ScootleRoyale Debate Thread

New user ScootleRoyale claims to have debunked CIT's research in this thread.

So go ahead Scoot, give us your your arguments and I will address them point by point.

This ought to be interesting.

I have two big problems ...

1) How could they pull of a flyover in broad daylight without anyone seeing when so many people would see such a distinct sight? Noone has explicitly described such a sight which is just absurd. Also the double tree hotel does not show a flyover. In my CIT Deception video I show what a flyover would sort of look like from the perspective of the doubletree camera.

2) How could they stage Lloyd's scene on an open busy highway in broad daylight without anyone seeing? Why have no witnesses come forward and said "i was driving up route 27 and I saw the dmaged taxi and the lightpole before the plane even hit" or whatever?

Thanks for replying Scoot, that's more than I can say for most of CIT's (mostly anonymous) detractors.

Already a misunderstanding.

People did report seeing a flyover. Search this forum for Roosevelt Roberts, Eric Dihle, Maria De la Cerda, or Dewitt Roseborough.

Eric Dihle's coworkers described how a "bomb had gone off and the jet kept on going". How is tha not an explicit description?

But setting aside these misunderstandings for a moment, understand that this entire "argument" is in fact a logical fallacy known as an argument for incredulity.

Your assumption that "people must have seen [and explicitly reported] a flyover" does not refute the evidence supporting a flyover. There are many plausible reasons why your assumption could be wrong, such as diverted attention from the fireball, temporary disorientation from the effects of the explosion (search the forum for "flashbang"), confusion or even (as Roosevelt Roberts expemplifies) fear of the implications of what they've witnessed. Again, these points address the hypothetical question of why people may have missed or failed to report a flyover. There certainly were flyover witnesses (see above list).

Assuming this is true (Aldo seems to think the "unknown object" at the top of the video may be the flyover plane), why would you accept evidence controlled by the suspect over independent witness testimony? If you think, as Hoffman apparently does, that the "FDR data" is manipulated data intended to throw the Truth movement off track, why do you suddenly accept government data when you believe it supports your own theories? Are you aware of the evidence that the Citgo video has been manipulated (see topic 8)?

Again, this is another argument from incredulity which does not refute the evidence of staging.

To answer the hypothetical question:

It was not a "busy highway".

The area was completely blocked off by Fbi (?) agents within minutes fo the crash.

So as far as people on the same road as Lloyde heading in the same direction, there were no one.

Across the median people were looking at the Pentagon (obviously, since it had just exploded). See: topic 7.

Don't you find in funny at all that Lloyde just happened to stop behind the only bush on that entire strech of road which just happens to obscure the cab in Ingersoll's pictures?

CIT has never stated that the cab was damaged before the explosion? Where did you hear this claim?

ScootleRoyale,

the two "biggest problems" you have with CIT do not refute the evidence that the plane flew on the north side of the Citgo gas station. Where is the debunking?

Yes you do. One is named Aldo and the other is named Craig.

Again, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". But, yes, we know people DID SEE the plane flying away. See Roosevelt Roberts, Erik Dihle's co-workers, and Dewitt Roseborough.

Stop it. Roosevelt Roberts described such a sight. Moreover, 13 eyewitnesses DID describe a plane on the north side of the gas station and will not retract this claim, even after learning of the implications. The implications: The plane cannot hit the light poles or the building.

Would sort of look like? Based on what?

1st of all, you really can't see anything definitive in that video and there are trees in the way. Some people do point out a fast moving object that keeps on going AT THE EXACT SAME TIME AS and AFTER the fireball. This is later blamed on being a truck, the jury is still out on this one IMO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eSkvV_r6DE

Second, do you really think they would show an unedited video of flyover/away??? We already have proof they removed 2 frames from each of the gate cam videos(2 frames that contain the flyover jet) and the object in the videos DOES NOT cast a shadow.

We've already noted this on our site:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/fa...rity_video.html

No shadow is cast on the ground:





As I said...two frames appear to be missing:


Most importantly, you forget the plane cannot even perform the official flight path and impact, based on the topography and the alleged black box data:



Don't be afraid to learn something and realize you are wrong, Scootle. Your arrogance in challenging us when you have done 0 research, compared to our exhaustive research is laughable. You should really start paying attention. I know the readers are.

Also covered on our site:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/fa...ight_poles.html

Again, Scootle, please pay attention. It was not a busy highway. Also most witnesses would have been staring at a burning Pentagon. Not paying attention to a damaged cab and a couple of suit and tie guys moving a pole making it look as though they are a getting it out of the way. Clearly the pole was moved, note the scratch in the asphalt leading from the base of the pole:
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/1.jpg

Also, one witness said that a man blocked off the highway leading up to Lloyd England's scene-which she also did not see:

Pentagon Attack Witness Jerri Davis from Citizen Investigation Team on Vimeo.

scottle,


i'm curious.

do you believe "104" people saw the plane hit the building?

if so then how do you explain "104" people missing the plane ripping light poles out the ground, one of them impaling a cab, and the plane leaving a trail of smoke on its approach when this all had to take place within a time frame of seconds?

why didn't boger inside the tower tell cit about the plane ripping light poles out of the ground?

why didn't any of the anc employees describe this?

how come when cit contacts someone who allegedly saw this they admit to cit they never actually saw the plane tear any light poles out of the ground they only deduced it after the fact like father mcgraw did?

again, where are the same people saying they saw the light pole impale an oncoming vehicle?

some duhbunkers try to write this off as trivial or incidental but if you were on the highway and a light pole was flying through the air and impaled an oncoming car this would be a very traumatic event to witness, one that one would clearly never forget.

where are all these witnesses?

why haven't any of them come forward?

The thing is, you don't really have any direct evidence that there was a flyover, its all circumstantial based on ur 'proof' of north of citgo ... and as Jim Hoffman notes in his google earth essay, so many people on the highways all around the pentagon would have heard the explosion, turned their head around and seen an unmistakeable image of a plane flying away from an explosion. There should have been loads of reports not just 2 or 3 second-hand vague reports that you guys are using as evidence.

A flyover would be clear on the doubletree... it would look something like this...



As for Lloyd... well the ingersoll image taken at 9:48 clearly shows his taxi ... so if it wasn't staged before the explosion they would only have 10 minutes after the explosion to stage the scene. Photos taken within a minute of the explosion by Steve Riskus show that aload of the people driving along route 27 stopped and got out of their cars ... how did they get the cab there with all these witnesses around? Did they just teleport it in?

Pilots for truth's math is very deceptive... they model the pull up from the dive as kind of a hockey stick shape... a straight diagonal line, followed by a sharp pull ... of course that will generate huge g forces. In reality it wouldnt be like that would it? It would be a much more gradual curve shape and the g forces would be much lower. They pulled the same trick some of your detractors pulled when trying to prove your north of citgo flight path impossible.

As for the witnesses... well the pnetagon witness accounts are notoriously broad-ranged, which isnt surprising considering they would have only seen the plane for a few seconds, and the moment of impact would have been the thing that stuck in their mind the most. In the united states false eyewitness testimony is the leading cause of wrongful conviction and there's a CBS sixty minutes special you can watch on youtube about a woman who misidentified her own rapist. Witness testimony is just generally unreliable. And thats all u guys really have. The root of ur theory is this north of citgo stuff u claim to have proven. With the rest its just "this MUST be true because the plane flew north of citgo" . Its a slippery slope. You haven't proven the plane flew north of citgo. Your 13 witnesses come together but they weren't the only 13, they were 13 of more than 100. And one of your witnesses put the lightpoles, the taxi and even himself in the wrong place, that shows u memory can be unreliable. You yourselves proved it when you interviewed Lloyd and he put himself the wrong place.

people did do that. since "a plane hit the pentagon" they were told they saw "another plane" or a "2nd plane"............


this whole "pentagon" thing is obviously new to you and people like jim hoffman and michael wolsey. what you guys need to bare in mind is that while people like you were going all over the 9/11 spectrum with a little knowledge about hijackers and a little knowledge about wargames and a little about whistelblowers and a lot about the world trade center there was a very tiny group of people who solely focused on the pentagon and shanksville.

instead of embracing these researchers and welcoming their work you and your ilk have decided to attack and attempt to discredit them because how could they know more about a 9/11 event than you?

you already know what happened at the pentagon and what happened in shanksville.

so if someone comes along and threatens what you've already "figured" out you feel the need to attack them. you are no different than the jref and slc morons you are trying to emulate with your 911 was an inside jobby job shirt and matching cape.

because of your actions i question your motives. this seems to be the most logical. that or you are "trying to make a name" for yourself because thats how pathetic your sad little life is like adam larson.

maybe its just you are incapable of understanding and comprehending this evidence. deep down i truly hope that it is the case. if so i will retract all my statements about you. but i dont suspect it is............

Genius, the north of the Citgo flight path is direct evidence. Unless you want to tell everyone how the plane hit the light poles, showed up low and level as seen in the gate cam video, and caused the directional damage to the Pentagon.
So you aren't even going to read or digest what we are showing you are you? You won't last long here with that Scootle.

First of all that is an argument from incredulity, just because there were witnesses to a plane flying after an explosion doesn't mean they would come forward or even know what they saw. Again, that is not a valid argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from...nal_incredulity

Stop minimizing and being so general. Roosevelt Roberts saw a plane flying away. A silver commercial airliner "just above the light poles" in south parking lot. I spoke with him Scootle. I clarified this, Scootle. Why are you scared to accept this, Scootle? You are calling Roosevelt Roberts vague? Scootle, I called him and spoke with him after the interview, he is sure of what he saw. Like many that day, he didn't realize what he saw.

Based on what Scootle? You know how high the plane was? You measured everything for scale? Just stop this, Scootle. You look silly.

Scootle, again that is an argument from incredulity and doesn't take away from evidence we have obtained one bit. You are looking at foreshortened pictures and assuming people in the northbound lanes can even see what is going on on that side of he highway. They can't. Go there. See for yourself. You also assume they woud he fixated on a cab with a busted windshield. They would not, they would be fixated on the burning pentagon, the streams of people coming out, teh triage set up, the fire, the smoke, the arriving fire crews.

Using your same mentality, "there should be someone who saw them pulling a 40 ft light pole out of his car".

It would be real easy for Lloyde or a handler to bust the windshield from the inside, pull it in with a crowbar as the plane flies over, say under the bridge. Then pull up on the highway and slowly move into position. Shirt and tie guys directing a cab to seemingly block the highway would not seem out of the ordinary.

Start using your PRE-9/11 mindset and not your conspiratorial one. What if someone did see them moving a pole? What then? What are they going to think? Are they going to feel the need to tell the media or the authorities. THINK Scooter.

First of all, you are using this "hockey stick" term because you heard some JR*Fer or the frustrated fraud say it right? Well they were referring to a free hand drawing Craig did. Not Pilots for 9/11 truth. The free hand drawing is based on the analysis of the DATA from the alleged black box from the NTSB and what the plane HAD TO DO in order to match with their BS story. Pilots for 9/11 Truth merely analyzed it. If you watched the link I provided you would see there is no "gradual curve shape"-it is their data, not ours.

I am trying to be cool with you, but your ignorance is kind of pissing me off. It's one thing to be wrong or misinformed, but you are arrogantly posturing about things you clearly don't understand.

Do you realize NO ONE -NO ONE- even considered matching their story against things like terrain/topography, obstacles. Don't you realize they got away with it for 5 years? They had start releasing data because people started to look into it and now they are being held to their word. The more they do this, the more they are committed to their lies.

Do you even know what you are talking about?

Try using a more realistic example. We are talking about a big ass plane doing a bank on the north side of the gas station. These witnesses are corroborated over and over from different vantage points-so they ARE reliable.

Scootle, I know you have a hero complex and you probably mean well, but you are way off base and look foolish.

A HUNDRED WHAT? Where? You just keep saying it. We have mapped all the witnesses and determined POV's and you seem to keep ignoring this. Why?

Here it is again:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82

He didn't place it in the wrong place because his memory is unreliable. He placed it there because he DID see poles on he ground close to the north path, he merely matched up the scene WITH WHERE HE SAW THE PLANE FLY.

What? Lloyde put himself in the wrong place because he was trying to match his story up with where the plane really flew.

Stop wasting everyone's time.

Are you going to confront the witnesses about the north side flight path and tell them they are wrong? Yes or no? If not, why?

Aldo,
Have you asked whoever made the simulations for your films if they would try their hand at one regarding the Doubletree video?

If it was, as some claim, a truck, then it should be possible to recreate that by simulating one travelling along the relevant road and placing the virtual camera at the point of the CCTV cam which captured the footage.

If this is not possible, then your argument would really start to gain some strength.

Also, has anyone tried mapping what speed the "truck" would have to have been travelling if that is what it is.

It's an interesting idea you're forwarding here, everything should be done to see if it can be ruled out, and if it can't, then you are on to something big.

Yes that would be nice. I will suggest it to Rob but I doubt he will have the time to do it.

I am glad you see what I see. The trees being in the way is convenient. They aren't placed in the video, these were genuine trees:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...wtopic=5316&hl=

What I consider a possibility is if that object IS the plane, then it obviously kept on going and then was edited into a truck on the other side of the trees.

This is based on one of Jim Hoffman's images from pretty much the same angle. I overlaid his image, lined it up, scaled it appropriately and removed everything but the plane to give a rough idea of what it would look like.



Obviously its not perfect, if u wanna do a better one be my guest. The point is the plane would be clearly visible in the video if it flew over... Not some tiny blur that could be mistaken as a truck or whatever. So either it didn't fly over or it flew over too high for the camera to catch... which just wouldnt be convincing.

Why do you trust a grainy govt controlled, sequestered, and provided security video from across the highway that has no view of the Pentagon, doesn't show a plane, and has a tree blocking the airspace of the flyover more than you do witnesses who were actually there and WATCHED what happened from up close?

The fact that you are so hell bent on using govt provided data as a means to argue in favor of the official narrative to DISCREDIT scores of witnesses who prove the official story false reveals your agenda.

At least we know where your priorities lie.

wow he actually came back?

the fact he doesnt even respond to anything aldo said to him. wow. what a shocker.

Of course there was a flyover at the Pentagon on 9/11 13 Credible Witnesses independantly confirm the north side flight path the plane was not on the south side of the pentagon no south side impact of flight 77 into the pentagon the witnesses prove this is FACT the debris was planted and also when commercial airliners with two large jet engines crash investigators will find two engines amongst the debris at the crash site.

At the pentagon only one engine was found inside the front of the pentagon not one the outside not on the lawn the engines from flight 77 if it hit the pentagon should have bounced of the pentagon wall with such a high speed impact into the pentagon
no second engine belonging to united flight 77 was ever found according to the evidence at the pentagon, there is no photo's of a second recovered engine at the pentagon there is no reports of two jet engines found at the pentagon.

So where did the other engine belonging to flight 77 go?

flight 77 did not impact the pentagon flying with one engine on one wing this is theoretically impossible, jet engines from commercial jetliners do not simple vanish without a very plausible explanation ALL THE EVIDENCE AT THE PENTAGON WAS PLANTED it was a staged flyover get over it ScootleRoyale and just spend your time here on this forum getting educated with the FACTS or maybe you should just make your way over to JREF forums and join the other funnies in deep denial of the
REAL evidence.

One day there will come a time when the world will finally learn and accept the truth about what happened on 9/11/2001.

And after that time people who insist on 9/11 being the work of 19 arab hijackers
will be taken away in a white ambulance with people in white suits and given very special care and attention.

OCT BELIEVER: "9/11 was the work of 19 arab hijackers, it was the work of OBL"

In a serious voice

PSYCHIATRIC NURSE 1: "Yeah Sure It Was And Everyone Believes You"

In a soft caring voice

OCT BELIEVER: "It was, it really was I am not crazy"

In a soft caring voice

PSYCHIATRIC NURSE 2: "Just come with us now, we want to help you"



JREFERS BETTER KEEP A LOOKOUT THE FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE'S FOR A BIG WHITE AMBULANCE COMING SOON IN THE NEAR FUTURE MR MACKEY