Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

reply to post by ProudBird


Okay, I take that back about the CVR. (I'll have to read up on it more later)
It's a bit silly that a CVR isn't designed to withstand impact given that's what their purpose is, no?

I did find this though. The first person to actually try and extract information from the CVR.

www.wpi.edu...

Somewhere in that massive pile of rubble lay two mangled metal containers that might reveal what happened aboard American Airlines Flight 77 in the minutes before terrorists crashed it into America's military headquarters. As a cockpit voice recorder analyst for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), it was Cushman's job to help locate the airplane's black boxes, as the voice and data recorders that all airliners carry are known informally. It was the first crash site she'd visited. Over the next few days, working the 3 p.m. to morning shift, she and several other NTSB experts struggled to separate airplane parts from office parts. Early on the morning of Sept.14, while Cushman was at the site, the cockpit voice recorder, or CVR, was found. It was quickly transported across the Potomac to the NTSB lab in Washington, D.C., where Cushman works with three other analysts, and its data was downloaded. Ordinarily, that would have been just the start of Cushman's association with the device, but this time, it was the end. The events of Sept. 11 had already been classified as criminal acts, rather than accidents, so the FBI, which has its own forensic audio lab, took charge of the box and its data. That's also why Cushman can't say much more about her role in that investigation, or about the work she did on the recorders recovered from Flight 93, which plowed into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers apparently thwarted another hijacking. Like the Pentagon CVR, the black box from that plane came to NTSB only for the extraction of its data before being turned over to the FBI. The recorders from the two planes that struck the World Trade Center have yet to be found

Again, we are relying on the word of the FBI.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer

The wingspan would have been over 170ft at the alleged angle vs facade.

I don't think your geometry is correct. You can prove this to yourself easily, by drawing the wing, with the 25° wing sweep-back angle. Then turning the drawing a little to the left (or, if you have a boomerang handy, will serve as a visual aid too).

The vertical stabilizer "shattered" and left no recognizable pieces, yet the wingtips supposedly sheared multiple lightpoles?

Watch the Mike Wilson video again. The first four lamp poles interact with the respective wings at about the mid-point....the pole #5 strike is farthest out, left wing....but, still inboard enough that the brunt of the impact was borne by the leading edge.....and, the leading edge slats, that were in the retracted position. The wings were certainly strong enough, at that velocity, due to the kinetic energy of momentum.

And the wafer thin skin of the aircraft ended up in tidy sheets with visible writing on them having ploughed into a reinforced facade at 540mph?

That's rather an exaggeration...it is not "wafer thin", and the recognizable pieces were those which were ejected outside of the building, in the chaos of the impact in progress, and resulting explosion.

The stabilizer shattered yet it was repeatedly claimed that the nosecone made it all the way through to C Ring.

The only ones who claim the nosecone made it "all the way through" are those in the so-called "truth movement".

Did you read the "Pentagon Building Performance Report" yet?

How was it that firefighters, survivors, first responders and media reported no visible parts?

Odd question....since many did comment on the parts. There are plenty of photos to examine, as well.




Here....I see some first responders:


Plenty of media too. Here, just about one hour after impact. Media report:


Same reporter, minutes earlier than the one above:


And, again even earlier than the two above:

The minimum the stabilizer should have done is leave a mark of some kind on the facade!

Check the sources....but recall that the upper level collapsed. There are close-up marks that are available that indicate places where the wings left marks.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Can you tell me which aircraft witnesses he hasn't interviewed?

Are you serious? Are you that ignorant of all the *stuff* that has gone on with this? CIT themselves have a list of 55 people they claim "Only Saw Plane (possibly from far away location), could not see Pentagon, light poles or impact, either deduced or ar elying OR do not directly mention or confirm seeing an impact". Setting aside their own gargantuan confirmation bias with that labeling, only 7 of those 55 names have CITs own comment of "CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT" next to the names. That leaves, right there, AT LEAST 48 names of people who have accounts or reports of their eyewitness account that CIT did NOT talk to, did NOT interview, and as such are going on ONLY a reported account from some news or broadcast medium. That means they did NOT talk to these people to get a more complete or more accurate story.

What happens when an analyst using the "scientific method" fails to get ALL necessary evidence to confirm or reject a hypothesis? Why they say all the evidence they didn't get is fake, anyhow, and is being promulgated by known liars and evil-doers so we'll just go with what we have and say what we want to say anyhow!

Who claimed a "contrary story" to the NOC flightpath?

Two right off the bat are Deb Anlauf (noted by CIT "CONTACTED, would not return call") and Don Bouchoux (again, "CONTACTED BY CIT, would not return call"). many others *specifically said they saw the aircraft slam into the building". No amount of your or CIT or Ranke or the large fellow's twisting of their words will change their stories. These two names right there here are examples of people that CIT did NOT interview who said they watched the airplane hit the building.

CIT interviewed all known witnesses within the Pentagon basin and then some. They placed the aircraft NOC without any prompting. I think CIT made an exhausting effort.

That has got to be one of the funniest comments I have ever seen in this.. "All known witnesses...". Really. How do you - or CIT - know this? Have you spoken to everyone who was in the Pentagon parking lot that day? Have you spoken to everyone who had a window on a hotel or office building who watched the event as it happened? Have you spoken with everyone who was on I 395? Route 27? Columbia Pike? Everywhere? CIT "interviewed" (if you want to call it that) the people they want to interview, twisted the accounts of the people they wanted to twist (Bolger, Morin, for example) and left it at that, preferring to call everyone else "Government Shills, liars or agents".

Which is fine. It just adds some sprinkles to the silly frosting on the hilarious CIT cake of foolishness. That sort of "scientific method" is why this will never, ever, ever, ever make any courtroom, as evidenced by the ridiculous and hilarious April Gallop fiasco.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Are you actually reading my posts? Or clicking the links?

I'm answering your responses and pointing out issues in the maps you're providing. What do you think?

We can pick through that list if you want instead of linking to a large collection of media quotes which on closer inspection reveal a large percentage inside the Pentagon, second (and third) hand accounts, anonymous accounts and people who actually couldn't physically see the Pentagon or the plane itself!

You can pick through any list you want as they're still eyewitness accounts of people who were there and they're still giving critical information. The ones who didn't see the impact were able to provide corroborating evidence that supports the ones who did, such as descriptions of aircraft parts at the Pentagon, which corroborates the people who did see the impact. Others saw the plane screaming directly at the Pentagon which corroborates what the people who saw the impact are saying, and which in turn corroborates what the people who saw aircraft wreckage are saying.

Your intentionally ignoring everything the eyewitnesses are saying outright and instead listening to what those damned fool conspiracy web sites are churning out strikes me as being more idelogical than rational thought.

There are far more than "7" witnesses to the NOC path and not one confirmed witness to the official path.

That's because this "official path" bit is entirely a make believe artifact manufactured by the truthers, exactly like this "official story" bit was. Everything came from eyewitness accouts and the physical evidence. Barbara Olsen was aboard flight 77 and called out to her husband stating the flight was being hijacked. Eyewitnesses saw an aircraft hit the PEntagon along with aircraft wreckage, and the flight recorder and other artifacts from the crash site confirm it was flight 77.

In fact the only ones in the known universe claiming any impropriety in any of this are you truthers, and a large bulk of the supposed "evidence" you're using is contrived. How many accusations of everyone and their grandmother being sinister scret gov't agents have you people flung around with the same thoughtless flippancy of Kim Kardashian picking her husbands?

Again, if witness testimony is as unreliable as you say (make that irrelevant given the "9 or 90" statement), shouldn't they be directly interviewed? You're making the same weak and illogical claims that Summers did.

You're being fast and loose with your facts again. Your own graphic perporting to be eyewitness descriptions of the flight path has seven different paths, one of them zigzagging like it was a freighter trying to avoid a U-boat. Either you're claimign seven separate aircraft attacked the Pentagon, or only one of these eyewitnesses are right and the other six are making errors in judgement in distance. There were a hell of a lot more eyewitnesses than these seven so it's clear all these people are making errors in judgement in distance. Those damned fool conspiracy web sites you're getting your information from are taking only these seven because theirs are the only ones that can be used to sow these ridiculous internet rumors and false doubt.

A plane hit the Pentagon. Incorporate the fact into your conspiracy stories as you see fit.

reply to post by trebor451

What happens when an analyst using the "scientific method" fails to get ALL necessary evidence to confirm or reject a hypothesis? Why they say all the evidence they didn't get is fake, anyhow, and is being promulgated by known liars and evil-doers so we'll just go with what we have and say what we want to say anyhow!

That's a bit rich when there has been a concerted campaign to blacken the NOC witness' testimony.
"Cointel"? Who said that about the NOC witnesses? That Lagasse and Turcios are "liars"? That Roosevelt Roberts is a "liar"?


Just tell me if any detractors who actually went to Arlington or phoned witnesses have found a single one who contradicts those witnesses that all corroborate eachother on the flightpath. Jeff Hill actually uncovered more NOC witnesses until he wised up and stopped asking if they saw lightpoles being struck or which side of the Citgo the plane flew on!

Even with his coaching, the same pattern of nobody seeing the lightpoles, Lloyd or anything resembling the official path kept cropping up.

I'd say people like Hill would love the chance to "debunk" the NOC witnesses but he knows just as you know tthat the aircraft flew where all those people say it did. I mean, 5 years after the event and the evidence hasn't been touched upon never mind refuted.

Your demand that two guys from California should interview every single witness in Washington is ridiculous.
They've done their bit. And then some.

Unlike Summers who used media quotes.

Two right off the bat are Deb Anlauf (noted by CIT "CONTACTED, would not return call") and Don Bouchoux (again, "CONTACTED BY CIT, would not return call"). many others *specifically said they saw the aircraft slam into the building". No amount of your or CIT or Ranke or the large fellow's twisting of their words will change their stories. These two names right there here are examples of people that CIT did NOT interview who said they watched the airplane hit the building.

How can they make these people return their calls??

There are more who claimed that they witnessed an "impact" and I've seen their testimony to this recorded and shown in full in CIT's presentations. Do you deny this?

Bouchoux does claim that he saw an impact but he was in no position to see the flightpath. I would have liked to have heard where Bouchoux was on the road to match it with Steve Riskus (he was allegedly in the same lane behind him) who can only have been describing the NOC entrance point on to Rt 27. Or Penny Elgas who (if you're honest enough to admit it) can only have seen the NOC plane.

Both of those people are adamant that they witnessed an "impact", but they are equally adamant as to where they saw the plane.

Steve Riskus pointed out where he was and where he saw the plane:

bp0.blogger.com...

How about this?

RISKUS: Honestly, the photo [3] with the superimposed plane on it looks almost exactly what I saw that day. I dont feel the need to draw anything with that already presented.

Is that anything like the path or trajectory?

Penny Elgas is pretty clear too:





No way she's describing the official path. And they were at either end of Bouchoux's alleged position in front of the heliport.

Analauf's description isn't precise enough to say for sure but I would personally be very interested to see if she describes the "over the Navy Annex" path that so many described. Just to clear up the nonsense about Morin not actually seeing what he is on record as saying. That it went right over his head. That he couldn't see the stripes.
Or Ed Paik who was just below the Sheraton and claims that the aircraft went over his shop and the Annex.

That has got to be one of the funniest comments I have ever seen in this.. "All known witnesses...". Really. How do you - or CIT - know this? Have you spoken to everyone who was in the Pentagon parking lot that day? Have you spoken to everyone who had a window on a hotel or office building who watched the event as it happened?

Is the Pentagon Parking lot in the Pentagon basin between the Navy Annex and the building?
Those people were in a better position to ascertain which side of the the Citgo the plane flew on. I mean, five ANC workers all saying the same thing? Three at the station itself as it went overhead? One in the control tower watching it face on? One in the top floor of the Navy Annex looking out his window, opposite the control tower?

Come on

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Let's put it this way Dave. If I opened a thread and used the same list to prove something "truther-like" you'd be the first to say what I've been saying to you. First hand, in depth interviews are necessary. I could pick out scores of names in that link that you posted, who are just there to make up the numbers and who have had their testimony misrepresented by the media.

The "official path" is lineated through the supposed damage path and what some claim that the FDR shows (when you twist the nipples right off of it!). Hardly a truther fantasy.

I can not believe that the truthers, after 10 years, are digging up the CIT Flyover Fantasy. Craig and Aldo are the laughing stock of Trutherland. Even Richard Gage kicked them out of his tree fort of lunacy. Also, Craig and Aldo are both banned from 911.Blogger.

Truthers David Chandler and Jonathan Cole laughed at them as well that resulted in Craig writing a novel to them asking for a debate.

That aside, the most important thing here: ALL the witnesses that were in a position to do so, SAW THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON!!!

.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I can not believe that the truthers, after 10 years, are digging up the CIT Flyover Fantasy.

I can not believe that the skeptics, after 10 years, are still obsessed with truthers.

Craig and Aldo are the laughing stock of Trutherland.

So brave of you to talk about truthers who can't be here to defend themselves. Is this what you'll teach your kids, only talk about people behind their backs who can't defend themselves?

EvenRichard Gage kicked them out of his tree fort of lunacy.

The same Richard Gage you skeptics think is a scam artist? If that's the case, wouldn't it be financially wise for Gage to distance himself with controversial truthers?!

Also, Craig and Aldo are both banned from 911.Blogger.

Half the truthmovement thinks 911flogger is a nothing but a controlled, gate-keeping site. So why would that be special?

Truthers David Chandler and Jonathan Cole laughed at them as well that resulted in Craig writing a novel to them asking for a debate.

Yes, why do cowards Chandler and Cole keep ducking CIT's challenge for a debate?

That aside, the most important thing here: ALL the witnesses that were in a position to do so, SAW THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON!!!

Even the dozen witnesses who saw the plane fly North of the Citgo?

reply to post by ThePostExaminer



I must ask, you ever actually been physically present at the Pentagon? And, spent a good amount of time in the area?


Now, Penny Elgas' testimony:

Using the two images from your post above, I will quote them, and then point out that Penny Elgas actually supports the SOUTH of Citgo ground track!

Penny Elgas is pretty clear too:

Image #2 (bottom), just above is best to illustrate. The green location, on Route 27, is identified as her "approximate location". Picture her point-of-view, as she sat in her car, looking over her left shoulder (based on her story, she would have been facing to the northeast, on the right-hand side of the highway).

She (her words) "...realized I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road that I was on..."

Note that last bit, I highlighted. Is this what is causing the confusion? True, at that location, Columbia Pike has made a wide loop, so that it crosses on the perpendicular under the overpass of Route 27.....but, she is referring to the REST of Colombia Pike, to the West!

See?? She mentions Columbia Pike, and adds it is "perpendicular" to the road she is on, at that time and spot. But, she is a local, and familiar with the over-all general layout of Columbia Pike. Her comment seems to have been misinterpreted, leading to the false impression that American 77 was traveling on a path "perpendicular" to the road she was on (Route 27).

Does this sum it up?


The ground track that lines up nearly perfectly with the route of American 77.....since, Hani Hanjour used that highway as his guide, to help line up and hit the Pentagon.

That image is cropped on the left....but, see the red highlight of Columbia Pike? It continues out of frame. Drawing a line from there, where it is cropped on the left, to Peggy's location in green.....that is the path of the jet, and it is clearly south of the gas station.

In the picture on top, in this post (#1), a wider view, and we still see Peggy's location, where the (now green highlighted) Columbia Pike curves around, to cross under Route 27 at a right angle....that is, recall, where Peggy was. Once again, her own testimony clearly puts the jet south of the gas station (highlighted in red).

I do not know the provenance of that photo, but I would suggest that if the blue line drawn in it is supposed to represent the "official" American 77 path, it is off by a few degrees of angle.

I do not understand why, when I refer to the FDR recreation provided by the NTSB, that information is continually ignored. The location of the jet is solidly confirmed by the 84 RADES data, and the heading (magnetic) is shown in the FDR data.....there are, when further details are also examined, the DCA VOR/DME information that was also recorded by the FDR, further refining the airplane location.


The only way for the Craig Ranke CIT "hypothesis" to remain intact is to willfully ignore ALL of the other evidence (and there are tons of it) in favor of a handful of suspect "witness" testimonies.....I put "witness" in quotes not to impugn them, put to indicate that it is the way their tales have been mis-interpreted that has led to CIT's mistakes in this endeavor.


And, I say again: It is perspective. It's as simple as an example that occurs to me - your own bed.

If one has a favorite "side" of the bed (assume it's the "left"), then.....is it the "left" side when you are standing at the foot of the bed, changing its sheets? Or, is it the "left" side when you are laying down, head pointed at the headboard, feet at the footboard?

Perpective.......and, sometimes imprecision in properly explaining and describing to another person, what one has witnessed.

Originally posted by ATH911

I can not believe that the skeptics, after 10 years, are still obsessed with truthers.

Not an obsession at all ATH911... What MAY be considered an obsession, however is someone that has started over 20 THREADS about the debris from the crash of flight 93.

Really... count them for yourself!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Craig and Aldo are the laughing stock of Trutherland.

Originally posted by ATH911
So brave of you to talk about truthers who can't be here to defend themselves. Is this what you'll teach your kids, only talk about people behind their backs who can't defend themselves?

Ranke has been a member here at ATS for years.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

EvenRichard Gage kicked them out of his tree fort of lunacy.

Originally posted by ATH911
The same Richard Gage you skeptics think is a scam artist? If that's the case, wouldn't it be financially wise for Gage to distance himself with controversial truthers?!

Indeed! I never said Gage wasn't clever. He takes money from those with cognitive issues.

Also, Craig and Aldo are both banned from 911.Blogger.

Originally posted by ATH911
Half the truthmovement thinks 911flogger is a nothing but a controlled, gate-keeping site. So why would that be special?

So, the other half thinks that it is a good site? Maybe if you guys could put together a single theory that makes sense...... ah forget it. We know that is not going to happen.

Truthers David Chandler and Jonathan Cole laughed at them as well that resulted in Craig writing a novel to them asking for a debate.

Originally posted by ATH911
Yes, why do cowards Chandler and Cole keep ducking CIT's challenge for a debate?

You'll have to ask them.

Chandler Cole ...Ranke and Aldo .... i like the sound of that.

That aside, the most important thing here: ALL the witnesses that were in a position to do so, SAW THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON!!!

Originally posted by ATH911
Even the dozen witnesses who saw the plane fly North of the Citgo?

Yes, ALL the witnesses that were interviewed that were in a position to do so..watched the plane hit.

ZERO of the other witnesses saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

Originally posted by Six Sigma


Ranke has been a member here at ATS for years.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Does anyone remember Ranke's two O'clock position fiasco, that was hilarious. I don't think he ever corrected that video he probably still thinks he is in the right.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer

The animation also showed the aircraft to be too high to hit the poles or the Pentagon.

The animation only resolved to a certain point, and the indicated altitude was 180' MSL....but, this was still west of the Pentagon, and he was still descending, in the data that is missing from NTSB depiction. There is a high probability also that, in their rush to release it for viewing back in early 2002, the accuracy of the actual fore/aft location over the ground, as depicted, could have been slightly amiss. (The onboard IRS units have a known error tolerance amount, if that info was used to plot the ground map, for the video).

The main point of the video is showing what was alleged to be a "precision" turn around to the right, to line up.....was actually not all that dramatic, nor difficult.....nor "precise".

The impact point was about 40' MSL Losing that last ~140 feet is a cinch....as the descent rate was shallowed.

I see that there are a lot of references still made to "PilotsFor Truth", and their poorly done calculations and conclusions. Of course, they also mounted a smear campaign against Mr. Stutt.

You see, the crux of their claims rested on the terribly flawed "analysis" that was part of their party line, and already part of history, via the posts on the site, and videos produced (and sold....key hint there....).


Just as a carnival barker has to keep lying to his marks (errm...."customers") to keep 'em coming in to get scammed, so does that site, via the primary force (owner) who operates it. He's made his bed, and will darn well lie and twist and cheat in order to bamboozle the few remaining "loyal fans" out there.

The vast majority of real pilots can see through the smoke and mirrors of "P4T".

Oh, and of that sad bit of "effort", Loose Change. Portions of the claims made in that junk ware examined in a Dutch documentary some years ago. These are two parts that discuss the Pentagon, and particularly Hanjour's ability to fly the "maneuver"....it is broken up by the two videos, at the end of Part 2, and beginning of Part 3.

Part 2 covers some of the more deceptive claims from Loose Change. Such as the over-the-top exaggeration by Dylan Avery (filmmaker/narrator) that the turn flown by Hanjour was at "530 miles per hour"....among other lies:

(In Dutch, with English subtitles):

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Let's put it this way Dave. If I opened a thread and used the same list to prove something "truther-like" you'd be the first to say what I've been saying to you. First hand, in depth interviews are necessary. I could pick out scores of names in that link that you posted, who are just there to make up the numbers and who have had their testimony misrepresented by the media.

That's absolutely right. Instead of mindlessly swallowing what those damned fool conspiracy web sites are claiming the witnesses are saying, we need to go to the source to see what the eyewitnesses are REALLY saying. This means ALL the witnesses, not just those specific one or two that happen to favor the ideology you want to believe. So, yes, you can continuously point to the eyewitnesses who didn't see the impact, but your steadfast refusal to address the eyewitness accounts of those who DID see the impact is what blows your conspiracy hypothesis out of the water.

There will always be contradictions in details between the eyewitness accounts, so yes, person A will estimate something is 100 yards away while person B will estimate something is really 120 yards away. This doesn't mean they're lying. It means they're being asked to bring in their own personal opinions to fill in the gaps of the established facts. Your own graphic shows seven different flight paths from seven different eyewitnesses, and one of them zig zags in a way that defies the laws of physics. Either you're attempting to claim there were seven different planes involved in the attack...in which case you're the only one on the planet who is...OR, they're making errors in judgement in distance from the path the planes actually took because they all can't be right, exactly as I said. Either way, it still makes this whole bit of yours pointless.

I notice you're also refusing to acknowledge that not a single witness you're referencing saw any flyover, which is the whole hypothesis the CIT people are insinuating.

The "official path" is lineated through the supposed damage path and what some claim that the FDR shows (when you twist the nipples right off of it!). Hardly a truther fantasy.

So if you're acknowledging the flight recorder was recovered, then you certainly know the flight recorder absolutely identified the craft that hit the Pentagon as being flight 77.

You do have an ideology to advance your own hypothesis regardless of what the facts actually are, whether you wish to admit this or not.

reply to post by ProudBird


I haven't ignored your other post ProudBird. It deserves a detailed response and I'll give you one but for now I want to stick to the witness testimony (I can only post here an hour or two a day).

As for Penny Elgas..

See?? She mentions Columbia Pike, and adds it is "perpendicular" to the road she is on, at that time and spot. But, she is a local, and familiar with the over-all general layout of Columbia Pike. Her comment seems to have been misinterpreted, leading to the false impression that American 77 was traveling on a path "perpendicular" to the road she was on (Route 27).

Sorry, that's definitely not the impression she is giving when all things are taken into consideration.

First off, she doesn't say that she looked "over her shoulder". She says..

"I looked out my driver's side window"

Look at Route 27. It's heading acutely away from the official path. She would have had to have turned right round to catch a gimpse of it. The 61.5º official path shown in that image is pretty accurate. Look..

img217.imageshack.us...

And your interpretation of her description of Columbia Pike is stretching it..

"coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on."

It's clear as day to me what she meant but even if she actually meant what you claim, she would need eyes in the back of her head to see the aircraft at that part of Columbia Pike!

I mean, do you believe it's just a coincidence that the paths drawn by the NOC witnesses simply match Penny Elgas' description by accident? That's it's a simple case of misinterpretation of what she's describing?



Or the witness I mentioned in my last post, Steve Riskus?

bp0.blogger.com...

Penny Elgas claimed that the aircraft “banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport.”

Sean Boger was in the heliport



Even this quote from her pinpoints when she first saw the aircraft..

"The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there. My first thought was “Oh My God, this must be World War III!"
Penny Elgas

And finally, a reality check on what the OCT speed was. Compare this to the second or two it allegedly took for the plane to travel between the Annex area and the Pentagon to the description she gives.



Back to your post..

The only way for the Craig Ranke CIT "hypothesis" to remain intact is to willfully ignore ALL of the other evidence (and there are tons of it) in favor of a handful of suspect "witness" testimonies.....I put "witness" in quotes not to impugn them, put to indicate that it is the way their tales have been mis-interpreted that has led to CIT's mistakes in this endeavor. And, I say again: It is perspective. It's as simple as an example that occurs to me - your own bed.

Haha. That analogy is a bit nuts!

I notice you didn't put "suspect" in quotes. How can their testimonies be "mis-interpreted" when they tell their own story on camera?? When many of them told the same story to the Centre for Military History and Library of Congress in 2001??
Did they "mis-interpret" them? Were they "coached"? That argument has no legs. At all.

What of those who couldn't physically see the official path (Lagasse and Middleton), or the likes of Sean Boger who couldn't have got his "perspective" muddled because he was looking straight at it and had the Citgo and the Navy Annex to gauge a position from?

Here's Middleton and Boger's views according to their descriptions. The official path is there too.

img41.imageshack.us...

Middleton claimed that the plane's wing over flew the ANC carpark. How can that be due to "perspective" when you see the OCT path in comparison??

Perspective? They would have to be either liars or "suspect" to both corroborate and be totally wrong at the same time. Same goes for the rest who corroborate them.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Your demand that two guys from California should interview every single witness in Washington is ridiculous.
They've done their bit. And then some.

If these two guys from California are not going to interview or talk to every witness of an event like this, then they should expect and embrace the derision they are getting from every sane person on the planet. I guess I'm not surprised that you do not see what is wrong with not interviewing a complete set of witnesses of an event before publishing what then amounts to one's own predetermined conclusions - since the full set of witness accounts have not been vetted.

How can they make these people return their calls??

How can Ranke and his large cohort come to any conclusion *what so ever* if they do not? These two and dozens and dozens of unnamed others have stories that Ranke et al have not spoken to. How can these CIT "investagangstas!" come to *any* conclusion without talking to them?

I'll ask you again - point blank. HUGE event occurs. "Investagangstas!" only interview a handful of the witnesses, then publish an account that is *wildly* divergent from the commonly held theory. Derision is hurled in the "Investagangstas!" direction, and they whine and complain that they are not being taken seriously. Someone points out "There are hundreds of people out there you did not talk to!" "Investagangstas!" complain that "They wouldn't talk to us, so we had to go ahead and publish what WE thought happened anyhow so as not to lose out on the Truther news cycle and to keep donations coming in since our band is not doing that well".

Is this right?

Ranke and his large friend interviewed who they needed to interview, those whose comments could be gerrymandered and twisted into their own story, decided to accuse any who held contravening view as liars, and that was it.

Bouchoux does claim that he saw an impact but he was in no position to see the flightpath.

So do many, many, many others. Ranke and his large associate claim *there was no impact* and say, without *any* scientific, medical, social, or legitimate proof that these people "deduced" or "imagined" an impact. Who the hell are they to speak for all these other people? The only excuse is that is the *only* answer they can come up with to dispose of these inconvenient witnesses who saw the airplane slam into the building, meaning their Pulitzer Prize winning story is BS.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Not an obsession at all ATH911...

Could have fooled me.

Maybe if you guys could put together a single theory that makes sense...... ah forget it. We know that is not going to happen.

I'm still waiting for you skeptics to do that for how UA93 supposedly crashed!

Yes, ALL the witnesses that were interviewed that were in a position to do so..watched the plane hit.

ZERO of the other witnesses saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

You know that if a plane hit, BUT flew North of the Citgo, that would prove the OS wrong, right?

Actually it would have been fairly difficult for any of the witnesses to see the plane impact the pentagon...





stevenwarran.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by ANOK
Actually it would have been fairly difficult for any of the witnesses to see the plane impact the pentagon...





stevenwarran.blogspot.com...

All right, I have to ask, where the heck is this "it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon" foolishness even coming from? Even the most hard core zealous of truthers have to admit that hordes of eyewitnesses saw an aircraft aiming for the Pentagon so there is in fact evidence a plane was on an attack vector, and even the most hard core zealous of truther have to admit there isn't a single eyewitness who saw any plane pass over the Pentagon after the explosion so there's NO evidence of any fly-over. Why can't it be the case a plane hit the Pentagon AS WELL AS the plane hitting the Pentaon is part of the sinister secret conspiracy to take over the world?

It's as if you're on some religious crusade to believe absolutely nothing of what we've seen happen on 9/11. What's next, that it 's even a lie the WTC was attacked and it was really the Sears tower that collapsed?

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Peggy Elgas, in her car.

And, the entire claim you must resort and cling to is, she "looked out her driver's side window" and pedantically quibble with me, because I said she had to look to her left, and behind her shoulder??

I am wondering if anyone who has driven a left-hand drive car cannot understand that a person sitting behind the wheel can easily look to his/her left, and have a fairly WIDE view, thanks somewhat also to peripheral vision that can catch one's attention....the eyes can take in a scene very, very quickly...far differently than a fixed camera lens can.

Surely, this is something that every Human with vision can understand, and relate to??

We Humans tend to look around a lot, as part of our perception of the World....and, the brain "remembers" what the eyes just saw milliseconds previously, and it is stored in our brain as the perceptual image that we take to be the "real world".

The many optical illusions that anyone might care to research into take advantage of this aspect of visual perception reality.

Compared to how a film director or cameraman must "tell" the story of a screenplay through the lens of a camera.....ever seen a person use the very laughable (to some) gesture of putting up their hands, to "frame" the scene?? It is for the benefit of that person, without the other devices that can do the same thing, to (block out) his peripheral side views, to know what an audience will see, in his finished film.....hard to explain, just do it, and "see" for yourself!!

Originally posted by ANOK
Actually it would have been fairly difficult for any of the witnesses to see the plane impact the pentagon...

If not, they sure as hell would have seen it flyover! No one did. END OF THREAD!