as some would be.

Kindly don't be a forum lawyer, it ruins the discussion as a previous thread I ruined would be testament. As this is my thread, I do reserve the right to direct the discussion onto tangents I feel are relevant to the topic. While you have repeatedly questioned my motives and presuppositions in both this thread and others, my commentary above is perfectly valid.


[edit on 24-11-2008 by cogburn]

reply to post by cogburn

---

You are avoiding your own topic like the plague.

Why?

Just because you are the author doesn't mean you have the right to direct the discussion at will.

The rules of this forum require you to stay on topic.

You are suggesting a "theory" that you are unwilling to support with evidence.

Your "theory" is dead in the water because it asserts something that is physically impossible.

This is why you have not been able to remotely demonstrate how an NoC impact is the least bit reconcilable with the physical damage.

So if you want your thread to continue I suggest you support your theory with evidence.

If you can't do so simply concede you were wrong.

It's that easy.

EDIT: Entire previous post removed for a much better idea.

You're in San Clemente, I'm in Santa Barbara.

Let's meet in Thousand Oaks at a bar of your choice and we can debate this topic on camera, in person.

You and I can directly address our issues face-to-face and once we have fully heard each other's point of view we can walk away agreeing to disagree.

Then the thread trolling may be ended once and for all and new topics regarding the events of 9/11 may be entertained.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by cogburn]

reply to post by cogburn

---

If you had demonstrated an honest desire to find truth or the slightest bit of knowledge regarding the evidence I'd be more willing to make the effort to spend an entire evening or day fighting traffic driving to LA to deal with you.

As it stands you have already exposed yourself as overly emotional, irrational, and not intellectually forthright when it comes to discussing the information so that would be more of a commitment than I am willing to make.

Let's save the gas and record a debate over the phone instead.

Is tonight good for you?