Who's the jitterbug?

Could you at least answer one question?

Why can't we see the tapes?!?! Its a slam dunk Frank, right? Why can't I see them?

I'm glad you found the ATS thread - I knew I could count on you to dredge up the now infamous BS post of CatHerder (fitting name eh?). Brings back fond memories of seeing 'all' <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> of the evidence and getting back to baseball and apple pie in the good ol' US of A. Nice to see that thread is still going strong - well kinda. Ya see the owners/admins of ATS have quelled any discussion of CATHERDER, but if you have the time to peruse the 282 pages of that thread, you might begin to find traces of good ol disinfo being outed.
Here is the original rebuttal of C...plausible, but certainly not conclusive (Original CatHerder article & pics included with Quinn's rebuttal notes in blue). A lot has happened since then as far as info gathering - mostly by way extensive eyewitness testimony - most of which can be found on thePentcon.com ...no need to go there just yet - we'll be looking at some of their work below.

A look into the owners/admins of the ATS board, and some speculation on CatHerder I believe it was sometime after this that someone on ATS did some more CatHerder digging and posted it to the thread. I don't know if its still there. Doubt it - read the above article, or search 'CatHerder' on ATS - negative discussion is censored by admins.


On to the cherry picking:

The most extensive collection of eyewitness accounts regarding the Pentagon crash.

Within this mile long list of 181 accounts, how many witness testimonies does one find claiming to having seen a plane clip the light posts? All 181? 175? 150? How about 100? How about 50? 25? 15? 10? 5? 4? 3? 2?...

One. 1/2 of 1% of the witness testimony corroborates (well no, it doesn't 'corroborate' as there is only one testimony) that an AA 757 (presumably) hit the light posts.

Now lets think critically for once shall we? The light posts are important because they would at least affirm that the 757 impacted the Pentagon from the direction of which the light posts were downed. Since nearly all of these quotes don't allow us to place the witness at their unique vantage point at the time, and the few that do exclude the possibility of their vantage confirming a precise location of the plane before impact, we have to narrow things down.

Lets look at what the Pentacon folk have done. In the video I'm about post Craig makes an important point: "Its the general details that get corraborated, that we know are the true ones...the more simple the claim the more likely it is to be true."

So what general detail can be gleaned from eyewitnesses that is specific enough to solicit a conclusion that: A) An AA 757 slammed into the Pentagon from the direction of the downed light poles. Or B) An AA 757 did not slam into the Pentagon from the direction of the downed light poles.?

If a 757 presumably slammed into the Pentagon from a clearly different direction - we have a problem with the light pole evidence. If the facts surrounding the light poles contradict the official claim - what other parts of the official account might have problems?

Since Frank doesn't review my links I'll put the short version: The CIT people have independently and unanimously corroborated by eyewitnesses closest to the impacted side of the Pentagon (literally across the street) that the jet (whatever it was) could not have downed the light poles.

These witnesses were the closest to the craft of any. Some of them actually felt the heat from the engines as it passed over.

So the 'simple claim' is this: The presumed 757 believed to have hit the Pentagon flew towards its target from a direction north of the Citgo Gas Station. If this can be verified - the light poles could not have been taken out by the alleged AA 757.



Fact: The planes placement North of the Citgo station is verified by ALL of the witness, independently and exhaustively interviewed:

Part 1 of the most recent eyewitness interviews.

Part 2

Article by interviewers

more interviews

What nut jobs eh Frank? I mean - our government said it didn't happen that way so of course these crazies are full of wack...and 'lies'.

Except now we have a problem with your lying, concealing, government Frank. You see that dam FOIA has done it again, and your incompetent gatekeepers have fallen prey again. Now, according to the FAA - the plane DID fly in north of the Citgo Gas Station, and completely void of hitting any of the downed poles - OOOOOOPS! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Official FAA animation of Flight 77... north of the Citgo, north of the poles.

Now what Frank? Care to straighten this all out for us? <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/scared.gif" alt="" />

What knocked down those poles?

..which is why, when you post unending lists of quotes from people within the government, and specifically government personnel in recovery of the crime scene <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> I just chuckle. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> The government telling me they've recovered remains from a plane that they also claim liquefied and disintegrated on impact as it pierced through its own 16 foot hole following the downing of 5 light poles that it clipped but didn't clip is just a little bit stupid in conjunction with claiming recovery personal exhumed bodies still strapped to the seats.

Got one of those seats for us to look at Frank? Can we put a name to this account? How about a coroner's report? Got a body you get a report right? Fact:

Now once again you conclude with the trusty character assasination of 'Phil don't know jack.'

I'm gonna continue to go easy on you Frank. I'm not even going to get into the other crime scenes - I'll stick with the Pentagon because we really aren't even scratching the surface yet. In fact I'm gonna give you heads up. We're gonna look more closely at some of these witness acounts. We're gonna look at the C-130, and where it was found next in our storyline of that day.

So quick - google! google fast! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />