The Frustrating Fraud
February 3 2008
Note: This is the “despicable scumbag” summary version of the article; for those with more patience, see also my “Convoluted manipulative disinfo” version which explains all my points adequately.
While Citizen Investigation Team (CIT)’s original video The PentaCon had established the north-of-Citgo (NoC) flight path back to the Navy Annex, their follow-up video "Flight 77" The White Plane claims to further defy the official path with four more witnesses further back. Their main finding that all four seemed to agree on was that “the plane […] was white.” I’ve chosen to ignore that aspect for now and focus on where and how the witnesses said the white plane flew.
The flight path is anchored in the south by Jamal El Kournayti, who saw the plane over the Army-Navy county club’s driving range, placing the plane well south of the previous accounts. The path and location CIT drew for their video is accurate to what El Kournayti describes, and is the better part of a half-mile off the ‘official path,’ but with about the same heading. For the yellow path to work, the attack plane would have to connect to the path drawn by PentaCon witness Edward Paik over the Navy Annex NNE of Jamal. Both men should have reported a turn or at least the accompanying bank. But neither describes one in their account or is asked about it. El Kournayti’s gestures indicate a straight sweep across the sky on a bearing of about 65°. So somewhere between Jamal and Edward the plane would need to shift to the north and do all its turning. Hopefully there were witnesses in that space. The other three witnesses cited in The White Plane are three women who live in the 13th and Poe neighborhood, just southwest of the Navy Annex, and indeed between Edward and Jamal. Mrs. Hubbard was interviewed at her home; she declined to be videotaped and talks of an unseen flight path:
“It came right between these two houses […] I saw the tip of it going that way [...] It came this way. It came across here. And it went between the house with the gray roof […] and the big house. It pulled up so that it would miss those trees and then the next thing I saw was the puff of smoke.”
With no visual clues at all, the best I have to go on is that she saw the plane from her east-facing den window, and she “thought it had hit the highway,” meaning the raised curving portion of I-395 northeast of her. But CIT’s yellow composite squiggle passes entirely behind her house and out of view, even as she’s included as a witness to this path’s middle stretch. For her to see, it would have to curve at least somewhat to the east of her window, then almost due north to the corner of the Navy Annex, sharpening the turn to rendezvous with Paik’s line.
Witness Veronica saw the plane at her cousin’s house, and indicated an ENE direction of flight, which CIT ignore and focus on her cousin, Cindy Reyes. Reyes’ account is confusing for direction but seems to be primarily eastbound with some degree of north trend as well, since it was “at an angle.” Neither she nor Veronica mention or are asked about seeing any turn of the airplane or wing bank.
Both paths in this graphic agree on general distance from the window, but this double-corroborated testimony of Cindy and Veronica - straight and ENE - seems to more strongly support the purple line, which is in fact the precise “official path” of Flight 77. Among the 13th and Poe witnesses there are clearly no direct clues for the middle stretch of the yellow CIT squiggle, nor the associated turns and banks, and in fact some serious points against them. The Citizen Investigators tacitly admit this with statements like “there is no need to determine the exact placement of the plane or a flight path at all.” After the revolutionary flight path up north the issue of plane direction is clearly back-burner now.
Their basic approach is to ignore the directional clues of the 13th and Poe witnesses and instead “draw a line from where Jamal saw the plane to where the citgo witnesses saw the plane. […] That's what we did. That is scientific, logical, and the most accurate way to interpret this data.” They had to invent an unsubstantiated north deviation and two sharp banks no one reported seeing, and then have challenged myself and others to do the same; “think of all of their placements as being approximate and create the best estimation you can using ALL of their accounts. Go ahead, do it and show me what you come up with.” Okay so here are three versions with three different sets of assumptions, CIT’s swerve in yellow and the official path in purple for reference:
CIT has the gall to manipulate the data thus and then pretending a major discrepancy, offer false dichotomies like “if you believe the official story you have to accept that virtually all of [the witnesses] are completely lying. […] So do you trust real people or do you trust the government?” For those who they think have chosen the latter they have harsh words that fit their own method to a T:
“are you so sick and demented that [the CIT-presented witnesses] are just values in a logic equation? Do they represent actual witnesses and human beings who are scared about what they saw or are they just names and statements that you can play circle games with because you think you understand "logic"?”
1 comment:
Our detractors often lament about the fallibility of witness accounts in an effort to downplay the north side testimony. CIT has never denied that eyewitnesses are quite fallible as we have fully understood this fact throughout our investigation. This is exactly why the scientific process of independent corroboration is so important to us.
But now that this argument has ran it's course, ironically, CL has decided to go off "bileduct's" cue and surgically parse each word of every witness we present in an effort to cast doubt and twist the information to work with the official flight path even though this is impossible.
Let's make one thing crystal clear......CIT has NEVER expected any witness who wasn't directly underneath the plane to be able to relay an accurate flight path. Not even the citgo witnesses.
The reason being, due to perspective issues, if the plane was not directly over the top of the witness it would be very difficult to tell the exact location AND heading of the plane that they would have only seen for a second or two.
Edward Paik is the only witness we report who placed the plane directly over the top of him with Jamal having it almost directly above him.
This put Edward in the BEST position of any reported witness to be able to tell the location and heading of the plane without perspective issues. Particularly since he saw it on the approach coming from the direction of the same neighborhood where Cindy Reyes, Veronica, and Mrs. Hubbard all saw the plane.
For anyone else perspective issues would make it EXTREMELY difficult to be able to tell exact location and heading of a plane that they saw for a couple of seconds.
The only thing we expected them to be able to do is give an approximate position of the plane in relation to their location.
That has nothing to do with a "flight path".
We then took each approximate position of the plane from ALL the witnesses and we estimated our own approximate flight path based on that data with the full understanding that there would be a margin of error in each account as well as in our estimation.
Yes I had the citgo witnesses draw a flight path but it was merely to get something on paper showing where these critical witnesses place the plane in relation to the station which was the perfect reference point to their vantage as well as the beginning of the physical damage, the light poles. A true make or break situation for the official story.
Anyone else further back in the path did not have as critical of a vantage point since they could not see the Pentagon or the citgo at all. Because of this their placement of the plane was not make or break for the official story. All we should logically expect to get from any witness is an approximate location of the plane in relation to the property on which they were standing. We MUST consider perspective issues and speed of the plane would mean that any of them would likely mistake the plane as closer or further away than it really was. None of the "ladies of 13th and Poe" could accurately prove whether the plane could have or could not have caused the physical damage.
This is pure and simple common sense that I shouldn't have to explain but the intensified efforts by some to accuse us of "manipulating" the evidence necessitated this response.
So here is the synopsis.......
Jamal and Edward Paik have the strongest testimony as far as exact placement of the plane without perspective isses because both had a clear unobstructed view of the approach AND both were either virtually or directly underneath the plane.
There is no way to reconcile the official flight path with either of their accounts but their accounts are not irreconcilable with the less likely to be accurate 13th and Poe witnesses either. There is a lot of room for error in what we report but there is ZERO room for error in the official flight path due to the NTSB data and the physical damage.
Cindy, Veronica, and Mrs. Hubbard did not and could not see the plane on the approach at all and had the worst vantage to be able to accurately tell heading and location. Could their placement of the plane work with the physical damage or even potentially the FDR? Sure! But they must be reconciled with Jamal, Edward, and the NOC witnesses whose accounts can NOT work with the physical damage or the FDR. Plus they all thought the plane was white. Since their placement of the plane does not prove the official story correct OR wrong we found the fact that they all remember the plane as white to be more significant. There is nothing deceptive or manipulative in this.
So no matter how hard CL and Bileduct try to pick their testimony apart and expect pinpoint accuracy it doesn't matter. It is a sad desperate effort to dismiss ALL of the data or falsely accuse us of being deceptive.
So what is CL's point? He is desperately trying to suggest that the less likely to be accurate placements of the plane by Mrs Hubbard, Veronica, and Cindy support the official story and completely dismiss all of the more likely to be accurate placements of the plane by Jamal, Edward, Brooks, Lagasse, Turcios, and Boger.
But it doesn't work that way. You have to reconcile ALL of the evidence.
Jamal and Edward gave us the strongest points to establish the flight path and the citgo witnesses combined with the bank over the Navy Annex reported by Sean Boger not only prove them correct but also prove that 9/11 was an inside job.
This is an undeniable fact and nothing that any of the "ladies of 13th and Poe" claim contradicts this.
Post a Comment