Independent Witnesses/ North Side Options

[nicepants]

Ask yourself, if the North side of Citgo flight path were impossible ... why are there so many independent witnesses corroborating the North Side? Dont answer here as we have heard all the excuses, Please use the appropriate forum.

The same witnesses you use to support the north of citgo claim also claim that the plane impacted the pentagon, in fact, there are more "independent witnesses" who corroborate the impact than there are who corroborate the north of citgo claim.

Is it your contention that a majority of the witness reports were wrong and that only these 4-6 people were correct?

[rob balsamo]

And more witnesses see UFO's per year than saw the impact. Whats your point?


Lets put it this way. I would be more confident of which side an object passed me by, than being sure if the same object were involved in a very loud, distracting explosion several hundred yards away. Especially if the opposite path had obstructions in my field of view.

Which would you be more confident?


We know how many witnesses were published, spun and completely fabricated. Witness List Broken Down. What we are concerned with are the conflicts. Conflicting data, conflicting witness statements who arent published by corporate owned mainstream media, unprecedented lack of positive identification of aircraft parts, etc etc. It appears you are not concerned and would rather make excuses for a govt known for lies, spin, obfuscation and corruption.

You are certainly entitled.

Thanks for posting in the proper forum.

[nicepants]

And more witnesses see UFO's per year than saw the impact. Whats your point?

Lets put it this way. I would be more confident of which side an object passed me by, than being sure if the same object were involved in a very loud, distracting explosion several hundred yards away. Especially if the opposite path had obstructions in my field of view.

Since you're not one of the witnesses, I don't see how that is relevant.

Which would you be more confident?

Since I'm not one of the witnesses, it is irrelevant.

We know how many witnesses were published, spun and completely fabricated. Witness List Broken Down. What we are concerned with are the conflicts. Conflicting data, conflicting witness statements who arent published by corporate owned mainstream media, unprecedented lack of positive identification of aircraft parts, etc etc. It appears you are not concerned and would rather make excuses for a govt known for lies, spin, obfuscation and corruption.

You are certainly entitled.

Thanks for posting in the proper forum.

Regardless of how you break it down...when you add up how many witnesses report the plane north of the citgo, and how many report it hitting the pentagon, there are always more witnesses to the impact.

Think about it this way....for CIT's theory to be true...EVERY one of those 104 eyewitnesses must be wrong.

[Domenick DiMaggi...]

No such thing as 104 impact witnesses

Gravy is a liar nicepants, sorry.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Oh god nicepanties is friggin obsessed with us.

You'd think if he really thought we were such kooks and so wrong that he simply wouldn't care.

Same old circular logic and disingenuous spin.

As if it isn't obvious how desperate they are.

We've got logic and evidence on our side and they have nothing but Bill O'Reilly style bullying tactics via blanket denial.

It's really pretty tiresome as it's clear their logic is bankrupt and they are simply too COWARDLY to accept the evidence.

Keep the faith npanties.

[nicepants]

No such thing as 104 impact witnesses

Gravy is a liar nicepants, sorry.

Are you saying that all 104 of them are wrong?

Oh god nicepanties is friggin obsessed with us.

Keep the faith npanties.

No need for name-calling, Craig....that's against the rules here. (I trust they apply to all participants equally?)

When are you taking your evidence to the authorities?

[Carl Bank]

Hi folks, Moderator here.

I recieved a pm from "nicepants" with
the report of personal attacs here.

OK, I checked this thread and can't find
any report worthy attacs, so due to the fact that
"nicepants" didn't specify the attacs in that report,
I can only assume one possible reason for PMing me:

Namely, that someone changed his member name
in order to make him/her look silly.

Whoever it was who gave you that handle,
I will track him down and ban him for a day. Promise!

And you are so kind and let me know, what your
original member name was, please.


will take care of restoring it: Carl

[p.w.rapp]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
I had npantie's PM as well. But had no time to reply or post here...

...luckily...

nice job, Carl!
I couldn't have done half as good as my Prussian watchdog!!!

[rob balsamo]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

[Craig Ranke CIT]

It's just so old.

There is no debate.

We present confirmed corroborated evidence and they simply dismiss it based on nothing but faith.

Impact or north side claim. Which to accept....hmmmmm.

Since accepting the impact means you must accept that ALL the witnesses simultaneously hallucinated the same thing the answer is clear.

What's more logical, simultaneous mass hallucination or deliberate deception?

The plane was physically MUCH closer to all of them as it passed by the station compared to when it reached the building. This reason ALONE is enough to scientifically and logically suggest they would be more accurate about the north side claim.

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/northofcitgogif.gif)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/deceptiongif.gif)

[grizz]

I've seen someone who would whine to the mods whenever they couldn't defend their position before. A humorous alteration of someone's screenname is hardly a personal attack. If nicepants is so sensitive he/she might consider not denying fact on a forum such as this.

This is directly to nicepants. We are old hands here and can recognize patterns swiftly. Your approach is quite transparent. You're playing with the big boys now, so grow up please.

[nicepants]

What's more logical, simultaneous mass hallucination or deliberate deception?

False dichotomy fallacy, craig.

Are you saying that all 104 eyewitnesses who reported the impact are wrong?

When are you taking this evidence to the authorities?

You're playing with the big boys now, so grow up please.

This comment would be best directed at those who play childish name-calling games instead of answering the tough questions.

This post has been edited by nicepants: Apr 14 2008, 03:39 PM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

False dichotomy fallacy, craig.

No it is not. It MUST be one or the other choice. There is no other possible alternative.

Are you saying that all 104 eyewitnesses who reported the impact are wrong?

The notion that there are 104 eyewitness accounts of the impact is wrong.

When are you taking this evidence to the authorities?

We already have and we will continue to.

Their inaction does not refute the validity of the evidence.

[grizz]

nicepants, you will find that the CIT is valued by most members of this forum. In a sense this is their home. We have studied their careful work and most of us agree with them.

If you have something solid to offer that counters their research, that would be welcome, and we would consider it. However, long-debunked government mythology is not solid evidence. Our treatment of the NPT/VF folks proves that we are more fair here than many 9/11 forums. But linguistic gymnastics and flat-out denial just doesn't cut it.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

Are you saying that all 104 of them are wrong?

No, we're saying what we've always said. There are not 104 witnesses to an "impact". The fact that you continue to repeat this speaks volumes about your research/comprehension skills.

No need for name-calling, Craig....that's against the rules here. (I trust they apply to all participants equally?)

So do rules of civility only apply to this forum and the LCF?

I've read many of your posts on the govt loyalist site and they are very insulting and antagonistic towards us.

In fact, I just read a comment where you called PFT=Pffffft. Clearly an insult.

Do you think anyone here should treat you with respect with the track record you have?

[Carl Bank]

This comment would be best directed at those who play childish name-calling games instead of answering the tough questions.

Who called who what name here? And what do you mean with "tough questions"??
What is this here all about? And - most important - what was your original handle???


still waiting: Carl

[nicepants]

No, we're saying what we've always said. There are not 104 witnesses to an "impact". The fact that you continue to repeat this speaks volumes about your research/comprehension skills.

There are 104 people who claim that the plane impacted the pentagon.

Is it your claim that all 104 of these people are wrong?

So do rules of civility only apply to this forum and the LCF?

I've read many of your posts on the govt loyalist site and they are very insulting and antagonistic towards us.

In fact, I just read a comment where you called PFT=Pffffft. Clearly an insult.

It's a joke....kind of like the joke where you guys call J.R.E.F. the "government loyalist site".

Do you think anyone here should treat you with respect with the track record you have?

I didn't make up the rules here.

When are you taking this evidence to the authorities?

We already have and we will continue to.

Which authorities have you presented this evidence to?

This post has been edited by nicepants: Apr 14 2008, 08:31 PM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

There are 104 people who claim that the plane impacted the pentagon.

Is it your claim that all 104 of these people are wrong?

YOU are wrong.

There are not 104 people who claim they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Saying that proven false claim over and over doesn't make it so.

It's a joke....kind of like the joke where you guys call J.R.E.F. the "government loyalist site".

Bottom line you deserve the same amount of respect here as you give us there.

Zero.

We already have and we will continue to.

Which authorities have you presented this evidence to?

None of your business but we have contacted local and federal authorities and we will continue to approach more and more agencies and hold them all accountable until they listen.

poopooroo likes to repeat a completely made up and ridiculous lie that I claimed we would not contact the authorities.

Notice how he NEVER quotes me.

It's because I never said such a thing and he is a desperate fraud just like all of you faith based pseudoskeptic government loyalists.

[KP50]

There are 104 people who claim that the plane impacted the pentagon.

Is it your claim that all 104 of these people are wrong?

Please prove there are 104 people. Please prove that all of these 104 people actually were able to observe the impact and did not merely deduce it upon seeing and hearing the explosion.

(Hey, this work is easy)

[rob balsamo]

Are you saying that all 104 eyewitnesses who reported the impact are wrong?

nicepants, the below quotes that include underlined text are known as "hyperlinks". If you click on the underlined text (in this case), it will take you to another thread which have a thorough analysis of the claimed "104 impact witnesses". If you are still confused about "hyperlinks" and unable to find the described thread, the conclusion of the analysis is that there is no such thing as "104 impact witnesses". Hope this helps.

We know how many witnesses were published, spun and completely fabricated. Witness List Broken Down. What we are concerned with are the conflicts. Conflicting data, conflicting witness statements who arent published by corporate owned mainstream media, unprecedented lack of positive identification of aircraft parts, etc etc. It appears you are not concerned and would rather make excuses for a govt known for lies, spin, obfuscation and corruption.

No such thing as 104 impact witnesses

Gravy is a liar nicepants, sorry.