Thursday, February 04, 2010

More Problems for the CIT-Heads: Paik Testimony

Sometimes the Troofers do good debunking, but only on the parts of the fantasy that they don't agree with personally.
There are problems with some elements of Shinki and Ed Paik’s accounts, but CIT has compounded these by omitting or distorting elements of Ed and Shinki’s accounts, while selectively interpreting and hyping other elements. CIT has a history of doing this, they’ve consistently done it in ways that support their theory about ‘north path’ and ‘Pentagon flyover’, and their doing so- while accusing their critics of being ‘agents’ and ‘disinformation’- has created controversy and undermined their own credibility.

Labels: ,

41 Comments:

At 04 February, 2010 06:55, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Yup. Brian Good is capable of sounding completely sane when talking about Kevin Barrett and the CIT loons, but then he turns around and starts babbling about thermite and smoldering carpets and radio beacons.

It's like a Christian fundamentalist rightly pointing out everything that's wrong with the Qu'ran or the Book of Mormon, but then turning around and declaring the Book of Genesis to be literally true.

 
At 04 February, 2010 08:01, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"CIT has a history of doing this, they’ve consistently done it in ways that support their theory about ‘north path’ and ‘Pentagon flyover’, and their doing so- while accusing their critics of being ‘agents’ nd ‘disinformation’- has created controversy and undermined their own credibility."


Ummmmm......

What "credibility"? They're a bunch of lunatic loooosers spouting insane nonsense.

 
At 04 February, 2010 09:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL.

He just helped confirm the north side flight path!!!

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1013&st=0&#last

http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/PaikLarsonBodyOverShopNOC.jpg

http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/PaikLarsonBodyOverShopNOCoutside.jpg


Originally Posted by Craig Ranke:
The entire question of whether or not Edward was outside or inside the shop is clearly irrelevant to his placement of the plane which has been consistent and is the evidence we cite (along with the other witness accounts) that proves 9/11 was an inside job.

Larson easily found the source of this confusion on his own: Shinki.

On our first research trip with Dylan Avery and Russell Pickering we all found out about Edward from Shinki.

We ALL thought Edward was outside when he saw the plane because that is what Shinki told us. And as Larson revealed Shinki STILL thought this as of January 2010!

When we interviewed Ed the first time off-location, his English was pretty bad and we were all a bit confused regarding his account INCLUDING exactly where he placed the plane, but our impression that he was outside was already established because of Shinki.

When I went back the 2nd time less than 3 months later I was alone. Edward was my FIRST interview ever (on my own) as I had not talked to ANY of the Citgo witnesses yet.

My main concern was making sure to get him on location so I could document the flight path he was describing accurately and with zero ambiguity which is why I had him illustrate it on 3 separate images.

I already thought he was outside (as we all did even after our first interview) so I interviewed him outside. No big conspiracy. Why would I bother lying about that? Obviously he STILL puts the plane on the north side approach! [...]

 
At 04 February, 2010 10:06, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

And yet...at the same time he draws like four different flight paths on CIT's map, says different thing in all three interviews (Avery, Ranke, Larsen) and claims the VDOT tower was damaged (not true).

Might as well ask your local hand reader what happened.

 
At 04 February, 2010 10:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

New Yorker seems to have a major crush on Brian Good. Not that there's anything wrong with that, LOL!

 
At 04 February, 2010 10:35, Anonymous Traffic Cop said...

"...says different thing in all three interviews..."

Sounds like Barry Jennings eh Walt?

Hey RR - how's that Nazi research going? You learning anything?

 
At 04 February, 2010 10:54, Anonymous New Yorker said...

New Yorker seems to have a major crush on Brian Good.

Never met the man, I just find him to be the only "truther" here to be really entertaining. He combines that blend of utter ignorance and insanity with megalomania and narcissism of someone who thinks himself a genius. It's just way too much fun to poke at him.

The rest of you guys are too dumb and boring. And Roid Rage will probably grow out of his "truther" phase.

 
At 04 February, 2010 11:01, Anonymous David Banner said...

"Roid Rage will probably grow out of his "truther" phase"

Perhaps he will "hulk" out of it!

 
At 04 February, 2010 11:21, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Hey RR - how's that Nazi research going? You learning anything?"

You could've helped, if only you had turned yourself over to Wiesenthal before 2005.

Some of those who run forces...

 
At 04 February, 2010 11:25, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

By the way Pat, can't you do your own research, troofer plagiarizer?

You're like using this blog... to whine all the time.

 
At 04 February, 2010 11:44, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Hey RR - how's that Nazi research going? You learning anything?"

Nope.

He's a moron.

 
At 04 February, 2010 11:58, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

And you're a motherfucker, Dorothy.

LOL!

Seriously. How can I not laugh at you? :))

 
At 04 February, 2010 12:10, Anonymous Traffic Cop said...

"By the way Pat, can't you do your own research, troofer plagiarizer?

You're like using this blog... to whine all the time."

Interesting assessment Mr. Aids Infected Dildo.

Since it is his blog I guess I he can with it what he wants. Why don't you start a blog? You could call it "I'm such a complete dumbfuck that I compare message board flamers with the monsters who were responsible for millions of deaths"

 
At 04 February, 2010 13:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And yet...at the same time he draws like four different flight paths on CIT's map, says different thing in all three interviews (Avery, Ranke, Larsen) and claims the VDOT tower was damaged (not true).

Might as well ask your local hand reader what happened.


Ooooor just ask the witnesses like CIT did.

The 4 paths you speak of-all from photos from different angles- all took the plane over his shop on the north side of Columbia Pike which IS the north side of the Citgo flight path.

Not sure what you are not getting.

If you need more help understanding I can help you.

 
At 04 February, 2010 13:18, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"The 4 paths you speak of-all from photos from different angles- all took the plane over his shop on the north side of Columbia Pike which IS the north side of the Citgo flight path."

Then perhaps it is time for a "North of Columbia Pike" theory, instead of a flyover theory for which there are no witnesses.

What Roosevelt Roberts saw could in no way have been a commercial aircraft, given the U-turn he describes. Roberts' testimony is incoherent, physically impossible gibberish, and therefore irrelevant. Other reports amount to hearsay quoted out of context.

 
At 04 February, 2010 13:19, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

By the way: North of Columbia Pike does NOT equal North of Citgo, and YOU know this.

 
At 04 February, 2010 13:55, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Roid Rage said...
And you're a motherfucker, Dorothy.

LOL!

Seriously. How can I not laugh at you? :))"

Well, I named myself after a fictional character, but you really are an ignorant cocksucker.

Which is why I LOL at you.

 
At 04 February, 2010 14:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Then perhaps it is time for a "North of Columbia Pike" theory, instead of a flyover theory for which there are no witnesses.

A. It's not a theory. it's what was witnessed by Paik. B. There is no flyover theory. If it is was NoC it had to flyover and away. YOU know this. Roosevelt Roberts saw this, Erik Dihle heard people say they saw this, and Dewitt Roseborough supports a flyover.

What Roosevelt Roberts saw could in no way have been a commercial aircraft, given the U-turn he describes. Roberts' testimony is incoherent, physically impossible gibberish, and therefore irrelevant. Other reports amount to hearsay quoted out of context.

Roosevelt Roberts describes a commercial jet bamking "just above the light poles" in south parking after the explosion, after he took 7 steps out to the edge of the loading dock. Are you going to tell him he didn't see this, Roid Rage? Of course you won't. LOL.

NoC=flyover. You do know this, Agent Roid Rage, right?

 
At 04 February, 2010 14:05, Anonymous Shat Swirly said...

Lame-arus: you named yourself after a motherfucker, literally, and you'll say ANYTHING to avoid having to explain the gravitational acceleration during 7's 'collapse'.

But that's okay: I named myself after a motherfucker who does the same thing!

 
At 04 February, 2010 14:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way: North of Columbia Pike does NOT equal North of Citgo, and YOU know this.

Stop lying. You know it does. It is exactly where the plane was headed and it is in direct contradiction to the required path which is also required to match the black box data.

LOL. Do you seriously think you are effective?

 
At 04 February, 2010 14:14, Anonymous Shart Roberts' mole said...

If gravitational acceleration means all potential energy is used for motion, how was nothing crushed, bent, flexed, or resisted for over 100 feet?

I'm a revered "skeptic" with a binder full of "research", and all my tour-guide powers can come up with absolutely nothing on this. Where did I go so terribly wrong with my life? Was it my childlike credulity, or Pat's powers of persuasion? Either way, I've been exposed as a fraud, right along with Pat and James.

 
At 04 February, 2010 14:27, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Are you going to tell him he didn't see this, Roid Rage?

I don't know about Roid Rage, but I'll tell him that he didn't see it. Witnesses are wrong all the time. It happens.

NoC=flyover. You do know this, Agent Roid Rage, right?

There's just the little problem of the fact that the jet didn't pass north of the Citgo.

and you'll say ANYTHING to avoid having to explain the gravitational acceleration during 7's 'collapse'.

Why is "collapse" in quotes? Did the building not collapse. Also, the collapse has already been explained.

If gravitational acceleration means all potential energy is used for motion, how was nothing crushed, bent, flexed, or resisted for over 100 feet?

English, please.

 
At 04 February, 2010 14:30, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"...you'll say ANYTHING to avoid having to explain the gravitational acceleration during 7's 'collapse'."

Nobody cares, Krazee.

 
At 04 February, 2010 14:31, Anonymous P.T. Barnum. said...

Ah, the sweet entertainment of "truthers" fighting over which insane talking point is correct. Excuse me while I got get some popcorn and enjoy this circus.

 
At 04 February, 2010 14:34, Anonymous Nikki Sixx said...

You guys are all wrong. The plane passed under the Citgo! The CIT guys are obviously CIA plants!

 
At 04 February, 2010 14:48, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

A. It's not a theory. it's what was witnessed by Paik. B. There is no flyover theory. If it is was NoC it had to flyover and away. YOU know this. Roosevelt Roberts saw this, Erik Dihle heard people say they saw this, and Dewitt Roseborough supports a flyover.

A. Paik couldn't see the Citgo. His drawings contradict. His interviews contradict. He claims it hit the VDOT.
Witness statements so vague, involving guesstimations of the heading and position of a high-speed airborne object aren't fact. They provide (weak) evidence for a hypothesis. The observation of the plane in general is strong evidence, the placement is not. Paik's testimony can only be portrayed as describing a flight path NoCP, not NoC.

B. NoC proves NoC. Nothing more. Roosevelt Roberts: see below.
Erik Dihle: out of context hearsay. Hearsay is meaningless.
Dewitt Roseborough: deliberately distorted quote by CIT.

Roosevelt Roberts describes a commercial jet bamking "just above the light poles" in south parking after the explosion, after he took 7 steps out to the edge of the loading dock. Are you going to tell him he didn't see this, Roid Rage? Of course you won't. LOL.

Yes, he hallucinated. A U-turn is physically impossible. You know this.

NoC=flyover. You do know this, Agent Roid Rage, right?

NoC=NoC. However..all witnesses say the plane hit, and NONE of them say it flew over. This, in combination with the physical evidence proves NoC wrong, not the other way around.

Signing off, Roid Rage.

Pentagon West Wing, Sunstein's 9/11 disinfo department.

E-mail: disinfo4all@pentagon.mil

 
At 04 February, 2010 15:04, Anonymous Cass Sunstein said...

NoC=flyover. You do know this, Agent Roid Rage, right?
I feel sorry for RR having to fight a two front battle here while trying to defend truthers at the same time. It's quite amusing though.

 
At 04 February, 2010 15:59, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"I feel sorry for RR having to fight a two front battle"

Nazi Germany against the Allies.

BTW, did you know that 'Nazi' stood for the National Socialist German Workers Party?

 
At 04 February, 2010 16:17, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Nazi Germany against the Allies.

Says mister right wing extremist.

 
At 04 February, 2010 16:17, Anonymous Bismark said...

Kämpfen Sie nicht Kriege auf zwei Frontseiten!

 
At 04 February, 2010 16:46, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Wollt Ihr den totalen Krieg? Wollt Ihr ihn, wenn nötig, totaler und radikaler, als wir ihn uns heute überhaupt erst vorstellen können?"

— Goebbels

 
At 04 February, 2010 17:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah yes, the people have always and will always love war. It must be comforting to think that it is only Germans who take pleasure at the slaughter of their enemies but clearly that isn't the case. It's a human thing, not a German thing. They just happened to be really good at it.

 
At 04 February, 2010 19:08, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Nazi Germany against the Allies.

Nah, more like Stalin against the Nazis. After all, I'm on Roid Rage's side when it comes to debunking CIT crap, but it's not like he's a real ally here.

 
At 04 February, 2010 19:09, Anonymous Ludwigf van Beethoven said...

"Wollt Ihr den totalen Krieg? Wollt Ihr ihn, wenn nötig, totaler und radikaler, als wir ihn uns heute überhaupt erst vorstellen können?"

"Freude, schöner Götterfunken
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische, dein Heiligtum!"

Heh, two can play at this game!

 
At 04 February, 2010 19:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To paraphrase Lord Palmerston: "There are no eternal allies, only eternal interests"

 
At 06 February, 2010 22:01, Blogger pomeroo said...

I just got banned by the CIT-heads. Craig tried debating me with the usual result:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1017&st=0

 
At 06 February, 2010 22:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jesus these people are dense. I don't understand what they think they're proving.
"THE GUBMINT LIED ABOUT THE TRAJECTORY OF THE JET, therefor Bush did 9/11"

 
At 07 February, 2010 12:43, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 February, 2010 12:46, Blogger pomeroo said...

I was having fun pulverizing Craig until I realized that I was doing little more than replicating the beat-downs I regularly handed him three years ago. Do our resident conspiracy liars understand that this fraud promised his dupes a "smoking gun" back in 2007? Can we agree that he hasn't produced one?

The gibberish spouted by Roosevelt Roberts is supposed to discredit, somehow, all the people who watched AA77 crash into the Pentagon. They are "actors," "agents," "shills," or whatever. When I asked the CIT-heads if Roberts really saw a commercial airliner head straight toward the Pentagon, then pull up at the last moment and fly over it, they jumped all over me for putting words in his mouth. The problem is that those words DEFINE a flyover witness. If Roberts does not make such a claim, in what coherent sense is he a witness to the imaginary flyover?

Conspiracy liars are the dumbest suckers on the planet. For emotional reasons, they are hopelessly wedded to a deranged fantasy. But even these simpletons must notice that Craig Ranke has not won a Pulitzer Prize for breaking the biggest story in the history of journalism. He is not rich and famous. Yet, he claims to have "proved" that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. I ask ad nauseam why he refuses to bring his rubbish to a real news outlet. He will not explain.

The question for conspiracy liars is a simple one: When does "stupid" finally become "too stupid"?

07 February, 2010 12:43

 
At 08 February, 2010 00:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ranke is definitely "too stupid". As with many of these people, it's hard to believe he's fallen for his own bullshit. There's some discussion going on at 911oz in the "fighting pit" with some Ranke and Balsamo shills (after Ranke and Balsamo chickened out and bailed).

 
At 05 March, 2010 12:59, Anonymous HunterofMoonbats said...

Question: Is anyone planning on making a movie to rip up C.I.T. like Screw Loser Change did to Avery and the gang? I really would love to see such an effort, especially as the Pentacon crap seems to be the new Loose Change of the twoofer movement. Even their gurus are starting to buy into the crap.

Ranke and Dildo really need a good schooling, I think. Those guys are just all shades of fucking creepy.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home