| 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! |
| Official story believer cites these things... | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 10 2008, 06:47 AM (557 Views) | |
| scott75 | Oct 10 2008, 06:47 AM Post #1 |
|
An official story believer in another forum cited the things below in order to justify that Flight 77 did indeed do what the official story says. If anyone has any counters, I'd be glad to hear them... ******************************************************** The CIT guys have witness testimony that, depending on your interpretation, places the flight path north of the service station. More here. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/NoC The problem is that the story these witnesses tell differ but they all agree that the plane went on to hit the pentagon. The CIT guys ignore this, take the interpretations they want and claim that the plane flew over. No one saw the plane fly over and instead there are many witnesses who saw it actually hit the pentagon. There are even witnesses who saw it knock over the light poles. Let's go through the list again. 104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon. 6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact. 26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet. 39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner. 2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size. 7 said it was a Boeing 757. 8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief. 2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport. 4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon. 10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole). 16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit. 42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts. 2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats. 15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel. 3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged. 3 took photographs of the aftermath. Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings." And of course, 0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon. 0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away. There was also wreckage matching a 757, hijackers documents and the dna of the victims remains were matched. ******************************************************** |
 |
 
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Oct 10 2008, 10:56 AM Post #2 |
|
This is the disinformation of the anonymous character Reheat aka Retreat. It has been debunked numerous time and is flat out absurd. He created fabricated values and found every possible way to make it seem impossible. It was a big strawman. Even his own have told him it was possible and he conceded it:
It is possible as illustrated by a professional pilot who uses his real name... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7134448689829125037&hl=en Send him to pilotsfor911truth.org
This is the problem with the ignorant. They IGNORE the fact that the plane was on the north side of the Citgo. This means it can't hit the light poles, which can't hit the cab, it can't show up low and level across the lawn as seen in the surveillance video, it can't hit the generator trailer and fence with it's right wing, it can't cause the directional damage leading to the C-ring hole as outlined by the ASCE report---in short it CAN'T hit the first floor and skim into the building. THESE ARE FACTS! The plane's impact and the north side approach are mutually exclusive. Which one do you believe they actually saw? Sgt Brooks said our movie was an "eye-opener" and that "anything is possible" when it comes to him being fooled.
Wrong. Officer Roosevelt Roberts saw the plane banking away AFTER the explosion. This is the problem with the internet and fear. He has no idea what he is even talking about he is merely googling his way to reaffirm his denial. This is why we went out there. You can't simply take internet accounts as forensic proof of an impact of anything. People deduce things. They saw a plane fly by then see smoke or a fireball rise the area of the Pentagon, the deduce an impact. People see light poles lying on the ground after the fact, they say the plane hit some poles. You'll note he doesn't list any names.
This is the work of disinfo agent Mark Roberts. There is no such thing as 104 impact witnesses. http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0 And even the 30 are highly questionable due to position/POV and occupation/conflicts of interest.
Who? Frank Probst is a known liar now that the north side approach has been discovered. Remember it is ALL about the north side approach. THIS PROVES AN INSIDE JOB!
So? So did the news within hours of the event. So some very well could have deduced it and were tainted by news reports. Witnesses told us it did not look like an AA. The witnesses we spoke with don't describe an AA. Even if it it was an AA, it flew north of the Citgo!!! That still means a non-impact and staged light poles, cab, and trailer,.
Yeah, so? We know that. Spamming a known fact we helped establish that was meant for the missile people doesn't affect our findings/evidence.
More than that did.
I can think of 3 who said it was a 737. And so what if it was a 757. It was still on the north side of the Citgo!
And? Did he verify these 8 witnesses as pilots? Yes and the "Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief" PLACED THE PLANE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CITGO! He even debated the surveillance video being accurate!!!
Yeah and um... "So many people think Mark and I watched the plane hit the building. We did NOT. We only saw it approach for an instant." --Alan Wallace (on of those 2 witnesses/firefighters) http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=88
So they were fooled. A big plane and a big explosion. Deduction. It doesn't change the fact that the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo!!! This is fatal to the official story impact!
So? Still on the north side of the Citgo.
Again deduction. Since the plane approached on the north sideof the Citgo the poles weren't hit.http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=51&hl= 
The Pentagon was under renovation in the EXACT section that was allegedly hit. It was scheduled for completion the week of 9/11. There were UNOCCUPIED areas. All of these items could have misidentified or planted.
See above. Misidentifying someone in an office chair or frozen cadavers strapped in a section of seats rolled in the night before in a large wooden crate. We've never seen photos regardless. Doesn't negate the fact that the plane was on the north side of the Citgo. If they would stage a cab and a light pole in broad daylight amidst the chaos, they are capable of something unbelieveable like frozen cadavers.
There was a burning generator with diesel fuel, can they tell the difference? Oh and this...
That could explain the "jet" fuel they smelled. Aviation fuel at a heliport. Imagine that.
The cab damage was fabricated since no poles were, since the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo. As for other cars...yeah explosions hurling debris might do that.
This is what a disinfo agent would do, bulk up the quantity, adding things that are irrelevant to make it appear there is more to his case.
So?
I know. This is disinfo and a strawman.
Robert Turcios saw the plane pull up into an ascent over the highway right befiore the wall . Maria De La Cerda thought the plane "hit on the other side" or hit "high" or "hit the top". Roosevelt Roberts saw it flying away after the explosion.
None of it was positively ID'd as coming tail number N644AA. In fact some of the photos of debris from inside have no photographer credit, no date, no time, no location. In fact, most of the crucial pieces-landing gear, wheel rim, combustion case were NEVER released on a gov't site. In fact, the state department actually links to the only site that ever showed them--a conspiracy site called Rense.com. A site they called the #1 disinfo site! It was posted there by a "Sarah Roberts" who received them from a worker who wanted to remain anonymous.
Really? You have all the evidence pertaining to chain of custody? DNA can be swapped out you know. Doesn't change the fact that the plane was on the north side of the Citgo!!! Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Oct 13 2008, 01:04 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Stinkey Puh | Oct 10 2008, 11:11 AM Post #3 |
|
That sounds a little silly, actually. Perhaps someone can show the "interpretation" of the testimony of Lagasse, Brooks, Stafford, or the others that would place the plane south of the service station. It seems it would actually be more like a twist of their accounts, especially seeing as how they all seem to draw the flightpath similarly -- north of the Citgo. 
Perhaps they differ in small aspects (color and others), but they do also agree that the plane was in fact. . . north of the Citgo.
Which would those be? I must have missed it somewhere. No really, does anyone have witnesses who actually saw the poles get hit?
Would that by any chance be Sean Boger? Well, it appears he also saw the plane. . . north of the Citgo. 
|
|
|
|
| scott75 | Oct 19 2008, 08:19 AM Post #4 |
|
Thank you for taking the time to respond to all those points Aldo (on my birthday no less :-)). I regret to say that I didn't even see it until today; it seems I can't subscribe to topics here to be notified when there is a response, as I can on sciforums. In any case, I've now asked on sciforums whether you aren't being allowed to join there: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86834 Update: One of the moderators had this to say: ******************************************* We have a rather quirky hack in place that will refuse certain accounts to function if they have been made using a browser that has Javascript disabled. It's likely he's the type that uses a NOSCRIPT addon or disables Javascript in his browser. You could tell him to try re-applying however he will require to have Javascript turned on for at least the duration of the signup process. It is known that some Human's fall foul to this, however the number of Advertisement bots are in their thousands (check the ban list for all the 01-01-70 dates) So if you are in contact with him tell him it's not a conspiracy to single him out, he just fell to a bot trap. ******************************************* http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2055671&postcount=6 Edited by scott75, Oct 19 2008, 12:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
| r2d2m2 | Jun 21 2009, 02:52 AM Post #5 |
|
Anyone next to a light pole as it is hit by a 757 is not going to walk away to tell the tale. They will be picked up like a leaf by the exhaust gases from the engines. In fact I have seen a gas turbine toss a car like it was made of cardboard. I have also seen the test beds used by Rolls Royce. The concrete is THICK!!! If a 757 passes that close to you it is going to ruffle your hair and then some. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · American Flight 77 · Next Topic » |
1:15 PM Dec 4
