reply to post by Grimstad
Talk about a convoluted, inaccurate, and well...schizophrenic
You are working overtime to spin this one and it's really quite amazing watching you completely flip-flop as well as blatantly contradict yourself in
order to do so.
First you came in the thread suggesting that Lloyde was simply talking about Bin Laden.
Then when I made you look silly for that by putting it in context of all the evidence, you complete flipped and decided to diagnose him as
simultaneously schizophrenic AND a cunning prankster who was "jerking my chain"!
Funny how you have no problem using this blatantly contradictory logic as a means to defend the official story in light of the definitive massive
body of independent evidence we present proving it false.
The levels people will reach for in order to deny this information is astounding. From, "He didn't say that!", to "Ok well he said that but he
didn't MEAN it or else perhaps he's schizo. I know this because I am an expert on schizophrenia because it runs in my family."
So although we cite 13 north side witnesses who unanimously corroborate a north side approach proving Lloyde's story false, you chose to only address
2 of them and then proceeded to spin what they said and how I interviewed them without bothering to cite their names or a single quote from me
or them to back up your accusation
You are talking about Darrell Stafford and Darius Prather and their accounts match perfectly, well within any reasonable margin of error that we
should naturally expect from eyewitnesses.
They BOTH have the plane coming from over the top of the Navy Annex and banking to the right heading directly towards them on the north side of the
The fact that you are nitpicking about the EXACT location down to the foot of WHERE over the Navy Annex they both place it when they first saw the
plane approaching, even though being directly over the Navy Annex at all
is completely fatal to the official story, is mind boggling. Particularly since you are forced to assert that they are both wildly and drastically
mistaken in the same way about the location of the plane as it passed right by them over their parking lot on the north side of the citgo.
This is yet another example of your inherently contradictory and blatantly hypocritical logic.
But of course this is why I had them illustrate the path as well so people like you wouldn't be able to spin what they said:
Clearly they match within a reasonable margin of error that any intellectually honest person would expect from eyewitness accounts.
Then you go off on the notion that they may have perspective error when drawing the image:
First of all, people have a hard time relating relative positions of objects from an areal photo when they are used to only seeing them from the
ground. That is a fact. Even reading a map can be difficult where everything is in a clearly defined grid with no clutter but when it’s a photo it
totally changes perspective.
All of these witnesses live and work in the area every day and have for many years before 9/11 and ever since. They are very familiar with the area.
Furthermore we are not relying on any one witness from any single vantage point
The north side claim is corroborated from 5 critical and opposing vantage points INCLUDING by
, the air traffic controller in the heliport tower at the Pentagon (vantage
This is an expert witness who watched aircraft for a living. He ALSO has the plane banking to the right on the north side of the gas station
perfectly corroborating the ANC guys.
Starting to get the feeling that you replied too soon? Well you did.
But of course all this was merely additional confirmation since the entire north of he citgo evidence was originally revealed from people with the
best possible vantage point eliminating all potential perspective issues in their accounts. The witnesses at the citgo station all had the complete
OPPOSITE vantage point from the ANC witnesses yet they ALSO unanimously placed the plane on the north side.
There is no possible way for people at the citgo to have perspective issues regarding the placement of the plane on the north or south side of the
citgo station property. And they unanimously confirm the north side.
Also it's not surprising how you are forced to turn to my interviewing techniques yet stop short of accusing me of leading the witnesses because you
know that I did not.
So you attack the notion that I often repeated what THEY SAID and then asked them to confirm, clarify, or elaborate.
How is that a "no no"??
That is simply being accurate and thorough and it is not a "no no" in the least.
Please cite your source backing up your notion that such a thing is a "no no" in a court of law or in any professional investigation.
Or do you simply have another brother who happens to be an investigator and he told you this is a "no no"?
The fact is that my line of questioning had NOTHING to do with where ANY of these witnesses placed the plane and you know it.
As far as the editing goes....that's the beauty with first hand eyewitness evidence. It's 100% verifiable with the witness direct. Built in
confirmation. ANYONE can contact the witnesses to ask them if we misrepresented their accounts. So far out of dozens of interviews, not a single
witness has accused us of this. None of them were promoting a conspiracy so believe me, they would be happy to speak out against us if we were
dishonest. ESPECIALLY the cops. But the fact is that they have only said the opposite....that we have represented their accounts fairly and accurately
and that they stand by their north side claim to this day. So cut it with the hollow accusations and approach the witnesses direct if you want to
make a case against how we presented their interviews or our interview techniques.
I have a feeling you are going to run away from this discussion and refuse to address the rest of the witnesses (by name or with quotes) because you
know you are going to look silly asserting that Lagasse and Brooks, both federal police officers, were both magically manipulated by my line of
questioning to report the complete opposite of what they saw.
Perhaps they're schizophrenic too?
(I swear that is the most hilarious rebuttal I have heard yet and we have heard a lot. Congrats on that significant accomplishment Grimstad.)
[edit on 2-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]