More South of Citgo Witnesses Ignored by CIT

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover that the CIT-heads are full of it with regard to the account of Dawn Vignola.

At the time, there was only vacant land and buildings under construction in between their building and the Pentagon, and these did not obstruct their view of the heliport. Since then, shorter buildings have been built in that area, but they still can still clearly see the upper floors of the Pentagon. In person everything appears much larger and clearer than it does on the accompanying video; when the camera is zoomed in, it actually gives a better idea of how large everything appears in person. Dawn and Tim had a clear view of the impact side and the airspace over the Pentagon, and would have seen the plane fly over- or seen something else hit- if that had happened. In addition, Dan’s office across the Potomac River had a view of the airspace over the Pentagon; he was looking at it while on the phone with Dawn, and saw the black smoke rising, but did not see a plane flying over or away from the Pentagon.

Good job by Erik Larson, who is a "Truther", but is not delusional like the creeps from CIT.

What's Worse Than Debating the CIT-Heads?

Debating the CIT-heads and losing. John Bursill takes on Craig Ranke in a 2-1/2 hour slug-fest (in the sense that both debaters are slugs), and admits that he lost.

This is a debate no one else would have, so once again I get left carrying the bag:) By the way Craig will be viewed the winner (congratulations)....but I hope all are benefited by this sometimes painful process. I do not represent any others in this debate, and strongly defend the work of Michael Wolsey and Jim Hoffman et al as important and valid although I accept it could of been done better.

Adam Syed, a CIT-head himself, engages in a little victory dance at 9-11 Flogger, and reveals himself as a pinhead. For instance:

Craig explains his line of reasoning and uses one of Richard Gage's lecture points as an analogy. This lecture point concerns statistics and probability. With the controlled demolition proof: There are 10 (or more) characteristics of the 'collapses' that are characteristic to only controlled demolition. Gage makes the point that: Let's just say that ONE of those characteristics MIGHT have a (generous) 1 in 100 chance of occurring in a "natural" collapse without explosives. Well, for TWO of those characteristics to occur without CD would already be a 1 in 10,000 chance, meaning quite low indeed. But for ALL TEN of these features to occur without CD is 1 in 100^10 (more correctly spelled 1 x 10^20). In other words, zero, for all practical purposes.

Similarly, at the Pentagon we have 13 eyewitnesses who independently corroborate each other in placing the plane on the north side of the gas station. Of these 13, let's say there's a 1/100 chance of one of them being wrong. But the odds of two of them both being wrong about the plane's location w/r to Citgo is 1/10,000, etc. The probably that all 13 witnesses are wrong about the plane being on the north side is, for all practical purposes, zero.

So much nonsense in those two little paragraphs! Gage always ignores that there are many, many characteristics of controlled demolition that were not present at the World Trade Center. For starters, there were no loud explosions.

Second, there is no way that saying there is only a 1 in 100 chance of any individual North of Citgo witness being wrong is generous. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, which is why the essential message of every episode of CSI is that when the physical evidence contradicts the eyewitnesses, go with the physical evidence.

And playing the "what are the odds" game cuts against the CIT-heads anyway, as I pointed out months ago. Let's really be generous and say that the odds are 70% that each witness is right and 30% that he is wrong. Adam and Craig would like us to focus on the idea that the odds of them all being wrong are vanishingly small; 30% to the 14th power, which works out to be about 1 in 20 million.

But let's flip that around and ask, what are the odds that they are all right? That's 70% to the 14th power, which may not be vanishingly small, but it's about 0.6% or about 1 in 150. And that's before we get into questions like whether Edward Paik's flight path is significantly different than the "official story" or whether Officer Legasse was playing games with the Troofers.

Note as well this key point in Bursill's post:

Even though it was my understanding that all 13/14 witnesses CIT site believe a plane hit the Pentagon, Craig also now disputes this but would not be drawn on the number...

Of course Ranke disputes that, because if he admits it, his whole "what are the odds" game can be played against him. What are the odds that the eyewitnesses were wrong about the plane hitting the Pentagon? Obviously an order of magnitude or more lower than whether they're wrong about the plane's position vis-a-vis the Citgo station.

CIT-Heads Prove that Memories Are Vague After 7-1/2 Years

A laughable attempt by the CIT heads to claim that Lloyde admitted being in on the plot. Lloyde does seem to be a little off his rocker (like everybody else in the film); let's remember that in one of the videos, Craig and Aldo found a copy of a David Icke book in his cab.

Can we get some help from Stew or John-Michael on this one? Is this one of the crazy theories or is this something legitimate that requires debunking. I don't want to put any effort into this if our "rebunkers" are just going to say it's disinformation.

Update: Well, well. It turns out this got posted over at 9-11 Blogger despite Reprehensor's supposed ban on CIT theories and the response has been very positive. Perhaps it is time to remind Reprehensor why he initially banned CIT in the first place? It was comments like these from CIT groupie Domenic Dimaggio:

"Your support of government agent John Farmer and toilet scrubber Adam Larson and some obsessed clown named Arabesque exposes you for the gatekeeper you are Reprehensor. Let me guess you're just another anonymous clown in the gatekeeping world. Perhaps one of Randi's kids from the JREF Forum posing as a truther."

Well, At Least I'll Recognize the Others On the Scaffold...

The CIT posts photos of their "enemies" Of course, the CIT-heads, like seven year old boys, consider anybody who calls them idiots as "their enemies". Not, say, Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld or Condoleezza Rice. Not the mainstream media, who won't take up their "proof". Not Reprehensor, who banned their theories from 9-11 Blogger. Not Lloyd England, the taxi cab driver whom they have accused of being in on the plot after the fact.

Nope, their enemies are a couple of posters over at JREF and I. And to be fair, I probably don't merit inclusion. I've taken a couple looks at the Pentacon, but debunking that comes down to repeating one phrase over and over: When the physical evidence disagrees with the eyewitnesses, go with the physical evidence. Doesn't every episode of CSI drive that point home?

Why I Won't Be Appearing On Air America's Clout

Air America is doing a show on the "Pentagon Flyover" theory espoused by Craig Ranke, Rob Balsamo and others. I won't be appearing on the show, for several reasons:

1. I wasn't invited. No shock there; the last time a Truther invited me to be on a radio show was my debate with Jason Bermas on the Rob Bishop show, which garnered record ratings. Record ratings and no invite back? I'll take that as a compliment.

2. The Pentagon Flyover theories are so absurd that Reprehensor, who allows conspiracy theories about everything under the sun has decided to ban them at 9-11 Blogger, the flagship of the "Truthers".

3. One of the participants in the Air America debate will be Kevin "Hang 'Em High" Barrett. I have no intention of discussing anything with a Holocaust Denier.

4. I'll let Mark Roberts give the other reason:

I believe it is deeply unethical to broadcast and perpetuate the 9/11 claims of a few kooks, especially when these people have directly accused 9/11 victims, witnesses, and investigators of cowardice and lying. There is absolutely no justification for giving these people the attention they crave. It serves no rational cause. None.

Further, these people will never get the help they need if their fantasies and their disparaging of victims are encouraged. For that reason, I believe that giving them this attention is doubly unethical.

Amen. Be sure to read the entire post by Mark; he is truly an amazing individual.

Let me suggest something here to the Truthers in our audience, particularly those who disagree with the Pentagon Flyover theory, like Arabesque, Russ Pickering, and Adam of Caustic Logic. These folks are going to be on Air America tomorrow representing your movement. It is incumbent upon you to take on this mission. I don't care if Craig Ranke and Rob Balsamo become the new faces of 9-11 "Truth"; quite frankly that would represent progress to us.

The Two Dumbest Truthers?

Have got to be the yahoos behind the Citizen's Investigative Team, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis. They claim that poor taxicab driver Lloyd England, whose cab was damaged by one of the light poles hit by Flight 77, must be in on the plot. Why? Because what happened to him doesn't fit their idiotic theory of the flight path of Flight 77, which, in their fevered fantasies, didn't hit the Pentagon. It's a classic example of how data that doesn't fit a conspiracy liar's fantasy, does not result in a change in the theory; it becomes evidence of the coverup.

That they would accuse a tired old man of being part of the coverup (and yes, I see the figleaf question mark; note my figleaf question mark at the top as well) is just a sign of how desperate these kooks are.