BREAKING NEWS: Many More than 8 People at CIT Conference

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+9 more 
posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I am posting this in response to the thread by JThomas's thread entitled "BREAKING NEWS: Eight people show up for CIT conference

The title and premise of that thread are outright lies.

Unlike jthomas, I was at the conference. There were many more than 8 people there, as photographs and video from the conference will confirm.

Is there no rule against posting lies like this in attempt to discredit members of this board (Craig Ranke)?

How many people are going to read that totally false headline and assume it's true and perpetuate this bogus rumor?

That thread should be deleted.

Despite "debunkers" like jthomas spending untold hours on the internet ridiculing CIT, NOT A SINGLE DEBUNKER HAD THE COURAGE TO SHOW UP TO THIS EVENT AND CHALLENGE THEIR RESEARCH. This is not surprising considering that the vast majority are anonymous individuals who refuse to debate CIT in real time over the phone as well.

jthomas and friends cannot debunk the evidence presented by CIT, which is why the vast majority refuse to debate them on the phone let alone face to face and have to resort to making up rumors about their efforts instead.

[edit on 12-7-2009 by Ligon]

[edit on 15-7-2009 by TheBorg]




posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I would have been there except I had more important things to do. I am also not a nameless shadow hiding behind a computer keyboard.

The report was 12 people in attendence from a DC area radio station.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911filesI would have been there except I had more important things to do.


You're saying that was the only thing stopping you? You didn't have anything more important to do during all of the countless hours (probably hundreds) you spent online in the past couple years trying (and failing) to counter their evidence. This conference was announced well in advance. It's pretty convenient that you finally had something more important to do if you ask me. July 11 must be an important day for debunkers since not a single one showed up, even though they can't stop talking about them online. You'd think they'd be stepping over each other to be the hero who challenged CIT to their faces if they were so "easily debunked". Hmmm.


I am also not a nameless shadow hiding behind a computer keyboard.


True which is why I said "the vast majority" and not all. You're one of the only ones who was willing to get on the phone with them. However, you made a total fool of yourself, as you know. I can pull some of my favorite quotes if you'd like. It was almost as bad as the time Adam Larson debated CIT. At least you were willing to step out of the shadows and try though. I give you credit for that.


The report was 12 people in attendence from a DC area radio station.


No, that's not true John. I found the origin of this. It's a rumor started by JREFer who claims he heard it from his "friend" who allegedly went to the conference. His alleged friend allegedly heard about the conference on the radio, but that was not the origin of the false "12 people in attendance rumor" (which was later shortened to "8 people" by another JREFer who wasn't there and repeated by jthomas). We'll chalk this up to you having "misread" the JREF thread. I'm sure you'd never lie on purpose to cover up something you know to be true.


[edit on 12-7-2009 by Ligon]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
You have it right. Someone heard it on the radio, passed it to someone else and hence, the rumor. In lieu of pictures and/or video, that is all we have at the moment, rumors.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ligon
You're saying that was the only thing stopping you? You didn't have anything more important to do during all of the countless hours (probably hundreds) you spent online in the past couple years trying (and failing) to counter their evidence. [edit on 12-7-2009 by Ligon]


Please Ligon, I have no interest in countering anyone's evidence. I have spent countless hours as you call it evaluating any evidence related to the Pentagon attack, CIT evidence inclusive. There is nothing wrong with the evidence presented by CIT, only the evaluation and 'spin' they choose to put on it (cherry picking).

And yes, spending time with my kids is more important than traveling to Arlington to hear a couple of crack-pots spin tales. I'll wait for the video release.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
You have it right. Someone heard it on the radio, passed it to someone else and hence, the rumor.


No, that's not true and that's not what I said. No one claimed to have heard the "8-12 people in attendance" rumor on the radio. It is a rumor started by a JREFer who claims he has a friend who went to the conference.

[edit on 12-7-2009 by Ligon]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ligon

Originally posted by 911files
You have it right. Someone heard it on the radio, passed it to someone else and hence, the rumor.


No, that's not true and that's not what I said. No one claimed to have heard the "8-12 people in attendance" rumor on the radio. It is a rumor started by a JREFer who claims he has a friend who went to the conference.

[edit on 12-7-2009 by Ligon]


See, now that is what is so bad about rumors, every iteration of it causes it to change a little and drift further from reality. Sort of like eyewitness accounts.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Roughly how many people attended?

I'm not surprised that there was no one there to argue with CIT. It's easier for anonymous government story believers to do it from the safety of a keyboard.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajwI'm not surprised that there was no one there to argue with CIT. It's easier for anonymous government story believers to do it from the safety of a keyboard.


How does this work? I've been asked why I spend so much time on here talking, and now you're saying we should do more.

Which is it and why do you care?



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

See, now that is what is so bad about rumors, every iteration of it causes it to change a little and drift further from reality. Sort of like eyewitness accounts.


Yes, eyewitness accounts do get twisted as they are repeated second and thirdhand (example). This is why it's so important to get direct independent confirmation from the witness themselves.

It's interesting that you make this point considering that you just made this statement:


Originally posted by 911filesThere is nothing wrong with the evidence presented by CIT, only the evaluation and 'spin' they choose to put on it (cherry picking).


As you know CIT found thirteen witnesses who were in a variety of excellent vantage points to judge where the plane flew in relation to the Navy Annex and/or Citgo and interviewed them in person, and video and/or audio recorded each. As you know they all insist it flew over the Navy Annex and NOC. As you know the plane flying on the north side means that it could not have hit the light poles or building.

Have you or anyone else gotten a video or audio recorded interview with someone who was in a position to judge the plane's location in relation to the Navy Annex and who places it on the south side?

If so please post them.

You've had about 2 1/2 years since the release of The PentaCon to find them.

If CIT is "cherry picking" and the plane actually flew on the south side it should have been a piece of cake.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Not the subject of this thread. The topic is how many folks showed up for their little get together. The refutation and/or evaluation of their witnesses has been done to death and they are consistent with a large plan hitting the Pentagon. If it flew a little north or south of the Citgo does not matter to me much since not one of them saw it fly over the Pentagon and those in a position to see saw it hit the Pentagon. Prior to impact ALL of them give a different flight path assessment. Perfectly natural.

Now how many people showed up for the event?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ligon
Have you or anyone else gotten a video or audio recorded interview with someone who was in a position to judge the plane's location in relation to the Navy Annex and who places it on the south side?

If so please post them.

No need to, CIT already did the work for us.

When asked to draw a flight path by Craig, Keith Wheelhouse specifically drew a South of Citgo and South of Navy Annex flight path. That is an undeniable fact.

A fact that is conveniantly, and deliberately, overlooked by CIT when they repeat "noone saw the plane" on the "official flight path" over and over and over.

Additionally, in the first interview with Russell Pickering and Craig, Edward Paik put the fuselage of the plane over Columbia Pike (south of Navy Annex) with the right wing taking out the VDOT antenna.

Madelyn Zakhem also puts the plane south of the Navy Annex.

CIT, of course, will ignore all of these witness accounts.

Because they're all "in on it".



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by tezzajwI'm not surprised that there was no one there to argue with CIT. It's easier for anonymous government story believers to do it from the safety of a keyboard.

How does this work? I've been asked why I spend so much time on here talking, and now you're saying we should do more.
Which is it and why do you care?

Why don't you ask someone who's accused you of spending too much time on the keyboard. I certainly haven't accused you of doing that.

I don't see why you're so vain to think that I was addressing you in my post, exponent. I wouldn't expect you to fly from the UK to Arlington. Learn to deny ignorance and not embrace it, please.

However, I know that there are some CIT debunkers who are close enough to Arlington. Therefore, it speaks volumes about them, that they didn't turn up to debate CIT face-to-face.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
Not the subject of this thread. The topic is how many folks showed up for their little get together.


You're "cherry picking" from my OP, John.
This thread is about multiple related subjects. One of them is that jthomas is spreading false rumors about "8 people" attending CIT's lecture when the real number was much higher.

It's also about another more interesting statistic (presented by me in the OP) about the attendence: "Despite "debunkers" like jthomas spending untold hours on the internet ridiculing CIT, NOT A SINGLE DEBUNKER HAD THE COURAGE TO SHOW UP TO THIS EVENT AND CHALLENGE THEIR RESEARCH. This is not surprising considering that the vast majority are anonymous individuals who refuse to debate CIT in real time over the phone as well."

It's also about "WHY the vast majority refuse to debate them on the phone let alone face to face and have to resort to making up rumors about their efforts instead".

The simple reason is also given in the OP: "jthomas and friends cannot debunk the evidence presented by CIT."


The refutation and/or evaluation of their witnesses has been done to death and they are consistent with a large plan hitting the Pentagon.


No. No one has or can refuted 13 eyewitnesses all placing the plane on the north side in firsthand accounts, which are proving that the plane did not hit the Pentagon.


If it flew a little north or south of the Citgo does not matter to me much


That's because all of the eyewitnesses on record via audio or video recorded independent interviews who were in a position to tell place it on the north, corroborating each other and proving that the plane did not hit the light poles or building in direct contradiction to your 757 impact theory, which not a single "debunker" showed up to defend, despite collectively investing hundreds of hours a week online promoting it and/or ridiculing CIT.


not one of them saw it fly over the Pentagon


Most of them didn't see it hit the Pentagon either, John, as you know. What they did all see was it flying on the north side, which, again, means that it did not hit the light poles or building, as you know.


and those in a position to see saw it hit the Pentagon.


As you know, the plane flying north of Citgo and hitting the Pentagon are mutually exclusive.

Either:

1) It hit the Pentagon and every video or audio recorded eyewitnesses in a position to tell had the same crazy hallucination about where it flew

or

2) They are all correct and the relatively small number of witnesses who were in locations from which they may have been able to see the alleged impact spot and who do genuinely believe that they saw the plane hit the building were fooled by a carefully planned deception, executed with military precision..


Prior to impact ALL of them give a different flight path assessment. Perfectly natural.


Same tired, inept argument, John. Do you never get tired of singing this song? As CIT has said over and over and over and over and are obviously correct about, eyewitnesses are not cameras. For example, I can't tell you the exact number of people who were at the conference with complete accuracy. What I can tell you for sure is that the number is much higher than 8. Likewise, as any reasonable person knows and accepts, eyewitnesses are not going to draw the same flight path down to the foot. They can be relied on for general details like which side of the gas station the plane flew on, though, especially when they all say the same thing.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Ligon]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ligon
It's also about another more interesting statistic (presented by me in the OP) about the attendence: "Despite "debunkers" like jthomas spending untold hours on the internet ridiculing CIT, NOT A SINGLE DEBUNKER HAD THE COURAGE TO SHOW UP TO THIS EVENT AND CHALLENGE THEIR RESEARCH."

Ligon, since you were present at the event, perhaps you could tell us precisely how many witnesses turned up to support CIT's assertion that the plane flew over the Pentagon.

Were there any?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ligon
2) They are all correct and the relatively small number of witnesses who were in locations from which they may have been able to see the alleged impact spot and who do genuinely believe that they saw the plane hit the building were fooled by a carefully planned deception, executed with military precision..

Ignoring the false premise for a moment, please define "relatively small number of witnesses".

Two CIT witnesses (Sean Boger and that chick they recently uncovered, can't remember her name) spoke about traffic on Route 27, right in front of the Pentagon, being at a stand still.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of people who would have had a perfect view of the impact from Route 27 and I395. Joel Sucherman was one of them, and seeing a plane crash into the Pentagon is precisely what he said he saw. Sure, throw all the nonsense you want about how CIT says that Joel Sucherman could not have seen the plane from his location, and I'll show you exactly how they are lying when they say this. I know they are lying because their errors have been shown to them, they have admitted them to be errors and they have made no effort whatsoever to correct them. They are spreading deliberate disinformation about Joel Sucherman, because his testimony is inconvenient to them... so he must be "in on it".

Lagasse and Brooks both saw the impact, and Brooks has prior testimony where he said he witnessed the plane hitting the light poles. Go and check it.. It is his voice, he said it.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Ligon, you wrote a lot and said nothing. Yes, I have said it a thousand times and a thousand times CIT has failed to produce ONE witness that saw the plane fly over the Pentagon. Out of thousands of eyewitnesses in the area and their best efforts, although the details vary...they all say pretty much the same thing. A plane hit the Pentagon.

Now, I was at Lynn Spencer's event last year and she had 100 - 200 people there for her presentation. The JREF folks say a dozen people showed up, you say more. We have gone multiple dance around the issue posts, but how many people showed up for the event?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   
I think that the main reason no debunkers were present at the event is that there probably was no need for them to be there.

I'm certainly far less concerned about the threat from CIT to ordinary citizens such as Lloyde England, Joel Sucherman and Mike Walter, when sites such as Prison Planet and 911Blogger hold CIT in utter, utter contempt.

That they cannot get their ideas accepted amongst their peers says a lot to me, and taken carefully into consideration when deciding whether or not it's worth my time to spend hundreds (actually, thousands) of dollars jetting to Arlington, VA to deal with these two jackasses in person.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by discombobulator
 


Our witness said this your witness said that! I can say your witnesses were paid to lie, but can YOU prove who is telling the truth? No, you can’t.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by Ligon
Have you or anyone else gotten a video or audio recorded interview with someone who was in a position to judge the plane's location in relation to the Navy Annex and who places it on the south side?

If so please post them.

No need to, CIT already did the work for us.

When asked to draw a flight path by Craig, Keith Wheelhouse specifically drew a South of Citgo and South of Navy Annex flight path. That is an undeniable fact.


Keith Wheelhouse claims he saw the C-130 "shadowing" the attack jet despite the fact that the C-130 did nothing of the sort and was not on the scene until approximately 3 minutes later. He also claims he watched both planes approach for approximately 60 SECONDS, when he could have only seen it for one or two seconds max on the official flight path. This means that Keith Wheelhouse is a proven liar. Even if he wasn't a proven liar, that still would not substantiate John's "cherry picking" claim. Keith would be the outlier ("special cause" as John likes to say).


A fact that is conveniantly, and deliberately, overlooked by CIT when they repeat "noone saw the plane" on the "official flight path" over and over and over.


The aforementioned lies by Keith strongly suggest that he did not see the plane at all. If he had he'd at least have been able to come up with a reasonable estimate instead of 60 seconds. Do you deny this?


Additionally, in the first interview with Russell Pickering and Craig, Edward Paik put the fuselage of the plane over Columbia Pike (south of Navy Annex) with the right wing taking out the VDOT antenna.


Clearly he was repeating what he heard secondhand about the VDOT antenna, not relaying something from personal experience. As you know the VDOT antenna was not taken out, and when he was interviewed ON LOCATION where he was on 9/11 he specifically says the plane crossed to the north side of the Columbia Pike, flew well north of the VDOT antenna, and flew over the Navy Annex.


Madelyn Zakhem also puts the plane south of the Navy Annex.


Please provide an audio or video recorded interview with her saying this as I requested or admit that you don't have it.

All of the north side witnesses cited by CIT (13 and counting) have attested to that flight path firsthand in audio or video recorded interviews

If CIT is "cherry picking" and the plane actually flew on the south side it should have been a piece of cake to find many more south side witnesses.

You've had about 2 1/2 years since the release of The PentaCon to find them.

Are you basically telling us you can only find one, Wheelhouse, the proven liar?


CIT, of course, will ignore all of these witness accounts.


If by "will ignore" you mean "have never ignored", yes.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Ligon]





new topics
top topics
 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join