BREAKING NEWS: Many More than 8 People at CIT Conference

I can't believe you posted that Turcious interview done years after the event! You mean the guy who said he ran up the hill but is instead seen on the Citgo video running into the station as fast as he can!

Like I said, first hand, at the time the event happened - "east down the Pike". Darn, even identified as an American Airlines plane too. Seen by the CIT star witness Boger flying INTO the building! Why are you guys wasting the world's time with this nonsense?

Originally posted by jprophet420
you are spending many hours defaming someone, and you wonder why you cant find a serious debate?

I do serious debate quite frequently. Strange all these people wanting to debate me and somehow I can't find a serious debate? So why is CIT and P4T screaming for a debate with me? I have not called for a debate with them? So suddenly I "wonder why" I can't find a "serious debate"? Think you got that backwards bubba!

reply to post by 911files



For those interested, here's a handy-dandy calculator that you can plug variables into to understand why the North of Citgo claims are somewhat, ermmm...exagerrated. That is, the need for a lot of very steep turning, in the last few seconds, in order to fit in with the CIT witness claims.

www.csgnetwork.com...

Originally posted by 911files

Simple math turbo. Two required turns. One to port to deviate from the last recorded flight path and another to the starboard to clear north of the Citgo and back to the Pentagon and impact as you guys describe. Do the math for the last recorded speed trends and time to target. I know, you'll pick a few anomalous time estimates and ignore the majority of witnesses who put the time in the range of a few seconds.

OH....edit to topic, just for info, here's the website for the NRECA, where the CIT show and tell was held.

www.conferencesolution.com...

I have personally been there on several occasions. Link to the floorplans, and the graph of attendance levels in the various sections of conference rooms to get an idea of the layout and size of the facility.

An email I received, this morning (15 July) from P4T:

The DC Conference was a great success! As expected there was a good turnout. The room was a "full house" according to P4T speaker LtCol Shelton Lankford and the presenters received a standing ovation at the end. WeAreChangeVA from Richmond taped the event. We hope to have it posted soon.

[edit on 15 July 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by 911files


You and the other "debunkers" have tried and failed to counter the north side evidence for 2 1/2 years. The best discombobulator could do after all this time was try to present Keith Wheelhouse as somehow proving the south side approach. When I pointed out that Wheelhouse is a proven liar and what a joke it was to imply that he somehow refutes thirteen independently corroborated firsthand recorded eyewitness accounts placing the plane on the north side all he could do was cop out and make excuses not to discuss it further.

You guys have failed miserably at proving that the plane flew where it needed to be because that's not where it flew, period.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/634c0dfad5bd.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b4e8e3e2b325.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9327187c478b.jpg[/atsimg]

That's why you all had "more important things to do" than to show up to challenge CIT in person at the conference yet have unlimited time for relentless dishonest obfuscation attempts online.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by Ligon]

posted by CameronFox
reply to post by SPreston

 

So, SPreston...

Can you give us an accurate count as to how many people were at the CIT event?

What?

You didn't go?

tsk tsk

Why would I need to go to the CIT event CF? I do not disagree with their research and eyewitness accounts. CIT does not need me there for any reason, because they are more than adequately prepared to back up all their research and videos and interviewed eyewitnesses. CIT is easily able to defend themselves against a bunch of desperate pseudoskeptics and government loyalists and shills who were too frightened to show up.

To paraphrase Rush Limpballs; They could defend their Over the Naval Annex and North of Citgo research with their brains tied behind their backs.

You are the person who needed to show up CF. Your desperation should have had you showing-up at the CIT event with 104 Official Flight 77 south flight path eyewitnesses raring to put CIT and their eyewitnesses in their place, the helpful stranger helping Lloyde remove the light pole, and the three Federal agents guarding the taxicab, with all their supporting testimonies.

So where were you CF? Did you chicken out again?

Surely you could have proven that the ANC eyewitnesses were lying as you have hinted again and again, and that this is not approximately what they saw after the decoy aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4e45b054ad12.gif[/atsimg]

With me and other supporters staying away, that left lots more room for you opponents to show up and prove them wrong. You should have thanked us. Instead you were all too cowardly to even show up.

Buk buk buk buk. What a bunch of chickens.

Originally posted by SPreston
With me and other supporters staying away, that left lots more room for you opponents to show up and prove them wrong. You should have thanked us. Instead you were all too cowardly to even show up.

Buk buk buk buk. What a bunch of chickens.

Oh my gosh, here I though I was talking to grown-ups. I have not heard childish stuff like that since I was in grade school

reply to post by 911files


That's right Farmer, you were chicken to show up too. Didn't you think your bluffing would work in public? Afraid they might all gang up on you? Not in your mission orders?

Aw shucks. It totally missed those light poles in the distance it was supposed to hit.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7b7e90d36356.jpg[/atsimg]

And dang, is that really a bank to the right just like they witnessed?

None of you defenders of the 9-11 perps showed up and instead you just decided to lie about the number of people who did show up. Wow. What a bunch of tough guys; throwing everything they have into protecting the status quo.

Originally posted by SPreston

That's right Farmer, you were chicken to show up too. Didn't you think your bluffing would work in public? Afraid they might all gang up on you? Not in your mission orders?

No, my mission orders were to go canoeing with my kids up in the hills this time around. Chasing crawfish and copperheads with them just seemed more appealing than driving to Arlington for a comedy show.

Maybe next time my NWO handler will let me go. I hate to leave such fine company, but my files are done and I don't need to kill time any more. Someone let me know if you guys ever find a witness to this mysterious 'fly-over' that no one seemed to notice. Guess Boger and Wallace need to go under the bus with the other NWO operatives. Such is life.

Originally posted by 911files
No you don't turbo, because Stutt wrote his in C#, this is in VB.Net. But then again I would not expect you to know the difference.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by 911files]

What? Are you serious? Would you like to see my C programming manuals, and CD's? How about Transcripts showing grades? PLEASE
PLEASE PLEASE ask for any or all of the above and I'll grab my camera!


Should I take a screen shot of my editors?

Instead of flapping your beak around here, why do you go where you
have been challenged and CORRECTED:

"In general, the final AA77 data in the raw [radar] file differs materially from the processed file."
pilotsfor911truth.org...

"aa77" Final Approach Ground Speed Determination From The 84rades Radar Data, 84Rades and FDR data mutually INCONSISTENT?
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Altitude Data impossible to correlate due to inoperative Mode C.

Altitude Correlation determined above based on primary RADES radar returns. NTSB states. "... the altitude estimates from these returns are subject to potentially large errors" when attempting to correlate primary RADES altitude data for Egypt Air 990.

Points within the RADES Data have the alleged AA77 in excess of 50,000 feet.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

RADES Altitude Data is not reliable for correlating position.

Nav 1 DME recorded 1.5 NM off DCA VOR. The above claim ignores this point.
INS vs DME
pilotsfor911truth.org...

DME Slant Range errors are ignored by above claim.

INS Errors are ignored by above claim (AA77 RO2 positional data shows aircraft departing roughly 3,000 feet south of IAD Runway 30. Illustration -www.aa77fdr.com...

I find it gut busting that Farmer has x-ray vision, and ESP to allow himself
the content of my hard-drive and claim I don't have a copy of Warren's
code!!


[edit on 15-7-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Witnesses saw it flying away.

Who saw it flying away?

Besides Roosevelt Roberts, who's account cannot be corroborated and in any event is so convoluted and filled with inconsistencies to make it totally unbelievable.

I'm wondering why we haven't seen a response to this question yet. Everyone seems to be tap dancing around it, these witnesses and their testimonies should help prove the "flyover" theory, no?

We're still waiting.

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by 911files

 

That's right Farmer, you were chicken to show up too. Didn't you think your bluffing would work in public? Afraid they might all gang up on you? Not in your mission orders?

Aw shucks. It totally missed those light poles in the distance it was supposed to hit.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7b7e90d36356.jpg[/atsimg]

And dang, is that really a bank to the right just like they witnessed?

None of you defenders of the 9-11 perps showed up and instead you just decided to lie about the number of people who did show up. Wow. What a bunch of tough guys; throwing everything they have into protecting the status quo.

Oh my, why did CIT not show up for Lynn Spencer's lecture when the Pentagon Memorial opened? Afraid a girl would beat them up? How come they did not come to the opening ceremony? They musta been chicken :O

What a loon....

Originally posted by Ligon
You and the other "debunkers" have tried and failed to counter the north side evidence for 2 1/2 years. The best discombobulator could do after all this time was try to present Keith Wheelhouse as somehow proving the south side approach. When I pointed out that Wheelhouse is a proven liar and what a joke it was to imply that he somehow refutes thirteen independently corroborated firsthand recorded eyewitness accounts placing the plane on the north side all he could do was cop out and make excuses not to discuss it further.

Why are you telling lies, Ligon?

I continued to discuss the issue (after the post that you have linked to), despite the fact that I said I would not, and posted a response to your question here -> www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wheelhouse hasn't been proven to be a liar at all, and I don't just take the word of CIT sycophants like yourself without checking into the details myself. Whilst it is highly unlikely, given the other witness accounts, videos and the RADES data, that the C-130 has above the commercial airliner, as he suggests (thought I suspect some 3d animations of his perspective with the known RADES data would produce the same optical illusion), you're going to have to explain to me why Keith Wheelhouse is a dubious witness for stating that he watched the plane for 60 seconds when the water truck guy gets a completely free pass for seeing the plane over 5 minutes.

Originally posted by Ligon
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.

Prove this statement please.

Prove that Wheelhouse could only have seen the plane for one or two seconds max on the "official flight path".

Please show maps, POVs, heading and altitude data that demonstrates that Keith Wheelhouse is a liar when he says that he saw the plane for 60 seconds.

You called the man a liar, you prove that he couldn't have seen the plane for 60 seconds. And don't point me towards more CIT crap. I've seen it. They didn't prove it.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by jthomas

 

jthomas, the NWO has fooled you again. Open your eyes and stop being a sheeple!!!


From your link:

"Ted Goertzel, a professor of sociology at Rutgers University who has studied conspiracy theorists, said “there’s a similar kind of logic behind all of these groups, I think.”

John Farmer (the commission Farmer, not the self proclaimed "better looking John Farmer") is now the Dean of Rutgers University and he ordered this alleged 'professor of psychology' to contribute to the New York Times article to discredit the truth movement.

Oh, the humanity!

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by tezzajw
jthomas, please quote Boger stating that he saw 'Flight AA77' hit the Pentagon. I might have missed it. I recall him stating that he watched a plane hit the Pentagon.

Thanks to 9/11 Files for addressing this.

What did he address, jthomas?

911Files confirmed that Boger did not state that the alleged Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon. You stated that's what Boger said, jthomas. Again, you were wrong.

However, both you and 911Files ignore that Boger said the approaching plane flew NOC. Why would you both do that?

Why do you both cherry-pick Boger? Remember that before the plane allegedly hit the Pentagon, Boger placed it on a NOC flight path. Ouch for your official story. Try again...

Originally posted by Ligon

You guys have failed miserably at proving that the plane flew where it needed to be because that's not where it flew, period.

No. Period. You are wrong.

You guys have failed miserably at proving that the plane flew where it needed to be because you can't produce a single eyewitness to a jet flying over and away from the Pentagon out of the hundreds that were on the freeways, the bridges, in the parking lots, and buildings all around the Pentagon, even across the river.

No matter how long you want to evade the fact. You are wholly incapable of supporting your claims, Ligon. There are NO eyewitnesses or reports of any flyover whatsoever and you can't produce any.

Why not just admit it instead of discrediting yourself?

Originally posted by Ligon

Duplicate post.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by jthomas]

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by turbofan

P.S. Thanks, but no thanks for your code. I already have a copy
through Warren Stutt who is someone more qualified to review FDR data.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by turbofan]

No you don't turbo, because Stutt wrote his in C#, this is in VB.Net. But then again I would not expect you to know the difference.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by 911files]

Johm Farmer claims he is here for serious debate, but the fool has been
caught making errors about FDR/RADES data as shown on Pilots for Truth
and now he tries to slander me.

Here is proof that I have Warren's code on my hard drive and that I know
just a BIT of programmig .

John Farmer is a LIAR. Please use this post, and the discussion at Pilots
for Truth to further expose poeple like Famer:






[edit on 15-7-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by turbofan

P.S. Thanks, but no thanks for your code. I already have a copy
through Warren Stutt who is someone more qualified to review FDR data.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by turbofan]

No you don't turbo, because Stutt wrote his in C#, this is in VB.Net. But then again I would not expect you to know the difference.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by 911files]

Johm Farmer claims he is here for serious debate, but the fool has been
caught making errors about FDR/RADES data as shown on Pilots for Truth
and now he tries to slander me.

Here is proof that I have Warren's code on my hard drive and that I know
just a BIT of programmig .

John Farmer is a LIAR. Please use this post, and the discussion at Pilots
for Truth to further expose poeple like Famer:




[edit on 15-7-2009 by turbofan]

No turbo, you said you already had the VB code I posted. It is impossible for you to have it already because I had not posted anywhere before now (unless you hacked my computer). You have Stutt's C# code, not the VB code and thanks for demonstrating you don't know the difference.

And oh yes, what you have is the old Visual C. Stutt's code is written in C# which is for the dot Net environment. I would be very interested in hearing how you managed to get C# to run on a C++ compiler.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by 911files]

[edit on 15-7-2009 by 911files]

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Witnesses saw it flying away.

Who saw it flying away?

Besides Roosevelt Roberts, who's account cannot be corroborated and in any event is so convoluted and filled with inconsistencies to make it totally unbelievable.

I'm wondering why we haven't seen a response to this question yet. Everyone seems to be tap dancing around it, these witnesses and their testimonies should help prove the "flyover" theory, no?

We're still waiting.

Because there *are* no "fly-over" witnesses. The only "fly-over" was the C-130 and whatever F-16's were in the air at the time.