BREAKING NEWS: Many More than 8 People at CIT Conference

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
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





posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
Repeat it over and over until you get it. If he can see the fireball, people on the ground can see him.

You've got to be kidding me? That's a completely baseless speculation on your part.

Study these words by jthomas. He admits that he doesn't know what people should or should not have seen.


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

It is? From how many miles away? More baseless speculation.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
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?

jthomas, I'm surprised that you still troll these threads, asking the same question that you have already answered yourself.

jthomas admitted that he does not have the magic power to know how many people should have seen a flyover.

You've already shot down your own argument... Just because it was many months ago, it doesn't mean that we all forget what you typed.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
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.

What part of "I'm not CIT" don't you understand trebor?

I'm surprised that you've been given so much scope to post blatantly false claims about me.

I guess in your alleged 25 years of military service, they didn't teach you to type the truth either, huh? Sir, no sir!



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ligon

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.

For starters, the scenarios are not mutually exclusive. I can think of one scenario off the top of my head that explains how the plane could have flown north of the light pole damage and still hit the Pentagon. I'm sure if I thought about it long enough I could come up with several more.

Secondly, except perhaps in the case of William Lagasse (who is adamant about where he saw the plane, despite that he is wrong about almost everything else) the fact that others have drawn the flight path north of the Citgo station is entirely incidental.

I believe that if you were to ask any of the witnesses from that morning to draw a flight path of the plane, every single one of them would deviate from "the official story" in the exact precise same way. They would all put the plane closer to themself than it really was. That is why you have people like Jamaal who believes it was further south of "the official flight path" and also that guy who put the entire plane north of the Navy Annex.

That some of the ANC guys saw the plane over the Navy Annex is equally meaningless. The plane came from that direction!



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
What part of "I'm not CIT" don't you understand trebor?

I'm surprised that you've been given so much scope to post blatantly false claims about me.

I guess in your alleged 25 years of military service, they didn't teach you to type the truth either, huh? Sir, no sir!


Call it "guilt by association" then, if you like. You espouse their theories, you carry water for them, you believe in their "evidence", you argue in their favor, you debate in their stead, you've dived into their kool-aid, you toe the CIT line more than many of the real CIT foot soldiers toe it. If you AREN'T on the CIT payroll, you ought to be complaining. You are there in spirit, in any case.

Where did you get the idea I had 25 years of military service? Do try to pay better attention. THAT is a case of posting misleading information.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
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.



I just saw some pictures on CIT's facebook.

The crowd appears to be at 30. Give or take.

A pretty pathetic showing since the hall holds (i think) 80 and they couldn't even fill it 1/2 way.



[edit on 13-7-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


The room was over 90% full.

JThomas lied and now you are trying to spin to cover up his lies.

There were at least 70 people there. They were extremely attentive, dying to ask questions the entire time, and to my surprise there was actually a standing ovation at the end.

Unfortunately we went a bit late and only had about 30 minutes for the question and answer session when we had initially scheduled 60.

As Ligon stated none of the official story defending debunkers had the courage to show up but not even any of the alleged "truthers" who refuse to accept this info were willing to show up and challenge the info.

Yes we did formally invite all of the north side witnesses as well as plenty of the lying alleged witnesses we have referenced in our videos and none of them showed up. However I'll admit that I never thought they would come because the honest witnesses are scared to speak out now that they understand the implications of what they saw and the lying witnesses OF COURSE wouldn't show up because they know this information implicates them as accomplices to mass murder.


It's pretty funny though how people like Jthomas are willing to spread blatant lies about the event (without having the courage to show up) while 911files and others are more than happy to perpetuate this deliberately fabricated rumor without any evidence or even before hearing a single report from us about it.







[edit on 13-7-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

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.

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?


Yes, you are dancing around the issue. Bottom-line is that EVERY witness (CIT or otherwise) claims to have seen or otherwise believes the plane hit the Pentagon. That is the one thing they ALL agree on. Please present the witnesses which saw and/or had reason to believe the plane did not hit the Pentagon. The rest is just trash talk.

I mention Spencer only because her event was the only 911 researcher related event in the Arlington area I have been to with which to use as a baseline of interest. Looks like CIT/P4T had a couple dozen or so folks show up. With all of the hype, that really does seem to be a poor turn-out.

So your OP is right, there was more than a dozen as the JREF folks claimed.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by 911files]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451


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?


Look how you desperately fall all over yourself with this pathetic spin.

Our plane got in late last night.

Obviously you have been thinking about us non-stop these past few days and DYING to hear our "after action report".

It's extremely comical that all these accusations have been flying in the time it took for me to fly home, get a good night's sleep, and get up for work the next morning.

I love how that gets translated to us "refusing" to discuss the attendance or other details!

Too funny.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT



JThomas lied and now you are trying to spin to cover up his lies.


No, hero, I posted pictures that were available. You have others to share that show the "70?" Do it.

Look at my post and try reading it.

"appears" is the term I used.


and to my surprise there was actually a standing ovation at the end.


Was that when the free food came out?


Unfortunately we went a bit late and only had about 30 minutes for the question and answer session


Late for your own show?




As Ligon stated none of the official story defending debunkers had the courage to show up but not even any of the alleged "truthers" who refuse to accept this info were willing to show up and challenge the info.


Um, do you really think you exist to us outside the internet? Please don't flatter yourself


Yes we did formally invite all of the north side witnesses as well as plenty of the lying alleged witnesses we have referenced in our videos and none of them showed up.


Now, THERE'S a shock!


However I'll admit that I never thought they would come because the honest witnesses are scared to speak out ...


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


the lying witnesses OF COURSE wouldn't show up because they know this information implicates them as accomplices to mass murder.


anything AGAINST CIT is fabricated or a lie...... as usual.



It's pretty funny though how people like Jthomas are willing to spread blatant lies about the event


Go back and read his post.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

I just saw some pictures on CIT's facebook.

The crowd appears to be at 30. Give or take.


You only saw one picture of the crowd. There's no "take" considering that there's 30 in that picture alone. There's more off camera too.


A pretty pathetic showing since the hall holds (i think) 80 and they couldn't even fill it 1/2 way.


You're just making stuff up at this point. You haven't seen enough pictures to know whether or not it was 1/2 way to capacity.
Calm down wait until you can be sure before making that claim.

It's not like the number matters anyway for your purposes. You would spin virtually any number. Even if it was full you'd say "Wow, they filled up a room THAT ONLY HELD 80 PEOPLE!" Or if it was a room that held 250, "WOW, 250 PEOPLE OUT OF 5 MILLION IN THE D.C. METRO AREA. THAT'S LIKE, ONE IN 20 THOUSAND IN ATTENDANCE. GREAT WORK CIT!" Or 300,000 people: "LOOKS LIKE 99.9% OF THE COUNTRY DOESN'T CARE." Hey, "debunking" is easy!

The bottom line is that even if zero people showed up that wouldn't mean the plane hit the building as opposed to flying over, and even if every person on earth showed up that wouldn't automatically make CIT correct. I know JREFers know this, so the obsession with trying to figure out the exact number so you can spin it as low really shows how desperate so many of you are

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Ligon]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Ligon
 


You are right...

The size of the crowd makes not one difference. If 2 million showed up...it would not have placed a 757 flying around a large explosion.

Seeing that maybe 70 showed up shows that not that many people are interested in watching the vaudeville act that is CIT.



[edit on 13-7-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by discombobulator
Repeat it over and over until you get it. If he can see the fireball, people on the ground can see him.

You've got to be kidding me? That's a completely baseless speculation on your part.

Study these words by jthomas. He admits that he doesn't know what people should or should not have seen.


You're still sore that I debunked you on that one, twzzajw. You still can't produce on single "flyover" eyewitness. See:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
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?

... asking the same question that you have already answered yourself.


Yup, and you are still mad that you and CIT can't make your silly claims stick. See:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Here's a photo of AT LEAST 9 people at the conference





posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox


Unfortunately we went a bit late and only had about 30 minutes for the question and answer session


Late for your own show?




Are you serious?

He meant the conference ran over time and it cut into the time left for Q&A.

The comment he made about the plane was in a completely different post and context, and it was: "Our plane got in late last night".

You turn this into "His plane was late, so he was late to the conference and was only allowed 30 minutes" over on JREF.



[edit on 13-7-2009 by Ligon]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Here's a photo of AT LEAST 9 people at the conference





What a surprise Turbo... a day late and a dollar short. Do you bother to read threads prior to posting?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ligon


He meant the conference ran over time and it cut into the time left for Q&A.


I stand corrected. Thank you



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ligon

Originally posted by CameronFox

I just saw some pictures on CIT's facebook.

The crowd appears to be at 30. Give or take.


You only saw one picture of the crowd. There's no "take" considering that there's 30 in that picture alone. There's more off camera too.


There are 5 pictures on Facebook. Applying the "logic" of you 9/11 Truthers, we have these undeniable Truther facts.

[truther logic ON]

1. The pictures of the "crowd" are suspiciously dark.
2. The people don't look right. Probably drugged, maybe forced into the room, or paid to attend. Very suspicious looking.
3. There are no photos showing Craig and Aldo with more than a few people. There is no proof that Craig and Aldo were with the group of people in the other photos.

[/truther logic OFF]






new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join