BREAKING NEWS: Many More than 8 People at CIT Conference

Originally posted by discombobulator

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

There is no false premise.

please define "relatively small number of witnesses".

I'll define it twice:

1) Small relative to the number of people the average person thinks would be in the category

2) Small relative to the number of people in the immediate area -- including people who saw the plane in the final seconds of the flight path -- many of whom had their view obstructed due to the complex topography.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of people who would have had a perfect view of the impact from Route 27 and I395.

Dozens for sure. Scores for sure. I think hundreds is pushing it. I was driving around there yesterday, and you definitely don't have a "perfect view" from 395 if any. (The various POVs are shown here).

Regardless of the exact number there was a considerable number who fall in this category, but its is still "relatively small" as defined above.

The overriding point still stands since the plane flying north of Citgo and hitting the Pentagon are mutually exclusive, and the plane definitely flew north of Citgo, because there's no way all of the north side witnesses are all so drastically wrong in the same way.

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".

Joel Sucherman is inconvenient to you, not them. They're the ones who got the interview in the first place and published it, remember?

Like your other favorite witness Wheelhouse Sucherman says he saw a second plane on the scene 3-5 SECONDS after the event. Since the plane was not there until approximately 3 MINUTES after the event, I say he is a proven liar. Do you disagree?

Lagasse and Brooks both saw the impact

They either saw the plane on the north side or they saw the impact. They clearly saw the plane on the north side. Do you deny this?

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.

I don't need to go and check it out because I've checked it out already. He deduced it and admitted that he didn't actually witness it when asked by Craig. Did he (1) see the plane hit the building and hallucinate the flight path or did he (2) see the plane on the north side like he and so many others swear they did (and STILL swears even after being made aware of the implications), deduce the poles (as many admit to have doing including him), and get fooled by a military deception about impact.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Ligon]

Good grief, if you expect me to go through your posts with a point by point rebuttal you are mistaken. You are spouting so much crap I would be here all night and I have a lot of better things to do with my time.

I will address one point you have made, in order to show how totally full of crap you are.

You stated this:

Like your other favorite witness Wheelhouse Sucherman says he saw a second plane on the scene 3-5 SECONDS after the event. Since the plane was not there until approximately 3 MINUTES after the event, I say he is a proven liar. Do you disagree?

This interpretation of Sucherman's statement shows how clearly off the planet you are in your comfortable delusion of granduer.

First of all, when Craig first tackled the subject of Sucherman's known testimony, he stated that Sucherman was providing a COVER STORY FOR THE FLYOVER. At the time, Craig's position was that there was no second plane in the area, and that anyone talking about a second plane was clearly trying to fool witnesses into thinking that that is what they saw (a second plane) when they were in reality seeing the first plane.

However, anyone with a brain (which is apparently not you) who has listened to what Sucherman said will immediately identify that he actually said that three to five seconds after the impact he looked off to the west (the complete opposite direction any flyover aircraft would have been heading) and saw another aircraft, IN THE DISTANCE, AT A MUCH HIGHER ALTITUDE.

The C-130 pilot was in visual range of the explosion, meaning that he would be visible in the air from persons near the Pentagon.

And more importantly, when Sucherman's statement is interpreted correctly, CIT's assertion that Sucherman was providing a "second plane cover story" is a testament to stupidity itself.

So yes, I disagree that Sucherman is a proven liar. You, on the other hand, I'm not so certain about. You are here peddling obvious disinformation, and deliberately I suspect.

The skeptics must be afraid of CIT's NoC research from how much time and energy they spend trying to ridicule them and their research.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by ATH911]

Originally posted by 911files

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?

"Dance around the issue"? I've told you that I don't know how many people were there. I didn't do a headcount. 40? 50? 60? Enough that someone saying 8 is a liar. I don't know the exact number. It was less than 100.

I don't know what your point in mentioning the Lynn Spencer turnout is. Are you saying that a bigger turnout makes you more correct? I bet if Paris Hilton schedule a conference to talk about the Pentagon attack the turnout would dwarf the turnout that Lynn Spencer, CIT, Mark Roberts, or John Farmer could get. Does that mean she knows more about the Pentagon attack?

If ever the phrase "dancing around the issue" was appropriate it would be in reference to the "debunkers" who want to write off thirteen firsthand eyewitness accounts all placing the plane on the north side as being drastically incorrect in the same way.

Originally posted by ATH911
The skeptics must be afraid of CIT's NoC research from how much time and energy they spend trying to ridicule them and their research.

Gee, I dunno, maybe it's a result of intellectual dishonesty like this...

I was driving around there yesterday, and you definitely don't have a "perfect view" from 395 if any.

... clashing with perfectly easily obtainable information such as ...


Look, what's that in the top right corner?

The flyover plane would have been a lot closer than that, and yet noone saw it.



[edit on 13-7-2009 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by Ligon
"Dance around the issue"?

I've told you that I don't know how many people were there. I didn't do a headcount. 40? 50? 60? Enough that someone saying 8 is a liar. I don't know the exact number. It was less than 100.

But more importantly, how many of the witnesses showed up?

You are aware that Craig invited them, yes?

Originally posted by discombobulator
Good grief, if you expect me to go through your posts with a point by point rebuttal you are mistaken. You are spouting so much crap I would be here all night and I have a lot of better things to do with my time.

I will address one point you have made, in order to show how totally full of crap you are.

You're the one who made three posts directed towards me, two of which were a decent length, upon your arrival to this thread. I wrote a thorough rebuttal. My points are all valid and you cannot refute them, which is why you are picking the one you feel you can write the best response to and trying to zero in on that and ignore all of the others. Nice attempted cop-out though.

You stated this:

Like your other favorite witness Wheelhouse Sucherman says he saw a second plane on the scene 3-5 SECONDS after the event. Since the plane was not there until approximately 3 MINUTES after the event, I say he is a proven liar. Do you disagree?

This interpretation of Sucherman's statement shows how clearly off the planet you are in your comfortable delusion of granduer.

Baseless insult noted.

First of all, when Craig first tackled the subject of Sucherman's known testimony, he stated that Sucherman was providing a COVER STORY FOR THE FLYOVER.

Yep. That hasn't changed.

citizeninvestigationteam.com...

At the time, Craig's position was that there was no second plane in the area, and that anyone talking about a second plane was clearly trying to fool witnesses into thinking that that is what they saw (a second plane) when they were in reality seeing the first plane.

Correct. That's still the case, unless you define "in the area" as "miles away". I like "on the scene" better. You know, "on the scene", as in "visible to people like Joel Sucherman."

However, anyone with a brain (which is apparently not you)

Zing! Baseless insult noted. Seriously though, I think my 7 year old cousin is going to need that one back soon .

...who has listened to what Sucherman said will immediately identify that he actually said that three to five seconds after the impact he looked off to the west (the complete opposite direction any flyover aircraft would have been heading) and saw another aircraft, IN THE DISTANCE, AT A MUCH HIGHER ALTITUDE.

]The C-130 pilot was in visual range of the explosion, meaning that he would be visible in the air from persons near the Pentagon.

Uh huh. Let's look at that in context:

"When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC." -Lt. Col Steve O'Brien, Pilot of the C-130

So, Steve O'Brien was so far away that he couldn't even make out THE LARGEST OFFICE BUILDING IN THE WORLD (by floor area) but Sucherman was able to spot his C-130 from the same distance which is a minuscule in size by comparison. That's quite an eagleeye theory.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Ligon]

Also, the RADES data does not show O'Brien doing anything that resembles "peeling off" at that point in time. If you accept Suchermans claim that the plane was "peeling off" 3-5 seconds after impact you're implicitly saying the RADES data is bogus (which we know it is, but not because Joel Sucherman spied something amiss with his zoom lens glasses).

Also, the Tribby video shows that the plane didn't reach the Pentagon until about three minutes after the event. The cruise speed of a C-130 is 337 mph. Let's be conservative assume that O'Brien was going about 250 mph, even though he would presumably have been in a hurry. That still means he was roughly 12 miles away when Sucherman spied him. Sucherman must really have been eating a lot of carrots before work that day. Why was he using his eagleeye to look to the west anyways 3-5 seconds after allegedly watching a 757 crash into the Pentagon right in front of him. Did he hear the C-130 at a "much, much higher" altitude than the attack jet, roughly 12 miles away though the sound of the explosion and the ensuing screams and sirens? Does he have rabbitears too? Or just a spidersense?

when Sucherman's statement is interpreted correctly, CIT's assertion that Sucherman was providing a "second plane cover story" is a testament to stupidity itself. (bold added by Ligon)

You mean when you accept it as true contrary to the facts and logic? Because that's what you're doing.

So yes, I disagree that Sucherman is a proven liar.

So you're going with the RADES- contradicting clarivoyant animalman theory then? I'm going to stick with liar.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Ligon]

Originally posted by Ligon

"Dance around the issue"?

I've told you that I don't know how many people were there. I didn't do a headcount. 40? 50? 60? Enough that someone saying 8 is a liar. I don't know the exact number. It was less than 100.

What is funny is how the CIT Team is *refusing* to state for the record how successful this "conference" was and how many people, outside of their own photographers and the Rock Creek Press (who may have showed up) attended.

Here it is, 2 days later, and not ONE 'after action" report on the "conference". Not one post anywhere breathlessly touting the overwhelming success of the "conference", recounting the 40? 50? 60? people who showed up to speak truth to power! P4T, on his website, said there were a number of "pilots" in attendance - again, vague references. Ligon refuses to state how many were there, which tells me it was an embarrassing failure - if MY heroes were coming to my hometown to present their earth shattering evidence of the largest government-led conspiracy in the history of the world, I'm pretty sure *I'd* be counting heads to let the world know what a resounding success the event was and how many eyes were opened and ears were opened and minds were opened. Nothing on CIT's page. Nothing of import on PfT's page. Nothing on WeAreChangeVA's page, which we have been told recorded the event. Nothing on their sponsor's page, The Wisdom Fund — TWF.org. Nothing from the CIT-friendly Rock Creek Press. Nothing ANYWHERE, from what I can find.

Did the thing even happen? What happens if you call a globally-impacting information conference and only members of your faithful show up? What does that tell you?

We've heard for - how long now? - that it is "over". That there are no questions any more. That evidence of the government conspiracy and malfeasance and participation in/power behind 9/11 is overwhelming. prove it. How successful was this conference since this whole deal is "over"?

40? 50? 60? 8? 12? Take away your own media and the 4 speakers and however many strap-hangers cluttering up the periphery how many unique visitors were there? How many?

[edit on 13-7-2009 by trebor451]

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by ATH911
The skeptics must be afraid of CIT's NoC research from how much time and energy they spend trying to ridicule them and their research.

Gee, I dunno, maybe it's a result of intellectual dishonesty like this...

I was driving around there yesterday, and you definitely don't have a "perfect view" from 395 if any.

... clashing with perfectly easily obtainable information such as ...

Look, what's that in the top right corner?

You're posting that picture as supposed proof of my intellectual dishonesty?

I don't know what kind of cars you drive but the ones I drive go forward.

That part of 395 is one way, and that's west. This is what the view is like when you're driving forward.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4b3c5b62bc59.jpg[/atsimg]

People in this spot would have to turn their heads about 135 degrees around to see the Pentagon while trying to drive. This is hardly a "perfect view". (That's also the view from a camera mounted on the roof of a van.)

395 is a massive highway with many lanes. To talk generally about people on 395 being able to see the alleged impact seems to imply a lot, which is why I made the point that I did. People in the eastbound lanes are too far away to have a good view let alone a "perfect" one and wouldn't even be looking that way anyway until after the explosion. I'm not denying that theoretically a handful of people in the right lane of the one small one way westbound strip of 395 that you "cherrypicked" could have turned around and seen the alleged impact, but the number is very low. Once you drive another 5-10 seconds (assuming that traffic isn't stopped, and I've seen no evidence that it was) you'd have to turn wayy around and pretty much look out your back window. 5-10 seconds earlier and there's a line of trees obstructing the view. Perhaps a few people headed westbound on a 5-10 second strip of the adjacent 395 overpass could have seen it too, but that's not likely, and that also doesn't qualify as "perfect".

This is really grasping at straws on your part. Whether or not a small number of people on a small section of 395 possibly could have been in the group of witnesses who could see the impact point and genuinely believe the plane hit (which I already agreed was "scores" in size, at least) has no bearing on the point I was making. Here's the quote with more context.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of people who would have had a perfect view of the impact from Route 27 and I395.

Dozens for sure. Scores for sure. I think hundreds is pushing it. I was driving around there yesterday, and you definitely don't have a "perfect view" from 395 if any. (The various POVs are shown here).

Regardless of the exact number there was a considerable number who fall in this category, but its is still "relatively small" as defined above.

The overriding point still stands since the plane flying north of Citgo and hitting the Pentagon are mutually exclusive, and the plane definitely flew north of Citgo, because there's no way all of the north side witnesses are all so drastically wrong in the same way.

You are simply spewing nonsense, most of which I suspect is directly lifted from the CIT website and forums.

12 miles out? Where does this ridiculous idea come from?

You are simply making up stuff.

The RADES data has the C-130 just less than five miles away from the Pentagon at the time of impact, which is perfectly consistent with what Joel said.

From my house I can look to the east and see planes coming in to land at a nearby airport from a flight path that puts them no closer than 7.5 miles to my house. All without superhuman vision.

There is so much speculation and absolute garbage in your post. I mean, really, how do you expect me to take you seriously when you ask questions such as "Why was he using his eagleeye to look to the west anyways 3-5 seconds after allegedly watching a 757 crash into the Pentagon right in front of him"?

Is that how you worked through this whole dirt dumb flyover theory in your head? That everyone should have been completely transfixed by the smoke and fire and not looking in any other direction for, how long, one minute? Two minutes? Three minutes? How long exactly does it take for a commercial airliner to escape the scene? Or are you proposing it vanished into thin air?

Originally posted by Ligon
You're posting that picture as supposed proof of my intellectual dishonesty?

I don't know what kind of cars you drive but the ones I drive go forward.

Two sentences into your post and I am already waist deep in absolute dribble.

The cars I drive have side and rear windows. As I drive around, I tend to notice that these are a fairly common type of car on the road.

The very picture you have presented shows that cars on that road would have been driving TOWARD the incoming plane.

You actually just highlighted how hard it would have been for cars on this particular section of road to NOT notice the incoming plane.

And assuming they are driving cars with side windows they would have had a panoramic view of the incoming aircraft and the impact.

All you are doing now is undermining CIT's ridiculous efforts and wasting my time.

Originally posted by discombobulator
You are simply spewing nonsense, most of which I suspect is directly lifted from the CIT website and forums.

12 miles out? Where does this ridiculous idea come from?

You are simply making up stuff.

Did you not read my post or are you just trying to confuse people? As anyone can see I explained where I got that number from. Here's what I said:

[T]he Tribby video shows that the plane didn't reach the Pentagon until about three minutes after the event. The cruise speed of a C-130 is 337 mph. Let's be conservative assume that O'Brien was going about 250 mph, even though he would presumably have been in a hurry. That still means he was roughly 12 miles away when Sucherman spied him."

If you want to take issue with this point go right ahead and debate me like a gentleman with facts and logic and I will concede if you make a good point. That's how real debate works. Pretending portions of my post do not exist and then attacking me for their "absence" is not intellectually honest.

Moreover, using phrases like "dirt dumb", "absolute garbage", "delusions of grandeur", is a cheap way of trying to give yourself a phony air of confidence. Let's act like adults.

I noticed that during the course of all the insult-hurling and pretending I didn't explain how I came up with "roughly 12 miles" you failed to acknowledge these two points:

"the RADES data does not show O'Brien doing anything that resembles "peeling off" at that point in time. If you accept Suchermans claim that the plane was "peeling off" 3-5 seconds after impact you're implicitly saying the RADES data is bogus (which we know it is, but not because Joel Sucherman spied something amiss with his zoom lens glasses).

The C-130 pilot was in visual range of the explosion, meaning that he would be visible in the air from persons near the Pentagon.

Uh huh. Let's look at that in context:

"When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC." -Lt. Col Steve O'Brien, Pilot of the C-130

So, Steve O'Brien was so far away that he couldn't even make out THE LARGEST OFFICE BUILDING IN THE WORLD (by floor area) but Sucherman was able to spot his C-130 from the same distance which is a minuscule in size by comparison. That's quite an eagleeye theory.

Please offer a civil response to these points or concede on each.

It is Aldo's analysis of the Tribby video puts the C-130 three minutes away from the Pentagon, others have calculated the time to be much, much less.

I wouldn't trust Aldo to analyse whether or not it was night or day, especially after where they placed Sucherman on the map, and the fraudulent situation they created when they misidentified the light poles to try and make Sucherman look like a liar.

The only part of Sucherman's testimony that doesn't completely match the RADES data is the plane peeling away when he had looked up to it. So what? This to me just seems like the kind of abberation you'd expect when recalling an event six years after the fact. Lagasse's testimony has changed so many times that I've lost count, as there have been numerous changes in Brooks and Paiks as well. The Citgo video doesn't even show Turcios where he claimed he was.

And perhaps you missed the key part of O'Brien's statement... "When I saw the initial fireball"... What does that say to you? Repeat it over and over until you get it. If he can see the fireball, people on the ground can see him.

The Pentagon is a low rise building on a geographical decline situated amongst trees, other buildings and sections of highway. I have no doubt it would be difficult to discern from the air.

But it is much easier to point out an aircraft in the sky against a plain blue background.

There is still no way fathomable that what Sucherman is saying can be interpreted as a "second plane cover story". It is ridiculous in the extreme.

I've answered your questions, I would like you to answer mine:

Precisely how many witnesses turned up to the event?

Two sentences into your post and I am already waist deep in absolute dribble.

Baseless insult noted.

The cars I drive have side and rear windows. As I drive around, I tend to notice that these are a fairly common type of car on the road.

Me too. What's your point? This is not inconsistent with what I said.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The very picture you have presented shows that cars on that road would have been driving TOWARD the incoming plane.

Correct.

You actually just highlighted how hard it would have been for cars on this particular section of road to NOT notice the incoming plane.

They aren't sitting still. If they're in the spot depicted when the plane appears back by the Sheraton they're much further up (probably almost by the Annex) by the time it reaches the building. If they're in that spot when the plane reaches the building that means that they were considerably further back when it appeared and may not notice it instantly. They likely would notice it before it got to the building though. I already acknowledged that a handful of people on that small northbound strip of 395 you depicted may have been able to see it, so you aren't refuting anything. As I explained it had no bearing on my overriding point, which you prefer to ignore in favor of minutiae. Here it is again:

Regardless of the exact number there was a considerable number who fall in this category, but its is still "relatively small" as defined above.

The overriding point still stands since the plane flying north of Citgo and hitting the Pentagon are mutually exclusive, and the plane definitely flew north of Citgo, because there's no way all of the north side witnesses are all so drastically wrong in the same way.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Ligon]

Originally posted by Ligon

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.

Reading comprehension among you Truthers has always been lacking. Here is what I wrote:

"The word circulating on the internet is is that eight people showed up for CIT's "National Security Briefing – Deconstructing the 9/11 Pentagon Attack," sponsored by The Wisdom Fund... We are still waiting for Craig Ranke's post-conference "breaking news" summary of the "highly successful, ground-breaking event."

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.

You talk "Courage?" You'd better do some better research, Ligon. I spent over 2 years asking Ranke and Aldo questions about their claims and they lacked any courage to address them. Why would anyone waste their money on CIT when they can't even address their own claims?

Now, let's try again, and have YOU, Ligon, answer the question that scared CIT to death. Out of the hundreds of people who were all around the Pentagon, in their cars on freeways and bridges, in the parking lots around the Pentagon, in buildings around the area, just where are anyone amongst them who claimed to have seen a jet fly low over and away from the Pentagon?

Please don't dodge the question but provide the evidence, Ligon. CIT refused to provide the evidence which should tell you why no sane person would go to their conference.

I've answered your questions, I would like you to answer mine:

Precisely how many witnesses turned up to the event?

None of the ones featured in any of CIT's videos. No one expected them to either, including CIT.

None of the north side witnesses have backed off that claim, even after being made aware of the implications. Brooks and Lagasse have said they'd testify to it in court.


They're corroborated by eleven other video and/or audio recorded witnesses as you know who all had excellent vantage points. Even though you 757 impact theorists believe that the plane flew on the south side the best recorded account you can come up with after 2 1/2 years to try to refute that claim seems to be Keith "60-Second Shadow" Wheelhouse.

If any witness thought what CIT was saying was so wrong you'd think they'd want to come call them out and set the record straight. Where was Walter? Where was Eagleeye Sucherman? Where was Lloyde? Why didn't the north side witnesses come recant?

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Ligon]

Originally posted by Ligon

If any witness thought what CIT was saying was so wrong you'd think they'd want to come call them out and set the record straight. Where was Walter? Where was Eagleeye Sucherman? Where was Lloyde? Why didn't the north side witnesses come recant?

You give your Masters far too much credit. The reason nobody showed up, witnesses or others, is because this whole freak show is so far out in the margin that it has absolutely no importance in the grand scheme of life. People just don't care about you or CIT or their theories or anything related to your "movement".

And before you jump on the "So why are you so interested in this then" meme, I'll say again - it is so much fun watching you and Craig and tezz and aldo and the others squirm and prevaricate and bloviate and post the same images and the same tired cherry-picked quotes over and over and over again as you keep trying to sell your snake oil.

Why WASN'T your "conference" a success? Did you not advertise enough? If this were that important why didn't you buy a half-page ad in the WAPO telling the good people of DC about this "*groundbreaking* conference? How important it is for them to know this stuff? How it affects their very being? Was it just not that important to you?

[edit on 13-7-2009 by trebor451]

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.

posted by Ligon
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.

And nobody twists the eyewitness accounts better than our pseudoskeptic and government loyalist and shill opponents on this forum.

posted by Ligon

You're posting that picture as supposed proof of my intellectual dishonesty?

I don't know what kind of cars you drive but the ones I drive go forward.

That part of 395 is one way, and that's west. This is what the view is like when you're driving forward.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4b3c5b62bc59.jpg[/atsimg]

These people are not too honest are they? Spin spin spin. Twist and shout.

They remind me of the efforts of the 9-11 Whitewash Commission.