Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Are there any flyover witnesses?
Topic Started: Jan 16 2008, 02:13 AM (8,685 Views)
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

I would first like to make it clear that while CIT fully believes the plane flew over the Pentagon the direct evidence we have simply proves the plane was on the north side of the citgo station meaning it did not cause the physical damage starting with the light poles.

Any hypothesis must incorporate the north side evidence so we believe the flyover is he most logical choice

However Robert Turcios specifically claims the plane "pulled up" which is very compelling and direct evidence of a flyover. He is in fact the flyover witness because of this as he even admits that he could not see the "impact" due to the fireball.
Posted Image

We consider the flyover hypothesis not merely a theory but the only reasonable alternative in light of the evidence.

If the plane did not cause the physical damage it had to have flown over the building unless some sort of exotic weaponry was used to "disappear" the plane which we do not believe.

But the notion that there are no witnesses to the flyover is patently false if you consider 2 important factors:

1. The 2nd plane cover story.

Clearly there WERE reports of a plane that flew over the Pentagon immediately after the explosion. They simply refer to it as a "2nd plane".

So if there really was a "2nd plane" that flew over the building why wasn't it more widely reported?

Why didn't ALL the witnesses see this?

Does the fact that this wasn't widely reported prove that these reports are fabricated?

You have to realize that the media reported that the government told them about a jet allegedly impacting the building within about 4 minutes after the attack.

In all the hysteria of that day the only reports that were considered truly valid are the ones that came from the government.

If someone reported something that contradicted the official story it was considered "anomalous" and not widely reported by the media.

So these accounts of a "2nd plane" or ANY plane that flew over the Pentagon would have been shrugged off and not reported because the government said that AA77 hit the building.

So this leads us to the second factor that disproves the notion that nobody reported a flyover.

2. The confiscated and permanently sequestered 911 calls.

The only way to know what people REALLY reported without the filter of the complicit and/or manipulated mainstream media is to get a hold of the 911 call tapes and transcripts.

But that will never happen because suspiciously......they have been confiscated by the FBI and never released to this day UNLIKE in New York.

This is clearly because they have something to hide in Arlington.

It's very important that the movement focuses attention on this because this evidence is just as important as the video tape of the event that will never be released.

Because these tapes have been hidden we will NEVER know what people really first reported so you can not accurately say that "nobody reported the flyover".

The fact that the mainstream media only reported witnesses who supported the official story is not surprising. People who contradicted it were simply written off as anomalous and incorrect.


Plus there are a few more reasons why people who may have seen the flyover plane wouldn't have been alarmed by it or even bothered to report it.

Realize that this was about a 3 second event so most people in the area wouldn't be alerted to it until AFTER the explosion at which point the plane would be well past the Pentagon and anyone who saw it could easily think it was air traffic from Reagan National Airport which is RIGHT NEXT to the Pentagon.

Posted Image

Planes fly over the Pentagon all day long every day every 2 to 4 minutes.

You can even see and hear it happening during our interviews.

So even if someone was suspicious or curious about the plane they saw flying away after the explosion they would write it off as inconsequential after hearing the media start reporting that AA77 hit the building 4 minutes after the event.

They would simply think they saw another plane and be completely satisfied of this after reading reports of people like Kelly Knowles:

Quote:
 



-...she saw a second plane in the air *over the Pentagon* *as* a hijacked jet plunged into the five-sided military fortress...some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion. "Thank God somebody else saw that. There was most definitely a second plane, " Knowles said. "It's so frustrating because nobody knows about the second plane, or if they do they're hiding it for some reason." Pentagon official said late Friday no other plane was flying with the jetliner. But he said it was possible a military plane was in the area at the time of the attack.


That would sure satisfy a lot of people who saw a jet fly away.

Posted Image

And we must also remember that there is virtually NOTHING on the other side of the Pentagon until you cross over the Potomac river into DC.

Posted Image

Scott Cook had one of the closest views possible and this is a shot from his office window:

Posted Image


You can barely see the Pentagon at all!

Obviously not many people on the other side would have a very detailed view of a plane flying over the Pentagon after the explosion and even if they did they would simply be pointed once again to the 2nd plane cover story.








Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 21 2008, 01:42 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dbalsdon

"Clearly there WERE reports of a plane that flew over the Pentagon immediately after the explosion. They simply refer to it as a "2nd plane"."

This doesn't say how close the plane was to the building after the collision.

"So if there really was a "2nd plane" that flew over the building why wasn't it more widely reported?"

As you saw, the buildings near to an airport. Reasonable to assume, that when you're near an airport, you'll see... yep, planes. OMFG!!!!!

"Why didn't ALL the witnesses see this?"
Maybe because a second plane, high up in the sky, and clearly having nothing to do with the crash, is of no importance at all? HUNDREDS of people say they saw a commercial jet hitting the pentagon, and not one mentioned a second plane. Why do you continue to dispute a plane hit?

"Does the fact that this wasn't widely reported prove that these reports are fabricated? "
Yes.

"You have to realize that the media reported that the government told them about AA77 allegedly impacting the building within about 4 minutes after the attack."
Eye witnesses probably reported it to the media quicker then that.

"n all the hysteria of that day the only reports that were considered truly valid are the ones that came from the government."
Eye witnesses were also spoken to. They ALL said a plane hit the building.

"If someone reported something that contradicted the official story it was considered "anomalous" and not widely reported by the media."
No. If one person contradicted the accounts of hundreds of other eye witnesses, then it was considered anomalous, and rightfully so.

"So these accounts of a "2nd plane" or ANY plane that flew over the Pentagon would have been shrugged off and not reported because the government said that AA77 hit the building."
Nope. Hundreds of eyewitnesses back up the "official story", and don't mention a 2nd plane. To a sane person, that would suggest there was no second plane, or that if there was, it wasn't anywhere near enough to have been relevant.

"The only way to know what people REALLY reported without the filter of the complicit and/or manipulated mainstream media is to get a hold of the 911 call tapes and transcripts."
So you're disregarding the eyewitness accounts of HUNDREDS of people, because a few 911 calls havent been made public?

"But that will never happen because suspiciously......they have been confiscated by the FBI and never released to this day UNLIKE in New York."
Nobody needs to listen to the tapes considering there were hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw the plane hit, and made official statements.

"This is clearly because they have something to hide in Arlington."
Nope

"It's very important that the movement focuses attention on this because this evidence is just as important as the video tape of the event that will never be released."
So you the truth movement to focus on a few phone calls that havent been released, and ignore EVERY eyewitness account? Typical.

"Because these tapes have been hidden we will NEVER know what people really first reported so you can not accurately say that "nobody reported the flyover"."
Do you really think EVERY single one of the eyewitnesses phoned 911? They didn't. Most of the statements were made in person, either to the media, or officials.

"The fact that the mainstream media only reported witnesses who supported the official story is not surprising. People who contradicted it were simply written off as anomalous and incorrect."
Yep, thats because EVERYONE who made statements regarding the crash, saw a plane hitting the pentagon, thus backing up the "official story". Kinda hard to mention an alternative story, when nobody(or one of two) reported anything to the contrary.

"anyone who saw it could easily think it was air traffic from Reagan National Airport which is RIGHT NEXT to the Pentagon."
Yep, and theres the explanation for the other plane that you keep going on about.

"You can even see and hear it happening during our interviews."
Can you post links to these interviews?

"So even if someone was suspicious or curious about the plane they saw flying away after the explosion they would write it off as inconsequential after hearing the media start reporting that AA77 hit the building 4 minutes after the event."
So, you're saying that if anyone thought there was anything suspicious about a second plane near the pentagon, they'd have forgotton about it 4 minutes later??/ Couldn't have been that suspicious then could it? You sound surprised that it took the media 4 minutes to report it?? You do realize there is usual a delay between something major happening, and the media reporting it?

""Thank God somebody else saw that. There was most definitely a second plane, " Knowles said. "It's so frustrating because nobody knows about the second plane"
So, first off, she says she's glad someone else saw it, but then says, its so frustrating because nobody else knows about it??? Kinda contradicts herself there.

The image of the explosion, and the plane flying away is fake. If that was real, it would've been front page of every newspaper in the world. Its not ven a good fake either.

"Scott Cook had one of the closest views possible and this is a shot from his office window:"
Except for the hundreds of witnesses, who were on the road right next to the pentagon, unobscurred by trees or other buildings, who saw the plane hit.

Oh, and to suggest that the nearest person to the pentagon who saw the plane hit, was around half a mile away(i'm guessing that figure from the image posted, so is probably well off), is, to put it bluntly, retarded.

In summary, your theory sucks. You blatantly disregard the witness accounts of hundreds of people, because..... um.. that bit i'm not clear on... because they AGREE with the "official story"?????? Has it even occurred to you, that maybe thats because the "official story" is right???? Or are you thinking to yourself "Since i'm accusing the government of a major crime, i'm gonna dismiss their claims, along with the claims of everybody who agrees with them?" That what your saying? Sure seems like it.

Edited by dbalsdon, Jan 16 2008, 06:13 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dbalsdon

So, i'll ask again. Why, exactly, do you(and every other truther) disregard the eyewitness accounts of HUNDREDS of people, that say they saw a commercial jet hit the pentagon, and made no reference to a second plane??
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IVXX
Member Avatar
MDCCLXXVI
dbalsdon
Jan 16 2008, 06:08 AM
So, i'll ask again. Why, exactly, do you(and every other truther) disregard the eyewitness accounts of HUNDREDS of people, that say they saw a commercial jet hit the pentagon, and made no reference to a second plane??
Two things here.

1 - Do skeptics always assume that one person speaks for an entire group??

2 - Consider this your warning. Drop the mocking and condescending tone. Next action will be a suspension.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

dbalsdon
Jan 16 2008, 06:08 AM
So, i'll ask again. Why, exactly, do you(and every other truther) disregard the eyewitness accounts of HUNDREDS of people, that say they saw a commercial jet hit the pentagon, and made no reference to a second plane??
Because the notion that there are "hundreds" of people or even a hundred that say the "saw a commercial jet hit the Pentagon" is false and we have demonstrated this.

Read this thread.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dbalsdon

Quote:
 
1 - Do skeptics always assume that one person speaks for an entire group??


No. Thats the exact problem you seem to have. Where as skeptics base their opinions on the accounts of many, truthers base all their opinions on the slightest anomaly.

Craig. Maybe. that list you've linked to is right. But its also hard, to not notice that a lot of those names that you've listed, don't have any remarks after them, which i'm taking to assume, their accounts are verified, and they saw the plane hit. That still adds up to more witnesses then there is of a 2nd plane.

Also, how can you give more credit to an eyewitness who, as i claimed earlier, appeared to be quite far away from the pentagon, and had an obscured view of it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

Someone needs to file an FOIA for the 911 calls.

To dbalsdon :

Also there are only 26 Claims where people allegedly "Saw" impact of "plane"/large airliner-were in a position to possibly confirm one.

Some of those the writer wrote it and isn't a direct quote, others don't seem to exist, a couple have been proven liars, some won't return a phone call, and others who did have placed the plane on the wrong side of the Citgo.

Your dishonesty since joining these forums is evident.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

dbalsdon
Jan 16 2008, 12:48 PM


Craig. Maybe. that list you've linked to is right. But its also hard, to not notice that a lot of those names that you've listed, don't have any remarks after them, which i'm taking to assume, their accounts are verified, and they saw the plane hit. That still adds up to more witnesses then there is of a 2nd plane.
No it does not mean their accounts are verified.

It simply means that it might be hypothetically possible for them to see an impact from their reported location and that they simply claim they did.

Point is the list is whittled down to just over a couple dozen and when you factor in the natural tendency of honest witnesses or dishonest reporters to deduce and embellish, not to mention the fact that we know for a fact that some planted liars are involved with this operation, as well the proven fact that the plane was on the north side of the citgo, and it's clear that this deception was manageable.

The media reported what the official story told them to report on that day due to the mass confusion particularly at the Pentagon. Naturally it would be easy to find honest people who deduced the impact and they would have been fed some planted liars. Furthermore they would have dismissed witnesses who didn't support the official story as anomalous or simply wrong. This doesn't prove that there weren't any.

The media did not question the government (as they should have) on 9/11 or any time afterwards.

That is why we sought to confirm what really happened and find out where the plane really flew.

The flight path proves a deception.

The fact that there are just over a couple dozen of unconfirmed media reported accounts confirming the impact does not disprove the deception.


Quote:
 

Also, how can you give more credit to an eyewitness who, as i claimed earlier, appeared to be quite far away from the pentagon, and had an obscured view of it?


I'm not sure what witnesses you are talking about here.

We know there was no second plane that "shadowed" or "veered away' *as* AA77 hit the building. We certainly believe that some of the 2nd plane witnesses are lying.

The 2nd plane cover story was absolutely planned and they used a real C-130 and a real E4B combined with some planted accounts of a second plane to sow confusion and have an ambiguous explanation out there floating around for the flyover.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dbalsdon

Quote:
 
we know for a fact that some planted liars are involved with this operation,


First i've heard of that. Care to back that 'fact' up??

Craig Ranke CIT
 
I'm not sure what witnesses you are talking about here.

This one:
Craig Ranke CIT
 
Scott Cook had one of the closest views possible and this is a shot from his office window:


That view is from no closer then quarter of a mile(and thats a lower estimate) away from the pentagon. How can you value his statement more then the account of someone who was nearer(and had a clearer view) of the pentagon?
Edited by dbalsdon, Jan 16 2008, 01:43 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Scott Cook is not a witness to the plane at all.

He is a witness to the C-130 about a minute AFTER the explosion.

He demonstrates how little anyone across the river in DC would be able to see.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dbalsdon

Quote:
 
He demonstrates how little anyone across the river in DC would be able to see.


True. Except for the bridge, which would've also had loads of people on it, with a better view then him.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

dbalsdon
Jan 16 2008, 02:27 PM

True. Except for the bridge, which would've also had loads of people on it, with a better view then him.
But none of them would be able to see the flight path or the alleged impact at all.

This means they would be unaware of the event until after the explosion.

It would be about 2 or 3 seconds before the flyover was ascending upriver exactly like a normal Reagan departure.

Nobody on the bridge would have a clue what had happened and the fireball and smoke plume would be an incredible diversion from the very normal sight of a jet ascending up the river which happens ever 2 to 4 minutes all day long every day.

Even if they did see the jet flying away and even if they did report it we will never know because the 911 calls have been permanently confiscated.

This fact alone implicates a cover-up of what people really first reported before the propaganda machine was implemented within minutes.

And if any of these witnesses on the bridge who happened to catch the plane flying away still had questions about what they saw after the event and looked into it they would find reports of an ambiguous "2nd plane" that flew away immediately after the explosion.

Even if that didn't satisfy them....what do you think would happen if they called the FBI or even a reporter about it in the hysterically patriotic weeks or months after the event when virtually the entire country wanted to nuke Afghanistan and Bush had a 90%+ approval rating?

Clearly nothing.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dbalsdon

Ok. Lets say there was a plane that just missed the pentagon. The second there was a large enough fireball for people on the bridge(or the road that the bridge connects too(on the pentagon side), which isn't even obstructed by trees, they'd notice the plane, as it wouldn't have got far enough away in a matter of a few seconds, to be confused with a plane from the airport.
Edited by dbalsdon, Jan 16 2008, 03:06 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

dbalsdon
Jan 16 2008, 03:05 PM
....as it wouldn't have got far enough away in a matter of a few seconds, to be confused with a plane from the airport.
Of course it could have since the river and airport are both right next to the Pentagon and planes are constantly making fast, steep ascents in that area all day every day.

But regardless........we have never doubted that some saw the plane flying away and associated it with the attack at first.

We have never doubted that this was reported.

Of course this is why they disposed of the evidence (911 calls) that is typically public domain and they inserted a fake cover story about an ambiguous 2nd plane and blended these reports with the real C-130 and "mystery plane" or E4B that didn't appear until later.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dbalsdon

Quote:
 
we have never doubted that some saw the plane flying away and associated it with the attack at first.


But you doubt anyone who gave a statement contradicting that story?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

dbalsdon
Jan 16 2008, 02:27 PM
Quote:
 
He demonstrates how little anyone across the river in DC would be able to see.


True. Except for the bridge, which would've also had loads of people on it, with a better view then him.
Not entirely true. You can't see the Pentagon at all times on the 14th st bridge.

Would have, could have, should have.

Dbals, you should know that like Scott Cook, many of those people would be distracted, not concentrating on the approach flight path of this plane. They would be looking straight ahead, driving and would more than likely only look up when the fireball comes into view and by then the very common site of a little 737/757 sized jet ascending over the river would be the least of their fascination.

Sure some may have watched the whole thing go down, but again I think Craig elaborated on what that would entail.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

dbalsdon
Jan 16 2008, 03:19 PM
Quote:
 
we have never doubted that some saw the plane flying away and associated it with the attack at first.


But you doubt anyone who gave a statement contradicting that story?
Not noticing the plane fly away is not a contradiction.

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

dbalsdon
Jan 16 2008, 03:19 PM
Quote:
 
we have never doubted that some saw the plane flying away and associated it with the attack at first.


But you doubt anyone who gave a statement contradicting that story?
I'm sorry, did you have any witnesses who stated unequivocally that the plane was on the south side of the Citgo?

I'm just curious, have you interviewed any of thes "contradicting" witnesses to confirm their accounts? Have you asked them if they saw a "second" plane/jet "shadowing" "chasing" "peeling off into the sky", "veering away" "up and to the side" "as soon as" the doomed airliner "plunged into the Pentagon"?


Just curious.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dbalsdon

Quote:
 
I'm just curious, have you interviewed any of thes "contradicting" witnesses to confirm their accounts? Have you asked them if they saw a "second" plane/jet "shadowing" "chasing" "peeling off into the sky", "veering away" "up and to the side" "as soon as" the doomed airliner "plunged into the Pentagon"?


Me personally, No. I've not interviewed anyone. But the fact is, people have been interviewed. And they have stated that they saw a plane hit the pentagon. If any of them had seen a plane get very close to the pentagon, and/or miss it, they wouldn't have needed to have been asked if there was another plane. They would've just stated that straight out.
Edited by dbalsdon, Jan 16 2008, 03:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

dbalsdon
Jan 16 2008, 03:30 PM

Me personally, No. I've not interviewed anyone. But the fact is, people have been interviewed. And they have stated that they saw a plane hit the pentagon. If any of them had seen a plane get very close to the pentagon, and/or miss it, they wouldn't have needed to have been asked. They would've just stated that straight out.
Now you are changing the discussion.

Nobody on the bridge could have possibly seen the alleged impact.

Of course we doubt the small handful of claims from people who suggest they saw it hit.

This is because of the fact that ALL witnesses who were in a position to tell report the plane on the north side of the citgo and NONE specifically report it on th south side where it needed to be.

This exposes a deliberate deception proving that all published statements regarding the impact were merely deduced, embellished, or straight up lies.

This also doesn't mean that nobody reported the plane missing the building since we know that this evidence was disposed of which ALSO implicates them in a cover-up of the deception.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dbalsdon

Quote:
 
Nobody on the bridge could have possibly seen the alleged impact.


I never said they would've seen the impact. I said they would've seen another plane flying over the pentagon and flying away.

Quote:
 
since we know that this evidence was disposed

How exactly do you know this?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dbalsdon

Quote:
 
Of course we doubt the small handful of claims from people who suggest they saw it hit


Over a hundred is a small number? Since when?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

dbalsdon
Jan 16 2008, 03:42 PM

How exactly do you know this?
Great question.


We went to the Arlington County Communications office on our first trip and they played for us the part of the police and fire dispatch tapes that were released but the Captain at the time, Michelle Nuneville, told us that the FBI had confiscated the 911 call tapes and won't return them.

She was perturbed with this situation as these tapes are always available to the public and press on request. There is no legitimate "national security" reason because they released the tapes from New York.

The new Captain is John Crawford and after following up with him many times he told us that he does not believe they will ever be released and that they may be keeping them for any future trials against Bin Laden. :$
(again so why did they release the tapes from New York?)

So we attempted to get interviews with the 911 call operators who were working. For some reason after telling us they would give us permission for that they stopped returning our calls.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

dbalsdon
Jan 16 2008, 03:46 PM
Quote:
 
Of course we doubt the small handful of claims from people who suggest they saw it hit


Over a hundred is a small number? Since when?
Didn't you read the OP? It's more like 26.

That "over 100" claim is completely false as many who are listed in the typically referenced witness lists aren't even witnesses at all and most others weren't in a position to be able to see the alleged impact or even the Pentagon.

Seeing the plane and hearing the explosion does not count as witnessing an "impact". Deducing is not witnessing but it makes sense that these people would think they saw the plane hit the Pentagon and even use these words.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
"Clearly there WERE reports of a plane that flew over the Pentagon immediately after the explosion. They simply refer to it as a "2nd plane"."

This doesn't say how close the plane was to the building after the collision.


Yes, they have. Some "witnesses" have even "confirmed" the proximity.

Quote:
 
"So if there really was a "2nd plane" that flew over the building why wasn't it more widely reported?"

As you saw, the buildings near to an airport. Reasonable to assume, that when you're near an airport, you'll see... yep, planes. OMFG!!!!!




Hmmm, you may want to re-read that and think about it for a second.


Quote:
 
"Why didn't ALL the witnesses see this?"
Maybe because a second plane, high up in the sky, and clearly having nothing to do with the crash, is of no importance at all? HUNDREDS of people say they saw a commercial jet hitting the pentagon, and not one mentioned a second plane. Why do you continue to dispute a plane hit?


You are being dishonest. There are not "hundreds". There is around or less than 30 who could have potentially been in a position to see an alleged impact.

Quote:
 
"Does the fact that this wasn't widely reported prove that these reports are fabricated? "
Yes.



Mkay. :blink:

Quote:
 
"You have to realize that the media reported that the government told them about AA77 allegedly impacting the building within about 4 minutes after the attack."
Eye witnesses probably reported it to the media quicker then that.


You mean eyewitnesses who may have been fooled, deducing, or lying.

Quote:
 
"n all the hysteria of that day the only reports that were considered truly valid are the ones that came from the government."
Eye witnesses were also spoken to. They ALL said a plane hit the building.


Not true. Some said the plane "went to the side of the building and not directly in" and the "pilot tried to avert the building".

Remember, reporters went to the IMPACT SIDE of the building, Dbals. Not the other side. Not 395. Not 14th st bridge. Not GW parkway. They naturally would find people who either deducing or fooled and thought it impacted, or were lying.

If they found a witness who thought it did not hit they would not report it or they would be confused and mention it in passing as Dave Statter did. They were looking for the big scoop on a plane impact considering two planes just hit the towers.

Which would you cover as a reporter Dbals, a witness who saw it hit or one who didn't think it hit or was unsure? Think about that day and the idea of two planes just hitting the towers. Think long and hard about that.

Did you know that when Bob Pugh told us he arrived on the scene about 5 minutes after, he could not find one person who saw or knew what had happened. Not one police officer, bystander, or firefighter until he found Mike Walter wandering around.

Quote:
 
"If someone reported something that contradicted the official story it was considered "anomalous" and not widely reported by the media."
No. If one person contradicted the accounts of hundreds of other eye witnesses, then it was considered anomalous, and rightfully so.


What hundreds?

Quote:
 
"So these accounts of a "2nd plane" or ANY plane that flew over the Pentagon would have been shrugged off and not reported because the government said that AA77 hit the building."
Nope. Hundreds of eyewitnesses back up the "official story", and don't mention a 2nd plane. To a sane person, that would suggest there was no second plane, or that if there was, it wasn't anywhere near enough to have been relevant.


Again, it's not "hundreds". If you continue saying this then you would be lying.

You have to ask yourself why so many high profile "witnesses" try mentioning a second plane/jet that close to the scene and veering away at the time of impact when the C-130 was nowhere near the scene or noticeable enough to be seen other than by a few genuine witnesses

Quote:
 
"The only way to know what people REALLY reported without the filter of the complicit and/or manipulated mainstream media is to get a hold of the 911 call tapes and transcripts."
So you're disregarding the eyewitness accounts of HUNDREDS of people, because a few 911 calls havent been made public?


Again, there are not "hundreds". You need to do some homework.

Quote:
 
"But that will never happen because suspiciously......they have been confiscated by the FBI and never released to this day UNLIKE in New York."
Nobody needs to listen to the tapes considering there were hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw the plane hit, and made official statements.


No, there are not. That is not true and we have proven it.

Quote:
 
"This is clearly because they have something to hide in Arlington."
Nope


Saying it doesn't make it true, Dbals.

Quote:
 
"It's very important that the movement focuses attention on this because this evidence is just as important as the video tape of the event that will never be released."
So you the truth movement to focus on a few phone calls that havent been released, and ignore EVERY eyewitness account? Typical.


You're getting a little emotional, Dbals. It's best that you leave your feelings out of this matter.

How in the world can you dare say we "ignored" "EVERY" witness account?

Have you called any published witnesses on the phone? Have you interviewed any witnesses on location? Have you searched the net looking for photos of the area to establish POV's for witnesses? Have you been to Arlington to confirm POV's there?
No?

Then how in the world can you say we "ignored" "EVERY" witness account?

Quote:
 
"Because these tapes have been hidden we will NEVER know what people really first reported so you can not accurately say that "nobody reported the flyover"."
Do you really think EVERY single one of the eyewitnesses phoned 911? They didn't. Most of the statements were made in person, either to the media, or officials.


Oh. You know this?

Really? Surely you can thoroughly document this "fact". Let us know how that goes, considering you'll need the unaltered/unedited tapes/transcripts to establish that as fact as you have so neatly done in a two line declarative statement.

Quote:
 
"The fact that the mainstream media only reported witnesses who supported the official story is not surprising. People who contradicted it were simply written off as anomalous and incorrect."
Yep, thats because EVERYONE who made statements regarding the crash, saw a plane hitting the pentagon, thus backing up the "official story". Kinda hard to mention an alternative story, when nobody(or one of two) reported anything to the contrary.


This is getting redundant.

Quote:
 
"anyone who saw it could easily think it was air traffic from Reagan National Airport which is RIGHT NEXT to the Pentagon."
Yep, and theres the explanation for the other plane that you keep going on about.


Yes and you seem to not have one.

Quote:
 
"You can even see and hear it happening during our interviews."
Can you post links to these interviews?


Have you ever watched our interviews?

Quote:
 
"So even if someone was suspicious or curious about the plane they saw flying away after the explosion they would write it off as inconsequential after hearing the media start reporting that AA77 hit the building 4 minutes after the event."
So, you're saying that if anyone thought there was anything suspicious about a second plane near the pentagon, they'd have forgotton about it 4 minutes later??/ Couldn't have been that suspicious then could it? You sound surprised that it took the media 4 minutes to report it?? You do realize there is usual a delay between something major happening, and the media reporting it?


Oh my. I guess I forgot how powerful the average citizen is against the uninformed preoccupied FBI agent or reporter who wasn't there at the time of the event. There must be a coalition of flyover witnesses that came marching down the streets of DC and were silenced huh?

Quote:
 
""Thank God somebody else saw that. There was most definitely a second plane, " Knowles said. "It's so frustrating because nobody knows about the second plane"
So, first off, she says she's glad someone else saw it, but then says, its so frustrating because nobody else knows about it??? Kinda contradicts herself there.


Wow.

Quote:
 
The image of the explosion, and the plane flying away is fake. If that was real, it would've been front page of every newspaper in the world. Its not ven a good fake either.


Double wow.

Quote:
 
"Scott Cook had one of the closest views possible and this is a shot from his office window:"
Except for the hundreds of witnesses, who were on the road right next to the pentagon, unobscurred by trees or other buildings, who saw the plane hit.


Hundreds? Unobscured?

You need to go there, Dbals. You are clearly misinformed and way off. Stop and think about what youare saying The entire event was over in 2-5 seconds depending where you were. No one was staring, waiting for a slow motion plane on said flight path, Dbals. They were caught by surpirse, if they even caught it at all.

Quote:
 
Oh, and to suggest that the nearest person to the pentagon who saw the plane hit, was around half a mile away(i'm guessing that figure from the image posted, so is probably well off), is, to put it bluntly, retarded.


Wow. Ok. I think we know where Dbals is coming from.

Quote:
 
In summary, your theory sucks. You blatantly disregard the witness accounts of hundreds of people, because..... um.. that bit i'm not clear on... because they AGREE with the "official story"?????? Has it even occurred to you, that maybe thats because the "official story" is right???? Or are you thinking to yourself "Since i'm accusing the government of a major crime, i'm gonna dismiss their claims, along with the claims of everybody who agrees with them?" That what your saying? Sure seems like it.


Ok, Dbals. Come back when you have some time to research this matter.

Have a good day.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »
Add Reply