How do you believe CIT has altered the "meaning of the words of eye witness testimonies"?
We already talked about Morin and his "I was inside" vs. "collision memorial" argument.
Another example is Sucherman:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3457944/2/I will just copy some older posts here:
The CIT production
"The USA Today Parade (featuring Joel Sucherman & Mike Walter)" includes the following interview:
Joel Sucherman: I was a little later getting into work than I normally would and the traffic for that time in the morning was heavier than usual. It was after ... the traditional morning rush hour. And I just get off the phone with my wife telling her, you know, the ... complain about the
bumper to bumper traffic.
First, the CIT placement of the witnesses shows anything but a "bumper to bumper" traffic and places Joel Sucherman at the end of the row.
Ranke: Can I ask you a question about that? You say it was heavier than usual for that time. Do you remember or recall a specific reason? Was there an accident or a blocking traffic as a result of something?Joel Sucherman: No, it didn't appear that there was anything in particular was going on. It just seemed a higher volume of traffic than usual for that late morning. It was after 9:00 o'clock.(fade)
Ranke: At this point you were on route 27?Joel Sucherman: Yes, that's correct. And I came out from underneath the underpass. And so if you come out from under there you have to rise up to a hill. And that's where you get the view of the Pentagon up to the east, up to the right.Ranke: OK, you said your field of vision to the left was simply from across the left to the right of your windshield. Is it correct?Joel Sucherman: Not exactly. I saw it coming across my windshield but then certainly the passenger window of the vehicle...
I had a clear view of the Pentagon. I would say the Pentagon is at 2 o'clock from me in my car. So I see it coming across my windshield and then I looked outside the side passenger window and thats where I see the collision with the Pentagon.Ranke: So did you see it impact or were there trees in the way?Joel Sucherman: No, there were no trees at this point in the way at all. I did see it impact.Ranke: You did see it impact, OK.Joel Sucherman: Yes.Now, CIT starts to manipulate the presented information:
First, they show some trees on 9/11 right of the boulevard...
...stating that these trees must have blocked the view of Sucherman.
The presented image states "Pentagon at 2:00" but obviously it was shot
1) through the windshield
2) from below the underpass
3) from the left lane but nevertheless
4) the angle describes 12:30 at best
And of course they omit the "hill" statement even if the bridge is the only one hill anywhere around that could open the view.
So instead of any correction to their bogus witness placement...
...they cites Mike Walter who admitted a blocked view by some trees.
One has to ask if this brainwashing sh** is the work of some minor intelligent and bad educated people who try to "investigate" something or if it is a deliberate act of manipulation by well educated people who learned how to do it. For what reason? Obviously CIT has not the slightest doubt into the "100%" statement of Lagasse and Brooks, two Pentagon Police employees with some really strange behavior right in the seconds during and after the attack. No, their investigation started exactly there: Paik, Turcios, Lagasse, Brooks in 2006. (I will come back to this point later.)
Finally they use their key witness for the trees Mike Walter to present him also as a liar but out of context...
Mike Walter: When something hits a concrete structure like that - you know - this believe that the wings would going in is just ridiculous. Obviously Mike Walter talks about something he learned in the years after the attacks. He repeats exactly one theory of forward kinking wings that was discussed a lot to explain the "too small" impact hole. CIT presents his statement as some "new recollection" after he admitted that trees blocked his view. Do CIT dismantle their own key witness? They have to because they also like to prove some complicit ABC journalist parade next to the flightpath.
So according to CIT some ABC boss told the journalists to go there and stop to wait for a plane or whatsoever? ...and brave Mary Ann Owens took the first row in the line without shooting some photographs because the plane flew over the Pentagon. Well, that's a [big][big]
big movie[/big][/big]!
Nevertheless, the theory of forward folding wings is wrong to explain the small hole because
1) the fuselage disintegrated too fast to cause any significant forwards folding of the backwards angled wings
2) the cockpit would have to stop until the long wings reached some fitting angle.
So that is obviously not what Mike Walter witnessed but learned from the discussion about that topic.
The passage through the lamp posts requires the plane going this way trough it. The animation shows the plane with 5° upwards flexing wings. That's what we learned from the WTC attacks.
Tracking this path to the impact we get exactly the position where the wings should hit the building.
Did the plane bank away from the building? No. The generator acted like a ramp and pushed the starboard wing upwards.
