Why Does The Citgo Video, contradict the North side claim?

See what I mean :D

Follow-up:

That is SPC, not space silly....SPC = statistical process control. And no, get it straight, I was a cop for 12 years before going back to college in the 90's for my mathematics degree. My video experience is law enforcement and process control related. And yes sir, I am now semi-retired doing part-time consulting.

I have no interest in this matter except sorting out evidence from lies and distortions, whether they be from the government or others (such as yourself).

Of course, Russell.. I mean John...I mean Russell...er I mean John.

Craig, post all his e-mail and correspondence with us.

Show everyone the countless e-mails he sent us "wackos" who are having "delusions of grandeur".

How many did we send him again Craig?

What did I tell you he would do Craig? Was I right or was I right?

Oh and funny how your latest article WAS titled:

"DC Area Flight Path Confirms North Approach - AA77" but you've taken that off and left the subheading of "NTSB FOIA Response (csv Documents) Summary"

What's the matter?

Are you mad that we haven't jumped on your disinfo bandwagon despite all the bait you've put out?

Your behavior has been so predictable it's almost funny.

Again Craig, you guys need to fact check, that is the P4T article title, not mine. The one you quoted for my site is my title :)

Why don't you answer the questions John?

Where is your source for this claim?

You have provided no evidence whatsoever.

Why should people assume you are a better source for this than the manager of the citgo station?

I know you will ignore everything because the truth is the LAST thing you care about.

You are all about sewing confusion, neutralizing the information, and now ultimately baseless personal attacks.

What's your reason?

Because I used one of your images!
:D

Unreal.

"John Farmer",

I would like a references on your expertise. I would like to see where you were a police officer, detective, engineer, and CCTV expert. Please provide your credentials.

Ok fine.

But you HAVE publicly come out in support of the north side claim.

Have you changed your mind or are you disingenuously ignoring the implications?

YOU came in this thread first and said that the flashes and shadows are not definitive with either flight path from your OWN analysis.

You say you believe Robert and support our work but now we are all of the sudden "wackos" because I used an image?

Yeah right.

That's why you publicly SUPPORT the north side claim from "multiple data sets" INCLUDING your shadow/flash analysis of the security video.

That's why YOU are making completely unsupported claims about the cameras being removed BEFORE 9/11.

Where is your evidence John?

Why are you accusing Barbara the citgo manager of lying about this with no evidence to back it up?

THAT is a lie just as claiming Robert is a government employee was one.

Then document it. Provide your credentials. If it is all true, it should all check out right?

Please provide your credentials.

Craig, I do see evidence for the north side claim. I also see evidence of the south side claim. Both could be correct, both could be incorrect. The fact is there is not enough evidence to be dogmatic about either.

And yes, Robert works for the Navy Exchange, which is operated by the Navy, which is why you had to have a permit to video at that location. Whether directly or indirectly he "works" for the government.

As far as my "evidence", it is in the video itself and is a far cry better than the absolutely NO evidence you guys put out in support of your claims.

This will be my last response to guys. If you want my credentials Aldo then you can visit the National Archives since they archived all of my stuff from last years TN District 8 congressional campaign. You could of course call Toppan Photomasks in Round Rock Texas and see if they will send you a copy of my employment history.

If you guys would spend a little less time attacking those working the evidence and a little more working the problem, then we might all benefit. Yet I think your worst nightmare might be that AA77 did indeed hit the Pentagon.

cue photo of the Sgt pointing to the sky from under the Citgo Canopy.

I smell a hasty departure here.

What happenned to this John?

You seemed quite dogmatic to simple pop in here to defend your image with smearing remarks for CIT.

edit: Response to below

You are now a loser 3 times over. Go back to your thread and read it again. Then go back to the other thread you chased me to and read it again. Then come back here and delete your stupid loser post.

Hey Coward...you going to explain your stupid accusation?

I bet it will be your last response.

I asked YOU for your credentials. Are you going to provide them, yes or no? Just click the little PM button.

So transparent.

WE haven't provided evidence??

You mean the same non-evidence that you have repeatedly proclaimed support for and praised us for?

Robert is a CIVILIAN.

He is not a government employee.

But you have no problem once again spewing junk info and bailing the discussion.

You can NOT support your lie that the cameras were removed prior to 9/11 and you had no intentions of it.

Pickering proved otherwise liar.

Everyone,

This is a classic example of what a disinfo agent does.

If you read his "blue collar republican" blogs you will see how confusing and inconclusive they really are.

He has weaseled his way into PFT and tried his damndest to weasel his way into CIT by sucking up to us, proclaiming his support for our work etc.

I had a friendly conversation on the phone with him once for about an hour (recorded) and he has included us in dozens of emails with mostly useless information he has obtained.

It's clear now that all of this was a failed effort to gain our confidence.

We have pretty much rejected him from day one primarily because he posts junk info.

Read his blogs and you will see it for yourself. He simply authoritatively makes claims with little to no evidence while creating the impression he is a researched expert that we should all listen to.

Now that he is trying to push that these cameras were removed BEFORE 9/11 with nothing to back up his claim when the manager says differently it's quite clear.

He has proclaimed that he accepts the citgo witnesses as genuine (and accurate about the north side claim) but continues to cast doubt here by suggesting it's an issue that they are "government" employees.

He has revealed his agenda with this hollow personal attack laced with name calling based on the completely harmless fact that we used one of his images!

And based on the completely fabricated LIE that the cameras were removed BEFORE 9/11.

He is lying.

This will be evident because he will ignore my requests for him back up this claim as he has already stated he would no longer reply.

All he wants to do is cast doubt on us because that's his job.

And then he will disappear into oblivion.

Blue collar republican my ass. What a generically transparent cover.

Wow, talk about trying to neutralize. It's over, "John". The plane was on the north side. Our evidence is when those cops and Robert confidently and matter of factly pointed to the north side.

No fears whatsoever.

We know what people told us. We've documented it. We're not some faceless guy who popped up out of nowhere who makes claims, and yet provides no video interviews and only backs up the gov't official story, while trying to blend in with the herd. Sheep...wolf's clothing. You went to Arlington right John? Where are your interviews? Where is your documentation that the camera was removed PRIOR to 9/11?

Did you know we spoke with two other PUBLISHED witnesses who confirm the bank and the north side approach? One EXPLICITLY asserts it was not and did not look like an AA? No one saw another plane on the south side flight path. So who is doing real investigative work and who is muddying the waters???????

UnderTow, don't worry about it. I'm joining the ranks of others who no longer want anything to do with the "truth movement". Think what you want to think, and make your own judgements. I'm not going to repeat analysis I've already completed and you can read it for yourself, draw your own conclusions.

The problem some seem to have is accepting as "fact" evidence that supports their theory and dismissing anything that does not. Since I have no pet theory I have nothing to lose in evaluation of it all from an objective veiwpoint. Quite the contrary, I have everything to gain, and that is understanding what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.

I did not come in here to defend my image, but rather to express my contempt for Craig and Aldo and their using it out-of-context to support their insanity. But I will no further comment on my work in these forums. Anyone interested can read it and take it for what it is worth. Yet the fact remains that the three Citgo witnesses have so many "holes" in their accounts that they are conclusive of nothing, except they saw a plane (one saw a United plane, one saw an American Airlines plane, the other a grey plane). One could not even point to the location of the downed poles and insisted they were somewhere else. One said he saw the plane as he pulled out of the Citgo lot and then parked, got out of his car and watched it come in. Rather hard to do in 4 seconds.

There is evidence that they saw something on the north side of the station, but what was it? Too many loose ends and until they are resolved or supported they are nothing more than interesting observations worth further study.

What happenned to this John?

If you were mistaken, just say so. Big deal, you've nothing to lose.
I don't recall seeing any analysis that could lead to this conclusion. Does anyone else?

Seems clear enough. contempt, silliness, wacko's, and insanity.

You've could've just emailed them I suppose. But your point here is definitely muddy.

Same old lame hollow points that all the detractors make but even MORE hollow coming from someone who has publicly SUPPORTED our work!

The contradictions/hypocrisy are insane.

This guy is all over the map.

1. The color of the plane would be the most difficult detail to see/remember and the fact that fallible yet genuine witnesses vary in this regard has NOTHING to do with the CORROBORATED north side claim.

2. LAGASSE DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES so naturally he would assume they lined up with where he saw the plane. It is a perfectly natural deduction and does NOTHING to discredit him in general or discount the corroborated north side claim.

3. Whether or not Brooks naturally extended the length of his experience a bit it does not change the fact that he was there and saw the plane on the north side LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DID.

In the past you spoke about these MINOR and IRRELEVANT deductions/mistakes as examples demonstrating how they are GENUINE witnesses who "were not coached".

My how you have all the sudden completely changed your tune as you attack their (and our) credibility.

There is evidence they saw "something" on the north side?

And what could that be John? A missile? A global hawk? They all describe a passenger jet airliner. The fact that they differ in color is incredibly minor and EXPECTED from honest genuine witnesses and you know it.

Listen to you dance as you simultaneously attack them while trying to cover for how much you have already claimed you believe them.

Confusion, neutralization, attempts to infiltrate, and finally attack.

You are at the last stage now because we refused to accept your obvious BS and you know we are gaining serious ground.

While you slobber over government supplied and vetted info we are getting REAL data and answers and it clearly threatens you.

You must have gotten yelled at by your handler today or something causing you to move into "attack" mode.