Your eyes do not deceive you! :)
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
The CIT faithful continue to do battle with the Truth Action folks. What I am constantly amazed at is the ability for Stefan, the CIT groupie, to rationalize the flyover theory. Consider this:
"The first thing I’d like to address is this notion that witnesses are more likely to get the flight path of the plane wrong than whether the plane hit the building.
It does not sound very likely to me, and I’m sure to a lot of people. The part of the experience from seeing the plane until the impact was in some cases 10-15 seconds. The point of “impact” was an instance. When virtually their entire eye witness experience involved watching a plane fly through the air, and just a split second of it involved a frightening and traumatic instant, I personally have no qualms whatsoever with saying the complete opposite is the case."
No, of course he has no qualms about that; without that leap of faith the CIT scenario crashes and burns.
"Arcterus said the North side approach is wrong, meaning he agrees that all the witnesses were wrong about a simple left right judgement, and that they were all wrong in such a way as to corroborate each other, and that they were all so stupid they rejected the correct flight path even when prompted with it."
Again, the supposed "fact" that all the witnesses agreed about the North Side approach and "corroborate" each other is actually a strong indication that CIT is not showing all their witnesses. Just on the basis of the odds, one or two of the witnesses should have gotten it "wrong"; the fact that they did not is a strong indication that CIT is playing games with their witnesses.
"1) Logically, there is no damage to the Pentagon that could be ascribed to a Boeing hitting from the NoC flight path. I know you have said there is, but come on mate, please. I realise that the notion that a plane from the SoC path could just could in a million to one shot cause that damage, is acceptable. It is not what you would expect and we all know that."
Is he seriously claiming that there's only a one-in-a-million chance that a SoC approach would cause that damage? Or is he suggesting that there's only a 1,000,000-1 chance that it was an SoC approach?
"2) There is no conceivable logical reason for faking one set of flight path damage, planting light poles and so on and then driving the plane into the Pentagon anyway."
He's right, you know. If we assume that the light pole evidence was faked, then it makes no sense to fly the plane into the Pentagon. And how does he know that the light pole evidence was faked? Because the plane didn't fly into the Pentagon. It's circular logic.
I also love that he claims to be just arguing this "evidence", but throws around ad hominems like frisbees:
"Arabesque is rapidly becoming a comedy show."
"Mistakenly thinking Arabesque was more honest than in fact he was...."
The CIT Virus