| 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! |
| Are there any flyover witnesses? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 16 2008, 02:13 AM (8,692 Views) | |
| dbalsdon | Jan 16 2008, 04:15 PM Post #26 |
|
Which sounds reasonable enough. As you say, NY tapes were released, but since thats an area i've really looked into, i'm not really able to speculate on it. Just curious. Is there ANY witness, who categorically states that they saw a plane, just missing, the pentagon?? {edit} Just read the last 2 comments that were made before I posted this. Clearly, you think there are, {/edit} Edited by dbalsdon, Jan 16 2008, 04:23 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 16 2008, 04:21 PM Post #27 |
|
It's impossible to know since the only evidence that could answer this question was confiscated and permanently sequestered by the suspect. The fact that they did this implicates them in a cover-up and most certainly does suggest that they are hiding the fact that there ARE witnesses who reported this. |
![]() |
|
| dbalsdon | Jan 16 2008, 04:32 PM Post #28 |
|
So, in other words, there is no evidence? Just because the FBI refuse to release tapes(which, as the guy at the Arlington County Communications office said, they could be saving it as evidence. Just because NY released it's calls, doesn't mean these guys have to do it as well. And there is another way that a witness could've gotten their story out. Through to could've posted online. |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 16 2008, 04:43 PM Post #29 |
|
The north side claim is not only evidence but proof of a military psychological deception. It is impossible for the plane to have caused the physical damage. Everyone saw the plane on the north side and NOBODY specifically reports the plane on the south side. If you refuse to accept that the plane flew over that's fine but this does not make the north side evidence go away. You are now forced to incorporate the north side evidence into whatever theory you wish to assert but it can not involve an impact of the plane since this is physically impossible in light of the evidence. Instead of asking why there are no reported witnesses to the flyover a better question to ask would be why there are no reported witnesses who directly support the official south side flight path while there are plenty who independently corroborate the opposite claim. |
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 16 2008, 05:43 PM Post #30 |
|
How many seconds would that take? How far could a plane traveling in excess of 500 MPH get in a couple of seconds? You're either intentionally dishonest or unintentionally ignorant of the basics in both aviation and pentagon research and it is evident. |
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 16 2008, 05:47 PM Post #31 |
|
Here you go again making up numbers. It is obvious you are trying to get an emotional response out of Craig & Aldo. I know exactly what you're up to and it isn't an honest open discussion of Pentagon research. Please name over 100 people who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Also provide proof that those people actually did say that was what they saw. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 16 2008, 05:47 PM Post #32 |
|
Deleted User
|
1) Did ANYONE desides Turcios describe this key feature? Stephens would be in a prime spot to see it, as would Boger, but no mention, correct? How do you propose that altitude change was hidden from nearly all views? 2) At the 2nd plane link you say:
Could you please share any of these accounts where people may've been confused? Kelly Knowles was miles away and just saw the ass end of two distinct planes headed that way - no veering, impact, overflight or anything reported from what I've seen. Wheelhouse implies simultanaeity, but he's clear the other was a C-130. And Sucherman - what did he see again? C-130 or "a 2nd plane" that could be the first? Any time lag mentioned, and if so do you think he's censoring himself instead of being fooled?
So of all the people there, all the people who saw the flyover called 911 if anything and were then what, ordered to never mention it again? How convenient all reports were quarantined perfectly into that locked vault with not a leak anywhere else. The 911 calls could've been traced and feds arrived to shut up the callers. But there would have to be no other witnesses that didn't call, or else the feds had some other way of finding them all and enforcing quiet. Sorry if I sound sarcastic here, I'm just confused about the process by which they got total silence on this. Feel free to explain this better.
I know I've tried this before, but you always find a reason not to accept a south path testimony, what do you think of Regnery's account? How would youplace this one for location and location of seen plane? North or South of the Citgo?
And how about this guy? Don Wright - it came from the south - it came from the south And do you still think Morrin's account matches Paik's perfectly? ![]() |
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 16 2008, 05:58 PM Post #33 |
|
Craig, can you explain this to me? A- Witnesses say that the plane hit the pentagon. B- Witnesses say the plane flew North of the Citgo station. You have stated that both cannot be true. If this is the case, how is it that you were able to determine that the witnesses of event B are correct, and that the witnesses of event A are incorrect? |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 16 2008, 06:14 PM Post #34 |
|
For a few reasons.... 1. They all admitted that the actual alleged impact was concealed by the fireball. 2. It's clear that they had an infinitely better view of the plane as it passed the station as opposed to when it reached the building. ![]() ![]() 3. Given the nature of the world wide psychological operation of deception we are investigating; evidence that contradicts the official story holds more weight then points that would seem to support it. 4. Robert's account of the pull up. ![]() 5. The fact that Lloyd the cab driver's story is physically impossible. ![]() ![]() 6. The fact that there are no witnesses who specifically place the plane on the south path. 7. The fact that there are no are no confirmed accounts of anyone who literally saw the plane hit any light poles. There are other reasons but these are the first that come to mind. |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 16 2008, 06:58 PM Post #35 |
|
Who ever said it was hidden from all views? Please don't put words in my mouth to make your argument easier. Very few people would be in a position to see it and the event happened so quick that even most that were could have missed it. Of course that doesn't mean that nobody else saw it but the fact that the evidence was confiscated indicates there was a cover-up in this regard. Robert talked about it only because he didn't understand the implications. People who do and might have seen it are likely to remain silent or convince themselves they were seeing things due to the massive hysteria and propaganda that ensued for the weeks and months afterwards. Bottom line everyone corroborates the north side and nobody directly supports the south side claim and this fact alone proves that Robert had to have been correct in his pull up claim.
Nowhere in the Scanlon article does it say Knowles was miles away. Although this is true it's the propaganda put out in those Scanlon/Daily Press articles that would potentially fool witnesses into believing the plane "shadowed" and "veered away" over the Pentagon. Especially coupled with the Wheelhouse account as it was. People would simply read that article, not talk with Knowles directly. I got Sucherman to nail it down to "3 to 5 seconds". Clearly this is irreconcilable with the RADES data, what virtually all witnesses report, AND what the C-130 pilot himself states. What you aren't getting is the ambiguity that was played up about this "2nd plane". Even the first Wheelhouse article says he simply "thought" it was a C-130 but wasn't sure. Besides most average people aren't aware of what a C-130 looks like anyway. The details were left ambiguous until CIT went digging.
Stop putting words in my mouth. It is very dishonest and typical of your approach to discussion. I never said that "all" the witnesses would call 911. You are ignoring the hysteria and patriotic stranglehold that was on the nation. The media did not question the official story. It wouldn't have mattered if 5 or 20 witnesses called the feds about a plane flying away. They would be told that AA77 hit the building and that they must have seen a different plane. People would be happy to accept that and it would be validated by the Daily Press propaganda and other accounts of the E4B etc. They would be thrilled to hear that there was ANY explanation and happy to not have to accuse our government of mass murder during such an emotional and intense time in history when the general public was chomping at the bit to kill all Muslims and avenge the attack with permanent global war. They would write off what they saw as a strange anomaly. No matter how loud people screamed that they saw something different it would not have mattered. The government told us what happened, it was instantly bought by the people and the media and all conflicting reports were brushed aside.
First off do you know who this is? He is the president of right wing mainstream publishing company Regnery publishing who put out books by Anne Coulter, Newt Gingrich, as well as Barbara Olson the famous right wing CNN pundit and alleged vicitim passenger of flight 77. Coincidental no? Regardless he does not claim to have seen the plane hit the building and he even says he could not see the Pentagon. Clearly he could not see he citgo either. There is NOTHING that definitively supports the south over the north side of the citgo claim in his account.
The commuter plane guy? He simply says it "comes from the south". This has nothing to do with north or south of the citgo station.
Excuse me? When did I say that? Stop putting words in my mouth. It is very dishonest. Morrin's account is questionable on many levels but one thing for sure is that he could not see the citgo or the Pentagon from his stated location so there is no way he could tell north or south of the citgo and if the plane really was directly above him parallel to the Navy Annex as he stated it would STILL not line up with the light poles and physical damage to the building. So in that respect Morrin's account contradicts the official flight path and supports a flyover before it supports an impact. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 16 2008, 07:04 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 16 2008, 07:01 PM Post #36 |
|
By "They all", do you mean ALL witnesses, or just the ones you spoke with? Are you now claiming that the fireball occurred prior to impact?
This observation alone does not make their statements correct.
Cognitive bias. Evidence on one side doesn't "hold more weight" than the other just because you say it does.
How was his account corroborated/verified?
That sounds like another thread in and of itself.
That does not automatically make the "north-siders" correct.
I presume you have another theory for those, which also sounds like another thread. How many witnesses reported that the plane did NOT hit the Pentagon? |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 16 2008, 07:37 PM Post #37 |
|
There is not a single previously published witness statement that specifically places the plane south of the citgo. All confirmed accounts place it north of the citgo. Let me know if you find someone willing to go on record claiming they saw it south of the citgo. The fraction of a millisecond between the alleged impact and the fireball would be too small for the human mind to register. I am claiming nothing in this regard and merely reporting what the witnesses said.
Independent corroboration scientifically proves it. They were there. You were not.
This is a forum for those who accept the mountain of evidence proving the official story false on MANY levels. If you don't believe this then perhaps you should think about joining another forum. The implications of the evidence prove a world wide psychological DECEPTION. The nature of the crime most certainly does mean that evidence proving the official story wrong holds more weight. We are not discussing a hypothetical situation here.
By everyone else who was at the citgo station who saw the plane on the north side also. This proves it HAD to have pulled up even if they weren't in as good of a position to see it.
Oh I'm sure there will eventually be one.
Sure it does. All claims can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt if they are independently corroborated enough. That is the situation we have with the north side evidence.
Theory? No. Evidence? Yes. Agreed that another thread would be in order.
Don't know. The only evidence for this was confiscated and permanently sequestered implicating a deliberate cover-up. |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 16 2008, 08:15 PM Post #38 |
|
Confirmed by who? The other citgo witnesses? Are the multiple accounts of the plane hitting the pentagon also confirmed? If not, why not?
Independent corroboration by who? The other citgo witnesses? Three making the same claim doesn't mean it's "scientifically proven".
A fireball could not "obstruct" the impact unless it occurred prior to impact.
Circular logic. 1. World wide psychological DECEPTION means evidence of same holds more weight than evidence against. 2. Weighted evidence proves world wide psychological DECEPTION. (go to step 1) You've used your pre-conceived conclusion to alter the way you've interpreted evidence so that it supports the same conclusion. Do you see the flaw in that logic? Does the evidence support the same conclusion if you do not weight it?
How many people corroborated the "north of citgo" claim? Eyewitness corroboration alone does not always prove something beyond any reasonable doubt.
Did "everyone else" report a pull up?
So you have ZERO eyewitness reports of a flyover...and based on this lack of same you have assumed that whatever evidence was confiscated must have been evidence of a flyover? |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 16 2008, 10:33 PM Post #39 |
|
Independently confirmed meaning we have the witness making the statement direct on video tape so it is not subject to misreporting or ambiguity. Static printed words by the media are not confirmed accounts....no. Until the witness is recorded, their location plotted, and their POV analyzed and they are asked questions on an investigative level their accounts are not confirmed. 2nd hand accounts are not valid evidence. Particularly when the source is the clearly biased mainstream media.
There are 6. Given the simplicity and nature of the claim and what a drastic ridiculous mistake it would be for ANY of them to make yes it is proven. For all 6 of them to be so drastically wrong in the exact same way about such a simple claim is a statistical impossibility. You are refusing to look at the context of the claim and simply trying to generalize the scenario as a desperate means to cast doubt. Hypothetical scenario for analogy: 100 people all witnessed a massive fatal accident on an intersection. 6 of these witnesses who all frequent that intersection on a daily basiswere interviewed about it a few years later on location. None of them had ever spoken with each other and they all independently confirm that the accident was on the same intersection. None of the statements from any of the other 94 witnesses directly contradict this. What are the odds that all 6 are incorrect and that the accident was actually on an intersection a block up the street? No jury on earth would doubt that the witnesses were correct. The north side claim is that simple and supported just as strongly. Even more so since a massive jumbo jet flying right by them 10's of feet away would be more memorable than any car accident.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the human mind. Perhaps you don't understand how fast a fraction of a millisecond is. Perhaps you aren't getting that the WITNESSES THEMSELVES make this claim and not me.
Well that might be the case if there wasn't a mountain of other evidence casting doubt on and demonstrating the official story to be incorrect. In most crime investigations it's assumed that the suspect attempted a cover-up as they typically would. Evidence that proves a suspect guilty most certainly does hold more weight then say an alibi or information that may seem to exonerate the suspect. But this is different than that since the evidence we have has been scientifically corroborated 6 times and refuted none.
6 people. I never said it "always" does. Of course if it is independently corroborated 6 times and not directly refuted at all and it is as simple as a right/left claim with something as obvious as a jumbo jet 10's of feet away from the witnesses it most certainly does prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You are once again trying to remove the discussion from the context of the evidence in a desperate attempt to use a sweeping generalization to cast doubt.
They don't have to. A plane on the north side HAD to have pulled up. Lagasse admitted that he flinched and jumped in his car out of a fear. Brooks didn't have near as good of a view. They both simply didn't see it because it happened so fast and the explosion fooled them into believing the impact. That is how sleight of hand works.
Nope. Nothing is assumed. We have proven the plane was on the north side of the citgo with hard evidence. The fact that the suspect has hidden the evidence of what people initially reported most certainly does implicate them in a cover-up particularly given the evidence we provide proving their story false. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 16 2008, 10:35 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 17 2008, 12:00 AM Post #40 |
|
Does a live newscast count?
So even someone recorded on a live newscast saying "I saw the plane hit the Pentagon" is not "confirmed" to you unless you speak to them? Do you consider yourself to be a biased source?
By "directly refuted" do you mean someone saying "it was south of the citgo"? Do you consider claims of seeing the jet impact the Pentagon to be in refutation of the n.o.c. claims?
How does that compare to the statistical impossibility of about 100 other people being wrong when they claim that they saw a plane hit the pentagon?
If those 6 people's accounts disagree with the other 94 accounts, and the physical evidence, then we need to seriously question the accuracy of the 6.
Oh, but they DO have to have seen it, if you're going to claim that "everyone corroborates his story".
So what you're saying is...they didn't see the pull-up, which means they don't directly corroborate any claims of a pull-up.
Could you point me to a source of a quote where a witness said that they didn't see the plane impact the Pentagon because their view was obstructed by the fireball?
In court (at least in the US), the suspect is innocent until proven guilty. The court does not (and can not) use a presumption of guilt and to weigh the evidence for/against the suspect. i.e. the court can't say "well since we assume he did it, we're not going to accept the DNA evidence that would prove him innocent.
Refuted none? So all of the other witnesses who saw the plane hit the pentagon do not in any way refute your n.o.c. witnesses?
You assume that the statements made by your citgo witnesses are correct, even when they do not agree with other eyewitnesses or physical evidence. Therefore you assume that all evidence which disagrees with your witnesses is wrong, or faked.
You have several people saying they saw it there. How have you tested their statements to ensure that they were correct? I'll re-phrase my question: How many confirmed witnesses do you have who claim they saw the plane pull up and fly over the Pentagon? One other question: Do you believe that the North of citgo eyewitness accounts and the eyewitness accounts of the plane hitting the Pentagon are Mutually Exclusive? Edited by nicepants, Jan 17 2008, 12:07 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 17 2008, 12:35 AM Post #41 |
|
If their location was plotted, their POV analyzed, and they were asked questions on an investigative level, yes.
Why are you ignoring what I said and changing it to be something completely different? It doesn't matter who interviews them as long as their location is plotted, their POV analyzed, and they were asked questions on an investigative level.
First realize that none of these alleged "claims" are valid evidence until you hear it from the witness direct. And then of course in order for it to be considered accurate you would need to plot their location, analyze their POV, and ask them questions on an investigative level. Even still given the nature of the implications of the north side claim we should assume that every witness is a suspect as it would be silly to suggest that none were involved with the crime we are investigating.
It doesn't but this is a hypothetical scenario that doesn't exist. There are not about 100 people who claim this. Plus given the nature of the deception we are investigating the fact that many people deduced the impact is not to be unexpected.
Huh? How so? In both scenarios everyone believed they witnessed a violent event in the same place. My analogy is perfect and your point has no relevance whatsoever and doesn't even make any sense.
It is physically impossible for a plane on the north side to have caused the physical damage. If you fail to understand this scientific fact then you have no business participating in this discussion and are simply being disingenuous.
It is physically impossible for a plane on the north side to have caused the physical damage. If you fail to understand this scientific fact then you have no business participating in this discussion and are simply being disingenuous. Call it indirect corroboration of the pull-up if you want but either way it is proof the plane did not cause the physical damage.
www.thepentacon.com If you haven't viewed the evidence you have no business taking part in this discussion.
Court? That only comes after charges are placed! The "suspect" has become a "defendant" at that point. Investigations work quite differently. Investigators consider everyone at the scene of the crime or even remotely associated with the victim a suspect until they can rule out involvement or prove guilt.
Given the implications here regarding the nature of this deceptions absolutely not. The north side witnesses were also deceived. It is circular logic to suggest their placement of the plane is canceled out by the fact that they were deceived.
Irrelevant question considering the nature of the deception that is proven by the north side claim but you know damn well that we don't have any. This has nothing to do with the veracity of the proven north side claim.
No. It simply demonstrates how they were all either deceived or lying. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 17 2008, 04:39 AM Post #42 |
|
Deleted User
|
I asked a simple question about two witnesses who were that close. I guess the answer is no, and only one witness mentions a pull-up. And zero mention a flyover. Except in the 911 calls... or whatever else seems likely to remain secret forever. You also say "the event happened so quick that even most that were could have missed it." Miss the upward trajectory of a 75friggin7 as their eyes followed it to (apparent) impact? Yet you act incredulous that witnesses didn't see 8" diameter light poles getting knocked down when the same reason is given? Please explain why this is not a double standard.
Alright, and thanks for that. I never have a problem with your digging, it's with what you do with the data after that I get gripes. 3-5 seconds is drastically short... I understand that accounts can't be taken as literal truth (the mind is not a computer - it has organic and sometimes massive errors due to complex stuff) but I'd expect something like 10-30 seconds... a minute or two... but still, it's some words from a guy's brain. It ain't proof. It's something, maybe, that's I'll I'll hand ya here. Knowles: I didn't read the original article at all, just excerpts. The locations I got from this site is "Kelly Knowles, who lives in an apartment a few miles from the Pentagon in Fairfax County." Eastman at leas cited her as a veering witness. propaganda, ambiguity... alright I can't disprove these things. I will say a C-130 looks different from a silver (or white) 757 by a good stretch. So how many 2nd plane veering away accounts are there and how vague are they? Are these the flyover treasure chest locked only by this planes confusion? They see the 757 thing pass over thru the blast and veer off, then hear reports that that might be a C-130 that came by '3-5 seconds' later or at the same time even and presume it was the C-130?
So people did scream loud and it didn't matter? Or is there a strange silence about the plane that passed over and flew away?
Wright: From the south. Not my south, THE south. You can't read this too literally I admit, but it seems to indicate a northward trend... the overflight plane you guys are looking at came in about due west. So not a big deal but... Regnery: I actually did not know ho he is. That's interesting. But he gives a good account. Thanks for bolding some parts, as if I didn't notice them, which helps make my point: ![]() He was far enough back his view was blocked. This means he was well southwest of the Pentagon when the plane flew 'overhead.' How is that not a clue of north or south of the Citgo? Morin: Sorry, my bad. You said once "Here is Edward's flight path with the plane on the way to the north of the citgo. There is nothing in Teri Morin's account that contradicts this." You never said it matched perfectly. So do you still feel Morin's account is consistent with Paik's? And if so, wouldn't that make him a good north path witness, not someone who's account is 'questionable?' I KNOW his literal description doesn't fit the damage path. I was just showing the range between the official path, Morin's account, Paik's drawing, and what you did with it to make a broader point about how words are turned into geometry. Look back at that pic and note two factos at work - path angle and north placement. Note how each is mixed - Paik has the 'official' angle but too far north, Morin has the wrong angle (when literally read) but closer to the southness of the official path. And where did that curving yellow line come from? Who described that? ![]() And you do still deny McGraw is a south path witness, correct? Is he still a 'no-path' witness? |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jan 17 2008, 05:00 AM Post #43 |
|
Deleted User
|
Well it couldn't happen after... best time is right as, but if it's a bit before then the expanding pume could help hide the flyover... but not too much before or people might notice... it would be a very tricky balance to time the two just right and, IMO, would be a futile effort and still wouldn't work.
That would also be called Special pleading, a logical fallacy, except that he justifies the exception - some evidence needs more weight given because it's struggling against the official story. Ad also, coincidentally, logic and the vast preponderance of evidence. So however it gets that additional credibility allegedly due, it's much needed. This distinction of evidence IS VALID up to a point. I'm not sure where to place that point, but I'm sure we're well past it by now. Cheers, mate! Oh, just caught this:
Well put! |
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 17 2008, 10:25 AM Post #44 |
|
So how many eyewitness accounts (other than those of the 6 citgo witnesses) have you plotted locations of, analyzed the POV of, and asked questions of (on an investigative level)?
Apparently you didn't understand my premise. I will rephrase. If there was a confirmed witness account of the plane hitting the pentagon, would that be considered a direct contradiction to the n.o.c. claims? (See section on mutual exclusivity)
List 1 List 2 List 3 List 4 List 5 Others From the lists above: 104 directly say they saw the plane hit the pentagon 0 saw a plane miss the pentagon or pull up and fly away By your own list HERE there are 25 who were in a position to see the impact and reported seeing it. That's still way more than the 6 people @ Citgo.
Your claim is that the 6 people in your analogy prove when/where the accident took place. The problem is that the other 94 witnesses don't directly corroborate the 6 people, and neither does the physical evidence. So instead of weighing all of the evidence equally, you assume that the 94 witnesses were wrong or lying, and that the physical evidence was faked or planted.
That is not an indirect corroboration. ONE person said they saw a pull-up. No one else corroborates this.
Direct quote with name, please. You are the one making the claim, support it with your quote.
Ok. Let's go with your investigation scenario. Just because 3 witnesses claim that someone committed a crime doesn't mean that the physical evidence against those statements can be ignored or "carry less weight".
The question is not irrelevant. Even if you believe you have proven that the plane flew n.o.c., by your own admission, you have no proof of the plane flying OVER the Pentagon. That leaves a rather large hole in your theory.
If the n.o.c. witnesses were also deceived, how can we assume that they are any more accurate than the impact witness accounts?
Your answer contradicts itself. If the n.o.c. claims demonstrate that all of the other claims were wrong, then the 2 theories are Mutually Exclusive. Being mutually exclusive means that both cannot be true at the same time. A - If the 2 claims are NOT mutually exclusive, then it would be possible for someone to see it north of the Citgo, and it would be possible for someone to see it hit the Pentagon. B - If the claims are mutually exclusive, then if we have a person saying the plane was n.o.c., and another saying the plane impacted the Pentagon, one must be incorrect. Which is it? A or B? And how do you know that your n.o.c. witnesses were not all "either deceived or lying"? Edited by nicepants, Jan 17 2008, 10:58 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 17 2008, 01:46 PM Post #45 |
![]()
|
Nicepants, Can please point out the previous study or documentary that specifically spoke with witnesses who were there and asked them which side of the gas station the plane was on? Were we the first? Have witnesses ever been asked this question or asked to be specific about this detail before? Do you believe 6 people all got the same detail wrong? Do you think this is a detail that they could misremember? Do Robert Turcios, Chad Brooks and Bill Lagasse frequent that area of the gas station often? How about before the event? How about after? Do you think that, days, months perhaps even years after the event, that any of those 3 replayed that memory in their mind as they pass or arrive at the gas station? Or did they all forget about it until the day we interviewed them at which point they all misremembered the wrong side? How many witnesses have you interviewed on camera that specifically told you which side of the gas station the plane approached on? Can you show me the official gov't documentation that shows how the plane flew on the south side of the Citgo and knocked down the 5 light poles? Please be sure to note the part where they carefully documented Lloyd England's interaction with the light pole. Can you also display the witnesses who saw the pole spear it's way into Lloyd's cab or even pieces of the pole hitting Lloyd's windshield while he spun out sideways? |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 17 2008, 02:06 PM Post #46 |
|
I meant miss the plane altogether. But yes....sleight of hand is very powerful and particularly during a military psyop on this level. The explosion and fireball would be the ultimate diversion from any plane flying away. The timing of the incredible explosion would be very effective. It's textbook sleight of hand. But again.......it happened so quick that many people missed the plane completely. Wait until you see the interview we did with the soccer mom who was on route 27 directly underneath the flight path. She was on her cell phone (like most people), watching the road, didn't hear or see the plane at all and thought the Pentagon was "bombed". It's pretty crazy watching to her re-live her experience as we drive down route 27 and she keeps repeating her hysterical thoughts at the time "the Pentagon was bombed!"
How many times are you going to say that? We have a lot of "somethings". Plus the 2nd plane story does not come from just Sucherman! The Wheelhouse interview we did is going to blow your mind. The 2nd plane propaganda is clear right up to the 2007 E4B piece on CNN. Our new presentation is going to break it all down so clearly. You admit you are don't know much about this and that you are a "novice" on the C-130 etc yet you still insist on blindly attempting to counter the info as hard as you can as if you're an expert. Why do you obsess on stammering through desperately trying to counter the rock solid evidence we present?
You admit you didn't even read the article, you admit you are aren't researched on it, you admit that you can't disprove what I am saying but you continue with your ignorant sarcastic rhetoric in a desperate attempt to defend the official story anyway. Why? What is the motive for your obsession? It doesn't matter that a C-130 looks different. It doesn't matter if an E4B looks different. It was all about blending the reports. Wheelhouse and O'Keefe are the only 2nd plane witnesses who specifically say C-130. All the rest describe "some sort" of plane and Vin Naranyan even specifically calls it a "jet". We did a phone interview with Vin where he repeated and confirmed that it was "jet" as opposed to a "plane". Whether or not he was simply confused the fact that he used that word in the published interview added to the ambiguity, confusion, and certainly cover for the decoy jet.
Both no doubt. Point is it doesn't matter either way. Anybody who did not follow the official narrative was written off as anomalous. You are downplaying the hysterical mindset of the nation at the time and utter lack of skepticism at what we were being told. Nobody would dare speak out against it for fear of complete banishment.
No it did not come "due west". It was looping around. Both the north and south of citgo flight paths came partially "from the south" and both were mostly due west at the final moment before the Pentagon. They are not very different in this regard and Wright's comment demonstrates absolutely nothing for a case either way.
This is pathetic. Nothing he says is definitive either way. Clearly he would not have a vantage point to tell ANYTHING about north or south of the citgo and neither path is "overhead". You have no point with this extremely dubious and suspect high profile witness. You probably consider PNAC signer Gary Bauer a legitimate witness also.
What is this mishmash of confusing words with no point? Why do you insist on staying up late typing such garbage? A better question is why do I keep replying? The plane banked over the Navy Annex just as Boger described this supports Paik 100% and contradicts Morrin's "parallel" claim. Our north of the citgo lazy S curve flight path has ALWAYS been a composite of ALL the witnesses we spoke with. We are allowed to do that you know. We did the research and reported the results concerning the body of evidence as a whole. Your tactic is to separate each individual piece of evidence from the context of the entire body so you can attempt to pick it apart and cast doubt. This is why you are deceptively focusing only on Lagasse in your self-described "ambitious" 3-part flyover article still in progress.
Since he did not report a flight path at all and specifically says that he did not see one at all......it's clear he is not a valid witness to the flight path. We provide direct evidence for the flight path. Deducing and inferring is not witnessing and is therefore not evidence. |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 17 2008, 02:29 PM Post #47 |
|
I'm not aware of any other such study that specifically asked people which side of the gas station they saw the plane on.
I don't know. (See previous response)
I have no way of knowing this. (See first response)
Though that is a possibility, I am not accusing them of being wrong.
Though that is a possibility, I am not accusing them of "misremembering".
I would assume that they did, and do frequent the area, but have not spoken with them directly on the subject.
I would be surprised if they did not, but again, I have not spoken with any of them directly on the subject.
In my opinion, that seems unlikely.
Zero.
See photo below for flight path, including the downed poles. (I don't have a direct link to the specific area of the government report on the subject at my immediate disposal, but this photo does show the OT flight path) ![]() I do not know whether Lloyd's light pole interaction is included in any official government reports.
The only witness that I'm aware of to those events would be Lloyd himself. A few questions for you: - Are there any eyewitnesses accounts which offer an alternate explanation of the damage to Lloyd's cab and the source of the light pole? - What physical evidence did you use to "test" the claims of the n.o.c. eyewitnesses to ensure their validity? - What evidence would falsify the claims of the 6 n.o.c. witnesses? (Think hypothetically) "n.o.c." = North of Citgo |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 17 2008, 03:00 PM Post #48 |
![]()
|
Almost all of them. Many are listed in detail on the witness list thread. Some are unavailable and some will not talk. Have you been to the area before Nicepants? If not, you should go. Perhaps you can provide an identity and we can put you in touch with the officers.
No. Perhaps you don't understand what it means to contradict. It would only be contradicted when you can produce a witness who saw it on the south side or will go on camera and say they saw it on the south side of the Citgo who was actually in a position to tell which side of the station it was on.
You should update that to: 30 unconfirmed and dubious witness accounts directly say they saw the plane hit the pentagon 8 said they saw a plane/jet veering away over/near the Pentagon at the same time as the explosion happened. 1 saw the plane pull up over the highway 1 wanted to believe it banked up at the last minute. 1 told a reporter that the plane "went to the side of the building and not directly in" and "the pilot tried to avert the building" Why do you insist on lying when it has been clearly demonstrated that there is not 104 witnesses that "saw" the plane hit the pentagon. Will you admit you are lying or just spamming a list without actually analyzing the accounts using POV's and the acceptance that reporters words do not constitute seeing an impact?
Oooooh. So which is it? 104 or 25? You don't seem sure. It seems like you are trying to throw anything out there and hope it sticks. Just curious how many out of that 25 saw it on the south side of the Citgo? 0. 6 saw it on the north side 0 saw it on the south side
The 94 don't have to directly corroborate them, they don't contradict them. We have weighed the all the evidence completely. Tell me, were all "104" imaginary witnesses you have in a position to tell which side of the gas station the plane was on? NOPE. Guess who was? Sgt Brooks, Sgt. Lagasse, Robert Turcios, Levi Stephens, Sean Boger. Have you bothered to determine who was in a position?
It's right in the movie, Nicepants. Dave Statter reported that a witness told him the pilot tried to avert the building. That's another witness. Skarlet or punkprincess.com didn't believe the plane hit the building, she wanted to say it banked up at the last minute. That's potentially another witness. Besides, since the plane was on the north side of the Citgo is it more likely that it pulled up or hit the first floor as outlined by the surveillance video and the ASCE report?
What physical evidence? Show me the documentation for the light poles and the flight path through them. Show me where the official gov't "scientists and engineers" documented how the plane hit the light poles approaching from the south side. Show me the official diagram that documents the original positions of the pole. Explain how your "physical evidence" that is the generator trailer does not allow the impact of the right engine since it doesn't match with the FDR trends contained in the black box or the even the left wing tilt required to hit the "vent structure". Is it more likely or less likely that column 14AA would be left hanging in the middle of the hole if a 757 hit that wall? Is it more likely or less likely that column 15-17 would be blown up and out if a 757 hit it? Is it more likely or less likely that the foundation would remained unscratched/undamaged if a 757 skidded in on it's belly into the first floor?
Au contraire my friend. 1. Robert Turcios' eyewitness account supports the flyover. 2. The 6 independent witness accounts who place it on the north side of the Citgo support the flyover. 3. The mysterious "second" plane/jet accounts that could not be the C-130 supports the flyover. 4. The fabricated NTSB/RADES flight path of 77 prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon, which supports the flyover. Absence of evidence is not evidence my friend. Just because there are no witnesses who come forward to specifically state they saw a flyover does not mean that one didn't. The north side approach is what opened this up.
Do you like circles? I'm not a big fan myself. They were decieved because they saw the plane on the north side! Would they be more accurate about the plane being on the north side or about it impacting???? And again, there are no witnesses who saw an impact only those who claim they did and there are NONE who refute the north side by actually detailing a south side flight path. You can't refute the north side, by exclaiming you think they "saw" an impact because you read it somewhere. Do you understand?
Well none of the "accounts of the plane hitting the Pentagon" [that you have never confirmed personally, only read online from the comfort of your home] contradict the north side flight path. So yes, they are mutually exclusive and one negates the other and requires specificity and corroboration. Can you guess which one that is? 10 people on Rt 27 can tell you 10 different ways the plane hit the building, but that is irrelevant if they are oblivious to the noc path or don't contradict it.
B. How can he north side be incorrect, when which side of the gas station was never officially established by witnesses on the ground by the Citgo until we asked? Why because some guy sitting at home stared at pics of light poles, trailers, and a grainy surveillance video and declared the plane came in on the south side...because he said so? The only thing that supports the official south side approach in any documented official way is the ASCE report from the trailer forward and that documentation of that damage was originally inconsistent to begin with... http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=5505 Show me where the ASCE documented which side of the Citgo the plane flew on. Show me where they documented how it hit the light poles. Show me the FDR data that shows the actual height of the plane over the poles.
Because they are corroborated about the same specific detail 6 times over. Because they showed up for the interview. Because they can prove they were there and are not sitting in a cushy office while they "tell us" they were "there". Because not one single witness will directly or can directly contradict all 6 witnesses. Because the FDR and physical evidence do not support the impact of a 757. Because the true flight path of this plane does not support the impact of a 757. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Jan 17 2008, 03:39 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 17 2008, 03:21 PM Post #49 |
|
-accidental post...still working here Edited by nicepants, Jan 17 2008, 03:21 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 17 2008, 03:51 PM Post #50 |
|
I have never been. At some point I'm sure I will, but I have no desire nor need to speak directly with the officers in your video. I trust that you have accurately portrayed their statements in your video.
I must have incorrectly assumed that based on the n.o.c. claims, you concluded that the plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon. Therefore, if someone claims to have seen a plane hit the pentagon, it would be contradictory to: - The claim that the plane was n.o.c. OR - The claim that the plane flying n.o.c. would not allow for the observed impact.
What makes them "dubious"?
On the pages I linked to, there are 104 people who claim that they saw the jet fly into the Pentagon. That is not a false claim, that's what they said.
104 people say they saw the plane hit the pentagon According to YOUR research, you have admitted that there are 25. Either way it's more than the 6 who report n.o.c.
Which means that the majority of impact witnesses do not know which side of Citgo the plane was on.
Why is it always about the Citgo station? If someone saw the plane fly into the Pentagon, are you saying that the n.o.c. witnesses prove them wrong?
Since only 1 witness reported a pull-up, and this was not confirmed by ANY other witnesses, the pull-up seems unlikely.
If we're talking about the analogy, physical evidence that contradicts what is reported by the 3 witnesses. (DNA, fingerprints, etc)
See image & comment(s) from previous post.
If the plane flew over the pentagon, it couldn't have hit the generator. But the generator was hit.
I don't know. I have no way of testing the probability of same. Do you?
I don't know. I have no way of testing the probability of same. Do you?
I don't know. I have no way of testing the probability of same. Do you?
He is the only one.
Did any of them report a flyover? Or did they simply report the plane n.o.c.? There is a difference
It doesn't contradict the claims of a plane impact,.
Link, please, to the data you're referring to. I'll ask my question again, rephrased. Of your "confirmed witnesses", how many specifically stated that they saw the plane pull up and/or fly over the Pentagon?
Exactly. The lack of reports of a flyover is not evidence of a cover-up.
Are you saying that the n.o.c. witnesses were deceived into believing the plane was on the north side?
If it were me, it would be easier for me to say "yes the plane hit the pentagon" then it would be to describe the flight path with any detail.
Just as the n.o.c. witnesses "claim" they saw the plane n.o.c., yet you admittedly refuse to hold them to the same level of scrutiny.
I understand what you are saying, what I don't understand is why you believe the n.o.c. claims to be proven and airtight, therefore anything that disagrees with them must be wrong. Just because people agree on something doesn't make them right.
You've just contradicted yourself again. If they don't contradict, then they are not mutually exclusive. If they are mutually exclusive, then they MUST contradict each other.
So your stance is that unless someone knows which side of the citgo station the plane was on, the rest of their account is invalid?
- That doesn't make them right
- That doesn't make them right
- That doesn't make them right
- What specific statements made by an eyewitness could contradict one or more of the n.o.c. witnesses?
- The physical evidence doesn't support a flyover. (Where was the FDR found?)
- It does not support the flyover theory. Please answer the questions I asked you: - Are there any eyewitnesses accounts which offer an alternate explanation of the damage to Lloyd's cab and the source of the light pole? - What physical evidence did you use to "test" the claims of the n.o.c. eyewitnesses to ensure their validity? - What evidence would falsify the claims of the 6 n.o.c. witnesses? (Think hypothetically) "n.o.c." = North of Citgo |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Sign-up Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |
















7:27 PM Jul 10