Problems with CIT Witnesses?, Split from Various posts, merged here. Options

[sheeplenshills]

"This new tech paper from Pilots for 9/11 Truth complete with calculations and animations is a formal breakdown scientifically demonstrating that a plane on the north side of the gas station can not cause the physical damage at the Pentagon starting with the light poles.



This whole paper is based on the premise that in fact the plane did take a north of the navy annex flight path as asserted by CIT. Unfortunately for them their analysis is full of holes. Even if we ignore the fact they only interview witnesses whose stories can be twisted to fit their version of events (a fuller list can be found here http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon_witnesses ) and they mangle many of their accounts.

Sammo and I had a long discussion about this here http://forums.delphiforums.com/flt93crash/...ages?msg=1437.1 and I posted a debunking of each of their witnesses accounts in turn pointing out huge errors in math and show how some witnesses perception could have led them to honestly believe the plane was on a North side approach when it was not.

it s quite a long plough through all the posts as I got more into the debunk but I think I covered the main points pretty well.

911 may well have been a big Gov. conspiracy (though I doubt it) but CITs version of events is just laughable.

[sheeplenshills]

So nowadays I am a 100% supporter of CIT. These guys cracked the Pentagon event mystery. There is no mystery any more, using logic and gum shoes. Brilliant!


There are many problems with CITs version of events. They have cherry picked their witnesses and misrepresent the evidence of many of them. It comes down to this.....if Mr Morins testimony is correct and he saw the plane (which he identified as a commercial jet) fly over him and all the way down to the Pentagon and hit it, then it HAD to be on a line along the south edge of the navy annex very close to that in the official report or the navy annex itself would have blocked his view.

I got interested in their account in this thread and if you follow it through I show how each witness to a north flightline could be mistaken in what they think they saw.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/flt93crash/...ages?msg=1437.1

[GroundPounder]

blah, blah, blah

[scott75]

sheepie, as you may have decided from the previous post, you may find that you'll get more debate on this subject in a forum such as 911oz.com; I've found this place is best for getting details on the viewpoints of the members, but not for directly challenging their views for much time. There is also the fact that there's already been a fairly heated discussion here regarding some witnesses, atleast some of whom were CIT witnesses, here:

No Witnesses Who Place The Plane On The South Side?

I personally believe that PFT did a very good job of discrediting the witnesses mentioned as south side witnesses, but the author of the thread didn't think so, and that's where things got messy...

This post has been edited by scott75: Feb 3 2010, 07:00 AM

[sheeplenshills]

I personally believe that PFT did a very good job of discrediting the witnesses mentioned as south side witnesses, but the author of the thread didn't think so, and that's where things got messy...


Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. edit.....it doesn't work (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

This post has been edited by sheeplenshills: Feb 3 2010, 03:32 PM

[KP50]

1. CIT "cherry-picked" witnesses. I agree - as well as interviewing the cab driver Lloyd England, they should have interviewed all the witnesses to the pole striking the cab.

2. All CIT witnesses "mistaken". Can equally be applied to all witnesses - even the ones who saw the pole strike the cab. Have you considered this?

[sheeplenshills]

1. CIT "cherry-picked" witnesses. I agree - as well as interviewing the cab driver Lloyd England, they should have interviewed all the witnesses to the pole striking the cab.

2. All CIT witnesses "mistaken". Can equally be applied to all witnesses - even the ones who saw the pole strike the cab. Have you considered this?

Absolutely! Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable. CIT distorts what some of them say eg Morin says that the plane flew down the edge of the navy annex and that he watched it down to the pentagon where it crashed. They then show it in thier video traveling at an angle and well over the navy annex on a path that would have taken it out of his sight. The mechanic Paik cannot even see the annex from his viewpoint so again he cannot have an accurate view of the planes route relative to it. The guy in the grave yard (middleton?) say it flew down the road in front of him "so close he could feel the heat" but they show it well over the Annex a long way from him.
Morin and Middleton cannot both be right so at least one of them is mistaken.

Morin judges the speed at IIRC 350mph (knots? = about 400mph?) when in reality he has no way of judging this with any accuracy. He likely has never seen a big commercial jet traveling anything like that fast that low and since by the time he sees it and runs to the edge of the building it is well past him and heading straight away from him. It is virtually impossible to judge speed in that situation. His times are all wrong too.....he says it was 13 - 18 seconds till the plane hit after he first saw it. The Pentagon is only 3000 feet from where he was standing. at 350 mph thats only about 5 seconds fyling time...much less at the 525mph official figures. I'm not saying he is lying just that humans are not good eyewitnesses and do not judge distances, time or speed or indeed anything very reliably.
likewise distances from the plane are easily mistaken as as its silhouetted against the sky there is nothing to judge its size and hence distance against. Most people are not really familiar with just how big or small a commercial jet like the 757 is and their distance from us is not a question that arises very often.....we have no accurate frame of reference to judge where they are relative to things on the ground. add in high speed, loud noise and shock...............

Poor Lloyd could hardly be mistaken about being hit by a pole and a plane flying just over his head but most other accounts must be viewed bearing in mind how unreliable eyewitness evidence is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification whilst mostly concerned with ID errors its worth a read.

[KP50]

Do I need to send my 2 points again given that you just totally ignored them? Maybe you need to read them more carefully.

1. CIT "cherry-picked" witnesses. I agree - as well as interviewing the cab driver Lloyd England, they should have interviewed all the witnesses to the pole striking the cab.

2. All CIT witnesses "mistaken". Can equally be applied to all witnesses - even the ones who saw the pole strike the cab. Have you considered this?

[scott75]

I personally believe that PFT did a very good job of discrediting the witnesses mentioned as south side witnesses, but the author of the thread didn't think so, and that's where things got messy...


Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. edit.....it doesn't work (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

God, how embarassing. Looks like I put the title as the URL :-p. Here's the link:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17852

[painter]

You're full of shit sheeplenshills, and about three years too late to be hocking this kind of tripe on this forum. As you see, few here even want to bother debating with you. Why bother? You already have your mind made up.

You accept without question the absurdity of the windshield of Lloyd England's taxi being penetrated by a light pole the way a stick would skewer lamb chunks on a shish kabob. That is an approximately 40' length of aluminum tubing weighing about 200 pounds that didn't just 'fall over' from gravity but was forcibly broken from its base after the impact of an aircraft allegedly flying near 500mph. Oh, and the cab wasn't stationary, either, but allegedly after impact, skidded sideways across two lanes of traffic -- presumably with the pole sticking out of the wind shild without broadening the whole or even scuffing the surface of the taxi's finely polished hood. This, to you, is a completely reasonable and believable scenario. Never mind that Lloyd subsequently changed his story to correspond with a North flight path, insisting despite pure logic and all photographic evidence to the contrary that this incident never occurred on the bridge.

He and his taxi were on the bridge, period, and Lloyd England isn't mistaken, he's a proven liar.

Are witnesses "unreliable" as you repeat frequently in your post? Interesting, then, isn't it how many juried cases are dependent upon witness testimony. And in this instance we have not one but numerous witnesses who, although they disagree in some minor details, nevertheless agree on the most salient and important detail: The plane they witnessed flew north of the then Citgo filling station. Of course you and people like you can not allow these witness accounts to stand; you have to imply that they are ALL mistaken and all mistaken in the same way because you know full well that if their accounts are to be believed, then the prevailing mythology of what happened at the Pentagon must be false.

No one here is buying any of this.

[scott75]

painter, as you know, we fell out a while back. You may wish to consider the possibility that it's your approach that made this happen. Even if sheep was a definite disinfo agent, a possibility that I haven't seen any evidence for myself (you assume he knows all sorts of things, whereas I don't see that he has this knowledge), I wouldn't use the terms you did. Using course insults generally reflects more on the one using them then the one they're used on. I think your point would have been much better without using the "full of shit" and "this kind of tripe". It adds nothing to the point but your view on the matter. The rest sounds much better. You point out that few here want to debate him and I'd agree, but I would think that's essentially because the people who -would- don't believe that the debate will be able to reach its natural conclusion, as happened with the thread I mentioned.

[Quest]

sheeplenshills wrote

911 may well have been a big Gov. conspiracy (though I doubt it) but CITs version of events is just laughable.

What I find laughable is that you find nothing wrong with 3 buildings collapsing in mere seconds with the third building not even have been struck by a plane.

9/11 Truth: firefighters and live, loud explosion at WTC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kOIvwThj-U

EXPLOSIVES going off in WTC CLEAR AUDIO! 911 Demolition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALbkzSGvmLM&feature=fvw

911 - Firemen talk about the dropping of the twin towers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzntuqLBOR8...feature=related

This post has been edited by Quest: Feb 4 2010, 10:49 AM

[sheeplenshills]

Do I need to send my 2 points again given that you just totally ignored them? Maybe you need to read them more carefully.

1. CIT "cherry-picked" witnesses. I agree - as well as interviewing the cab driver Lloyd England, they should have interviewed all the witnesses to the pole striking the cab.

2. All CIT witnesses "mistaken". Can equally be applied to all witnesses - even the ones who saw the pole strike the cab. Have you considered this?

No.... I agreed with you. yes they should have interviewed them all (or at least some who witnessed a south side approach, I actually suspect they did interview them but that this was omitted because it did not fit CITs version of events.........)

and yes, witnesses on both sides could be equally wrong.....which then means we have to fall back on the physical evidence which is wholly supportive of a south side approach. I would really like to hear the south side witnesses testimony and add their flightlines to the CIT version. I suspect the "average" flightline would indeed be down Columbia Pike.

[sheeplenshills]

sheeplenshills wrote



What I find laughable is that you find nothing wrong with 3 buildings collapsing in mere seconds with the third building not even have been struck by a plane.

9/11 Truth: firefighters and live, loud explosion at WTC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kOIvwThj-U

EXPLOSIVES going off in WTC CLEAR AUDIO! 911 Demolition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALbkzSGvmLM&feature=fvw

911 - Firemen talk about the dropping of the twin towers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzntuqLBOR8...feature=related

Well this discussion is about the Pentagon.............please stay on topic. No doubt other threads discuss the WTC and WTC7 in particular. In this thread I was focusing on CIT version of events at the Pentagon which I find to have serious flaws.

[sheeplenshills]

[quote name='painter' date='Feb 3 2010, 06:58 PM' post='10782388']
You're full of shit sheeplenshills, and about three years too late to be hocking this kind of tripe on this forum. As you see, few here even want to bother debating with you. Why bother? You already have your mind made up.

You mind appears equally made up.

You accept without question the absurdity of the windshield of Lloyd England's taxi being penetrated by a light pole the way a stick would skewer lamb chunks on a shish kabob. That is an approximately 40' length of aluminum tubing weighing about 200 pounds that didn't just 'fall over' from gravity but was forcibly broken from its base after the impact of an aircraft allegedly flying near 500mph. Oh, and the cab wasn't stationary, either, but allegedly after impact, skidded sideways across two lanes of traffic -- presumably with the pole sticking out of the wind shild without broadening the whole or even scuffing the surface of the taxi's finely polished hood. This, to you, is a completely reasonable and believable scenario.

I'm a mechanical engineer and I find nothing impossible about at all and I discuss this here
http://forums.delphiforums.com/flt93crash/...es?msg=1437.121


Never mind that Lloyd subsequently changed his story to correspond with a North flight path, insisting despite pure logic and all photographic evidence to the contrary that this incident never occurred on the bridge.

He and his taxi were on the bridge, period, and Lloyd England isn't mistaken, he's a proven liar.

Lloyd is old and clearly suffering from early Dementia

Are witnesses "unreliable" as you repeat frequently in your post? Interesting, then, isn't it how many juried cases are dependent upon witness testimony.

Actually if you read my link it is well known that there are big problems with eyewitness testimony. In the UK it is very hard to get a conviction on eyewitness testimony alone.

And in this instance we have not one but numerous witnesses who, although they disagree in some minor details, nevertheless agree on the most salient and important detail: The plane they witnessed flew north of the then Citgo filling station. Of course you and people like you can not allow these witness accounts to stand; you have to imply that they are ALL mistaken and all mistaken in the same way because you know full well that if their accounts are to be believed, then the prevailing mythology of what happened at the Pentagon must be false.

Then lets have all the testimonies on CIT dog and pony show! there is only one witness. Mr middleton whose testimony definitively places it on the left approach (all the others either could not have seen where it came from (Turcious or the Cops) or had no frame of reference for saying it was in front or behind the Citgo (the Guys in the Cemetery). I deal with middletons testimony here
http://forums.delphiforums.com/flt93crash/...es?msg=1437.105

[sheeplenshills]

painter, as you know, we fell out a while back. You may wish to consider the possibility that it's your approach that made this happen. Even if sheep was a definite disinfo agent, a possibility that I haven't seen any evidence for myself (you assume he knows all sorts of things, whereas I don't see that he has this knowledge), I wouldn't use the terms you did. Using course insults generally reflects more on the one using them then the one they're used on. I think your point would have been much better without using the "full of shit" and "this kind of tripe". It adds nothing to the point but your view on the matter. The rest sounds much better. You point out that few here want to debate him and I'd agree, but I would think that's essentially because the people who -would- don't believe that the debate will be able to reach its natural conclusion, as happened with the thread I mentioned.

I'm a definite skeptic! The reason I use the name sheeplesnshills as that what I was constantly called by my main protagonist on an another forum just because I pointed out the errors in Physics, math, engineering and logic in most of his posts. I must admit I became equally rude back!

For me debunking videos like those of CIT is just an intellectual exercise........my postion on 911 is that IF it was a Gov conspiracy is was simply one that persuaded a group of jihadists to crash a bunch of airliners into American buildings and this would be used as a excuse for a war. ie to create a cause de guerre. Frankly I doubt that our Gov is smart enough to carry even that off even if the were that evil.

But as I said, I debate mainly for the intellectual exercise.............

[sheeplenshills]

God, how embarassing. Looks like I put the title as the URL :-p. Here's the link:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17852

Thanks for the link...its great reading! I love how the CIT guys say there were "no eye witnesses of a south side flightline BECAUSE it took a north side path" as if all north side ones must be right and allsouth side ones must be wrong! I like reading the other accounts that CIT conveniently missed out.

[KP50]

No.... I agreed with you. yes they should have interviewed them all (or at least some who witnessed a south side approach, I actually suspect they did interview them but that this was omitted because it did not fit CITs version of events.........)

I don't really care what you "suspect", you are incorrect, you really need to do more research.

Again you miss the point, maybe I am being too subtle. Maybe you can list the witnesses who saw the lightpole sticking out of Lloyd England's cab so we analyse what they say?

and yes, witnesses on both sides could be equally wrong.....which then means we have to fall back on the physical evidence which is wholly supportive of a south side approach. I would really like to hear the south side witnesses testimony and add their flightlines to the CIT version. I suspect the "average" flightline would indeed be down Columbia Pike.

Find some south side witnesses then. Try just posting a single detailed account of a witness to a south-side flightpath - you implied there were many of them.

[Quest]

Well this discussion is about the Pentagon.............please stay on topic. No doubt other threads discuss the WTC and WTC7 in particular. In this thread I was focusing on CIT version of events at the Pentagon which I find to have serious flaws.

Will you debate me in thread on control demolition of the towers if I create one? Oh, and by the way, did you bother watching the videos?

[sheeplenshills]

Will you debate me in thread on control demolition of the towers if I create one? Oh, and by the way, did you bother watching the videos?

this is just a part time interest for me.....so one topic at a time. I have full time job plus many other interests/demand on my time so can't spend nearly as much time on this as I would like.