Question

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Question; National Security Alert
Topic Started: Jul 2 2009, 12:07 PM (324 Views)
KenyonG	Jul 2 2009, 12:07 PM Post #1
Posts: 113 Group: Skeptics Member #1,215 Joined: 06/15/09	When Robert T says that the plane pulled up to avoid the highway road sign, does he mean that it continued in an upward trajectory? I always thought that he meant that it pulled up to avoid the sign but went back down after it cleared it. This would be a very signigicant detail to know. He is never asked that question. The narrator gives the impression that this proves or supports a flyover, but I don't think it does. Why not do follow through questions to get a complete picture. It seems that the questions only go far enough to get the part that the interviewer wants to hear. All of the witnesses are never asked about the impact. Some may differ with the interviewer categorically saying none of them could see the impact so they deduced it. Some of them have said they saw the impact. If they were testifying in a trial, they would be asked about every aspect of what they witnessed. The jury deserves to get the complete picture and evaluate if this is a credible witness. Stopping you questions at the details you may be interested in only give a part of the whole account. You can't testify for them as to what they saw and didn't see. I haven't even talked about other witnesses who are not in your video, who will contradict these witnesses on the impact and other details. For instance, the fact that Lagasse says both impact and noc are true, would discredit him, if both can not be true. It doesn't mean he's malicious or anything, it just proves that he is inaccurate and will lead some to not trust his judgement.



Aldo Marquis CIT	Jul 2 2009, 12:27 PM Post #2
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Well I don't think you understand the first problem with the plane approaching on the north side of the gas station in the first place. You should read this: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-can_north_side_plane_hit.html Secondly, Robert describes a very drastic ascent with his hand. He also describes it happening over the do-not-enter sign. You do understand the plane is supposed to be low and level, in a slight nose down attitude over the bridge at this point right? I don't see how anyone can even conceive of the plane going nose down to slip into the first floor at the speed it would have been traveling, as unknown as that factor may be. Besides the issue regarding directional damage ou also have to account for: -The low and level thingy seen in the surveillance video -Roosevelt Roberts Jr seeing the plane fly away -The FDR heading in the NTSB data require a south of the Citgo plane, it was on the north side, this means the data is fraudelant and did not come from a plane that pulled up and then went down into tht Pentagon -The staged light poles that also point towards flyover. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Jul 2 2009, 12:29 PM.
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Jul 2 2009, 12:58 PM Post #3
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	KenyonG Jul 2 2009, 12:07 PM For instance, the fact that Lagasse says both impact and noc are true, would discredit him, if both can not be true. It doesn't mean he's malicious or anything, it just proves that he is inaccurate and will lead some to not trust his judgement. I didn't even read your whole post. This is bullshit. Lagasse was fooled. He was sure about the north side, he admitted not seeing what the plane did because of the fireball. Lagasse was corroborated by 12 other people. What are you not getting? The event was designed to fool people. He was fooled. He confirmed the north side approach. What are you not getting?
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Miragememories	Jul 2 2009, 01:13 PM Post #4
Posts: 756 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	kenyonG "For instance, the fact that Lagasse says both impact and noc are true, would discredit him, if both can not be true. It doesn't mean he's malicious or anything, it just proves that he is inaccurate and will lead some to not trust his judgement." Instead of asking others to educate you on a subject which has been covered at great length here, I suggest you do your own homework and also read the thread below KenyonG; http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/1288804/8/#new MM
Posts: 756 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


KenyonG	Jul 2 2009, 02:01 PM Post #5
Posts: 113 Group: Skeptics Member #1,215 Joined: 06/15/09	Aldo Marquis CIT Jul 2 2009, 12:58 PM KenyonG Jul 2 2009, 12:07 PM For instance, the fact that Lagasse says both impact and noc are true, would discredit him, if both can not be true. It doesn't mean he's malicious or anything, it just proves that he is inaccurate and will lead some to not trust his judgement. I didn't even read your whole post. This is bullshit. Lagasse was fooled. He was sure about the north side, he admitted not seeing what the plane did because of the fireball. Lagasse was corroborated by 12 other people. What are you not getting? The event was designed to fool people. He was fooled. He confirmed the north side approach. What are you not getting? Of course you don't have a clue as to how they were fooled, but they HAD TO BE in order for noc to be true? If Robert T was saying that the pull up over the pentagon started at the highway sign, how could it appear to hit the building? Most people would see a plane flying up and away from the pentagon, if it started ascending at the highway. I think it would have been better if you asked him more details. He said it pulled up to miss the sign, which implies that it didn't pull up to fly over the pentagon, but to miss an obstacle on its way to the pentagon. That is why the next question should have been, "did it continue to ascend or did it dip back down after it cleared the sign". If I am not mistaken he believes the plane hit the pentagon. If it pulled up at the highway, why would he believe it hit the pentagon? He could clearly see the roof of the pentagon, so if the plane flew over he should have seen it. If he says that he didn't see the impact, because he couldn't see the base of the pentagon, then the plane had to go near the base and had to impact. He saw the plane right before the explosion? Why not ask him where the plane was right before the explosion? Was it flying towards the roof or towards the base?



KenyonG	Jul 2 2009, 02:02 PM Post #6
Posts: 113 Group: Skeptics Member #1,215 Joined: 06/15/09	Miragememories Jul 2 2009, 01:13 PM kenyonG "For instance, the fact that Lagasse says both impact and noc are true, would discredit him, if both can not be true. It doesn't mean he's malicious or anything, it just proves that he is inaccurate and will lead some to not trust his judgement." Instead of asking others to educate you on a subject which has been covered at great length here, I suggest you do your own homework and also read the thread below KenyonG; http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/1288804/8/#new MM I just watched this presentation, so I had some questions.



ToS	Jul 2 2009, 02:12 PM Post #7
Posts: 210 Group: Members Member #1,213 Joined: 06/11/09	KenyonG Jul 2 2009, 12:07 PM I always thought that he meant that it pulled up to avoid the sign but went back down after it cleared it. You really think a 757 at 580mph could do that in that short distance?
Posts: 210 Group: Members Member #1,213 Joined: 06/11/09


Aldo Marquis CIT	Jul 2 2009, 02:30 PM Post #8
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	KenyonG Jul 2 2009, 02:01 PM Quote: Of course you don't have a clue as to how they were fooled, but they HAD TO BE in order for noc to be true? Don't put words in my mouth. I do have a clue, actually. NoC is true no matter how you try your funky little lawyerspeak tactics. This is a military psy-op deception, keep it in perspective. Quote: If Robert T was saying that the pull up over the pentagon started at the highway sign, how could it appear to hit the building? Hmmmmm, gee. Well maybe that huge fireball had something to do with that. Quote: Most people would see a plane flying up and away from the pentagon, if it started ascending at the highway. You're right, depending on where they were located......oh and whether they dropped to the ground, covered up, shielded themselves. And some I am sure were confused but assumed it hit anyway, like Maria De La Cerda, who was puzzled by the "side impact", because she thought it hit "on top" or "on the other side". Quote: I think it would have been better if you asked him more details. He said it pulled up to miss the sign, which implies that it didn't pull up to fly over the pentagon, but to miss an obstacle on its way to the pentagon. That is why the next question should have been, "did it continue to ascend or did it dip back down after it cleared the sign". I am not sure why the hell you would believe that or why would we would have to ask, if it is on the north side of the Citgo and if it pulled up, IT DID NOT "dip back down after it cleared the sign" the only thing it could have done was fly over or away from the building. But you, Kenyon, my skeptical little friend, are more than welcome to take your anonymous self down to Arlington to ask him yourself. Quote: If I am not mistaken he believes the plane hit the pentagon. If it pulled up at the highway, why would he believe it hit the pentagon? You are mistaken. In the video, at the time he was filmed, on that day, he BELIEVED the plane hit the Pentagon. He also did not believe it was an American Airlines and he claimed to know what one looked like. Quote: He could clearly see the roof of the pentagon, so if the plane flew over he should have seen it. Really? You know that how? From watching the interview of him? You know how big that fireball was from his perspective?Hmmmmmm? You know he didn't drop to the ground below the mound right at flash bang moment then looked up after the fireball began to develop? You know that for a fact? Quote: If he says that he didn't see the impact, because he couldn't see the base of the pentagon, then the plane had to go near the base and had to impact. He also could be deducing this detail because the event happened so fast and saw the later damage from the aftermath, which would be obscured from the view point of the Citgo. Quote: He saw the plane right before the explosion? Why not ask him where the plane was right before the explosion? Was it flying towards the roof or towards the base? I don't know, didn't I explain it enough to you? NoC=flyover, NoC + witnessed pull-up ascent REALLY=flyover
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Jul 2 2009, 02:31 PM Post #9
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	ToS Jul 2 2009, 02:12 PM KenyonG Jul 2 2009, 12:07 PM I always thought that he meant that it pulled up to avoid the sign but went back down after it cleared it. You really think a 757 at 580mph could do that in that short distance? Wasn't going that fast.
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Jul 2 2009, 02:31 PM Post #10
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-can_north_side_plane_hit.html Just read it.
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


tuatara	Jul 2 2009, 03:24 PM Post #11
Posts: 194 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09	Knew we could rely on you KenyonG. Why don't you start from the lightpoles? All of the people interviewed on the film describe a flightpath where the plane wasn't even near the lightpoles. Only one person describes the plane hitting the lightpoles (the cab driver Lloyd England). That would seem to be a problem for the official account of 9/11. Please explain to me why the cab driver's account is accurate (even though uncorroborated by anybody) and all of the eyewitnesses in NSA are all incorrect in a very similar way?
Posts: 194 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09


KenyonG	Jul 2 2009, 07:51 PM Post #12
Posts: 113 Group: Skeptics Member #1,215 Joined: 06/15/09	tuatara Jul 2 2009, 03:24 PM Knew we could rely on you KenyonG. Why don't you start from the lightpoles? All of the people interviewed on the film describe a flightpath where the plane wasn't even near the lightpoles. Only one person describes the plane hitting the lightpoles (the cab driver Lloyd England). That would seem to be a problem for the official account of 9/11. Please explain to me why the cab driver's account is accurate (even though uncorroborated by anybody) and all of the eyewitnesses in NSA are all incorrect in a very similar way? I think we need to focus on why no questions about the impact or why they believed it impacted the pentagon. Craig can't answer for them. They need to be on record so that we can truly evaluate what they think they saw. In order to say they deduced or was fooled, we need to know what they saw that caused them to deduce. It will give more info into this person and whether he is credible. If someone says that it flew noc and impacted, that person looses credibility if they both can't be true. You can't trust their judgement, if they insist both are true.



JFK	Jul 2 2009, 08:31 PM Post #13
Posts: 4,164 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Well the official story has already lost all credibility whether the plane impacted or not as the official story has the plane taking out the light poles, which no witnesses observed including Lloyde England. So that in and of itself justifies a new open and independent investigation as it proves that the government can not be trusted. Edited by JFK, Jul 2 2009, 08:31 PM.
Posts: 4,164 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


BoneZ	Jul 3 2009, 10:30 AM Post #14
Posts: 720 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08	KenyonG He said it pulled up to miss the sign, which implies that it didn't pull up to fly over the pentagon, but to miss an obstacle on its way to the pentagon. You obviously have no concept of how planes handle. It is impossible to pull up to miss a sign only a couple/few hundred meters from the Pentagon, then make the aircraft perfectly level and hit the Pentagon. Remember, the alleged plane came across the highway and lawn perfectly level as depicted in the DoD video: You can't pull up over the sign in front of the Pentagon, and do the above in the video at the same time. That means somebody is lying. Would it be the witnesses that have nothing to gain, or the government which had everything to gain, i.e. the huge injection of military funding and multiple wars? KenyonG I think we need to focus on why no questions about the impact or why they believed it impacted the pentagon. Craig can't answer for them. They need to be on record so that we can truly evaluate what they think they saw. Then what you can do is get off your ass and contact these witnesses yourself and ask them the questions you want to ask them. Make sure you get it recorded because nobody will just take your word for it.
Posts: 720 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08


JFK	Jul 3 2009, 10:50 AM Post #15
Posts: 4,164 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	BoneZ Jul 3 2009, 10:30 AM KenyonG I think we need to focus on why no questions about the impact or why they believed it impacted the pentagon. Craig can't answer for them. They need to be on record so that we can truly evaluate what they think they saw. Then what you can do is get off your ass and contact these witnesses yourself and ask them the questions you want to ask them. Make sure you get it recorded because nobody will just take your word for it. Yes indeed KenyonG, especially since you are half the distance from the Pentagon than Craig or Aldo is. Edited by JFK, Jul 3 2009, 10:51 AM.
Posts: 4,164 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


ULTIMA1	Jul 3 2009, 11:45 AM Post #16
Posts: 183 Group: Members Member #1,188 Joined: 05/26/09	Last time we had a group ready to go to Shankesville to talk to the Flight 93 witnesses the people that still believe the official story did not want to go because they do not want to know the truth.
Posts: 183 Group: Members Member #1,188 Joined: 05/26/09


Domenick DiMaggio	Jul 4 2009, 09:58 PM Post #17
Posts: 1,978 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Jul 2 2009, 02:31 PM ToS Jul 2 2009, 02:12 PM KenyonG Jul 2 2009, 12:07 PM I always thought that he meant that it pulled up to avoid the sign but went back down after it cleared it. You really think a 757 at 580mph could do that in that short distance? Wasn't going that fast. but it is if your kenyong with that oct gripped tighter than a rosary.....
Posts: 1,978 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


KenyonG	Jul 5 2009, 12:57 PM Post #18
Posts: 113 Group: Skeptics Member #1,215 Joined: 06/15/09	JFK Jul 2 2009, 08:31 PM Well the official story has already lost all credibility whether the plane impacted or not as the official story has the plane taking out the light poles, which no witnesses observed including Lloyde England. So that in and of itself justifies a new open and independent investigation as it proves that the government can not be trusted. At some point you will need to address how everyone was fooled. Talking to YOUR wintesses about what they witnessed at impact and after will help you to see how they pulled that off. You can't go around just saying they were fooled. 'They' do not have supernatural powers. If they fooled EVERYONE, then there has to be some evidence of that. CIT keeps saying Sean B saw A PLANE flying over the south parking lot. What plane did he see, if any? You can't go to court with, it HAD to be the decoy plane. You need some evidence that the plane he may have seen is the plane many witnesses saw racing towards the pentagon. Did anyone else see this plane? Why did you not ask any of YOUR witnesses about the engine roar that morning? That large plane fying that low would have been heard by many. It would have been very loud. Did the engine roar stop with the explosion? Did it continue after the explosion? If the plane flew past that low and fast, it would have been screaming.



JFK	Jul 5 2009, 01:35 PM Post #19
Posts: 4,164 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	KenyonG Jul 5 2009, 12:57 PM JFK Jul 2 2009, 08:31 PM Well the official story has already lost all credibility whether the plane impacted or not as the official story has the plane taking out the light poles, which no witnesses observed including Lloyde England. So that in and of itself justifies a new open and independent investigation as it proves that the government can not be trusted. At some point you will need to address how everyone was fooled. Talking to YOUR wintesses about what they witnessed at impact and after will help you to see how they pulled that off. You can't go around just saying they were fooled. 'They' do not have supernatural powers. If they fooled EVERYONE, then there has to be some evidence of that. CIT keeps saying Sean B saw A PLANE flying over the south parking lot. What plane did he see, if any? You can't go to court with, it HAD to be the decoy plane. You need some evidence that the plane he may have seen is the plane many witnesses saw racing towards the pentagon. Did anyone else see this plane? Why did you not ask any of YOUR witnesses about the engine roar that morning? That large plane fying that low would have been heard by many. It would have been very loud. Did the engine roar stop with the explosion? Did it continue after the explosion? If the plane flew past that low and fast, it would have been screaming. I believe YOU have mistaken ME for someone else. Why don't YOU go find YOUR own witnesses and record them ? After all YOU are half the distance from the Pentagon than CIT are.
Posts: 4,164 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


tuatara	Jul 5 2009, 08:23 PM Post #20
Posts: 194 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09	KenyonG Jul 2 2009, 07:51 PM tuatara Jul 2 2009, 03:24 PM Knew we could rely on you KenyonG. Why don't you start from the lightpoles? All of the people interviewed on the film describe a flightpath where the plane wasn't even near the lightpoles. Only one person describes the plane hitting the lightpoles (the cab driver Lloyd England). That would seem to be a problem for the official account of 9/11. Please explain to me why the cab driver's account is accurate (even though uncorroborated by anybody) and all of the eyewitnesses in NSA are all incorrect in a very similar way? I think we need to focus on why no questions about the impact or why they believed it impacted the pentagon. Craig can't answer for them. They need to be on record so that we can truly evaluate what they think they saw. In order to say they deduced or was fooled, we need to know what they saw that caused them to deduce. It will give more info into this person and whether he is credible. If someone says that it flew noc and impacted, that person looses credibility if they both can't be true. You can't trust their judgement, if they insist both are true. Is that what we need to focus on? How about focussing on the flightpath of the plane first? That would seem to be the easiest part of a witness statement to quantify - you know left or right? We seem to have reached double figures of eye-witnesses who were in a position to observe the plane as it approached the Pentagon. All of them agree the plane was to the north of the Citgo station (NOC). All of them. Not a single dissenter. That would seem to indicate a pattern. Now as you know, for the plane to hit the lightpoles it has to have been south of the Citgo station (SOC). Yet none of them see it SOC. All of them see it NOC. 100%.
Posts: 194 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09


KenyonG	Jul 6 2009, 10:54 AM Post #21
Posts: 113 Group: Skeptics Member #1,215 Joined: 06/15/09	tuatara Jul 5 2009, 08:23 PM KenyonG Jul 2 2009, 07:51 PM tuatara Jul 2 2009, 03:24 PM Knew we could rely on you KenyonG. Why don't you start from the lightpoles? All of the people interviewed on the film describe a flightpath where the plane wasn't even near the lightpoles. Only one person describes the plane hitting the lightpoles (the cab driver Lloyd England). That would seem to be a problem for the official account of 9/11. Please explain to me why the cab driver's account is accurate (even though uncorroborated by anybody) and all of the eyewitnesses in NSA are all incorrect in a very similar way? I think we need to focus on why no questions about the impact or why they believed it impacted the pentagon. Craig can't answer for them. They need to be on record so that we can truly evaluate what they think they saw. In order to say they deduced or was fooled, we need to know what they saw that caused them to deduce. It will give more info into this person and whether he is credible. If someone says that it flew noc and impacted, that person looses credibility if they both can't be true. You can't trust their judgement, if they insist both are true. Is that what we need to focus on? How about focussing on the flightpath of the plane first? That would seem to be the easiest part of a witness statement to quantify - you know left or right? We seem to have reached double figures of eye-witnesses who were in a position to observe the plane as it approached the Pentagon. All of them agree the plane was to the north of the Citgo station (NOC). All of them. Not a single dissenter. That would seem to indicate a pattern. Now as you know, for the plane to hit the lightpoles it has to have been south of the Citgo station (SOC). Yet none of them see it SOC. All of them see it NOC. 100%. The witnesses that CIT has focused on are not ALL of the witnesses.



JFK	Jul 6 2009, 11:07 AM Post #22
Posts: 4,164 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	KenyonG Jul 6 2009, 10:54 AM The witnesses that CIT has focused on are not ALL of the witnesses. Well I suggest you take a trip to Arlington with your recording equipment and and do your own interviews.
Posts: 4,164 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


KenyonG	Jul 6 2009, 12:46 PM Post #23
Posts: 113 Group: Skeptics Member #1,215 Joined: 06/15/09	JFK Jul 6 2009, 11:07 AM KenyonG Jul 6 2009, 10:54 AM The witnesses that CIT has focused on are not ALL of the witnesses. Well I suggest you take a trip to Arlington with your recording equipment and and do your own interviews. If i had question of whether or not the AA77 hit the pentagon, maybe. All info available is conclusive.



JFK	Jul 6 2009, 12:49 PM Post #24
Posts: 4,164 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	KenyonG Jul 6 2009, 12:46 PM JFK Jul 6 2009, 11:07 AM KenyonG Jul 6 2009, 10:54 AM The witnesses that CIT has focused on are not ALL of the witnesses. Well I suggest you take a trip to Arlington with your recording equipment and and do your own interviews. If i had question of whether or not the AA77 hit the pentagon, maybe. All info available is conclusive. Obviously you need to reread and comprehend this thread.
Posts: 4,164 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »