| 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! |
| There are still no eyewitness reports of a flyover | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 19 2008, 09:37 PM (1,384 Views) | |
| albion | Nov 19 2008, 09:37 PM Post #1 |
|
Just a reminder that CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth have not yet provided any evidence that any jet flew over the Pentagon. It has been shown that all of CIT's eyewitnesses either saw a jet hit the Pentagon or that they believed the jet they saw hit it. There are no eyewitnesses who claim to have seen any flyover. Please present any verified eyewitness reports of anyone seeing a jet fly over and away from the Pentagon. (This does not include the C-130 or E4B as neither aircraft is the one CIT and P4T claim flew low and fast over the Pentagon.) You can present the verified eyewitness evidence here or on the thread at ATS for that purpose. Without this verified evidence CIT's theory can go no further than speculation. CIT needs your help. |
 |
 
|
| JFK | Nov 19 2008, 09:56 PM Post #2 |
|
Just keep on 
|
|
|
| SPreston | Nov 20 2008, 09:37 AM Post #3 |
Patriotic American
|
You're doing great jthomas. Expect a bonus check in the mail soon. |
|
|
|
| mycal | Nov 20 2008, 11:29 AM Post #4 |
|
There would be numerous reports of a plane skimming the pentagon's roof. It would be a spectacle second only to the explosion. All noc witnesses know or believe that what they saw flying, terminated at the pentagon. There was no continuing of the engine roar. There was an explosion then smoke and silence. What plane fled the scene without blaring its engines? |
|
|
|
| 22205 | Nov 20 2008, 07:40 PM Post #5 |
Arlingtonian
|
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=14130&view=findpost&p=10749473 post #41 by jthomas: Aug 17 2008, 11:55 AM OK, I'm booked for Washington for 5 days, at my own expense, arriving Thursday, Aug 28. The only thing that is unclear is what flight path the jet took. Roosevelt Roberts says it banked to the southwest. Craig Ranke thinks he meant toward the north. I need some guidance of where I should look for eyewitnesses given the limited amount of time I have to do this. I am thinking of taking out a classified ad looking for eyewitnesses to a flyover to come forward to be interviewed. Here is the area around the Pentagon which you can mark up and post as where I should concentrate my search. after a rhetoric-filled troll-post on the 17th of august, jthomas returned to P4T on Oct 26 2008, 07:38 AM and posted his "Pentagon View Shed Analysis #1": http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?act=findpost&hl=&pid=10757173 which is an exact duplicate of what johnwood (jthomas' sock) posted here at LCF: http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/787816/1/ NOWHERE in there did he ever bring forth any witness accounts that corroborated the South of Citgo path. NOWHERE in there did he ever bring forth any witness accounts that indicated that a flyover did NOT occur. NOWHERE in there did he make any mention of what became of his trip to Arlington to interview witnesses. jthomas was BANNED here at this forum as of May 11 2008, 09:06 AM:  johnwood was BANNED here at this forum Oct 27 2008, 10:58 PM:  albion joined this forum on 10/28/08  albion's first post ever here, was in the thread johnwood started, on Nov 1 2008, 08:45 AM: http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=151824&t=787816 yet in spite of the amount of egg on his face, johnwood/albion/jthomas the spineless eunuch, without pride or shame or conscience, has continued to spew his accusations against CIT and he also continued to pronounce the official path to be true and he has repeatedly posited that there are no witnesses to a flyover. johnwood/albion/jthomas has NO proof whatsoever for any of his claims, and he apparently has caught amnesia regarding his alleged trip to Arlington to find and document witnesses that put the plane on the South of Citgo path and into the building. johnwood/albion/jthomas continues to demand that others do what he himself claimed he was gonna do. therefore johnwood/albion/jthomas is a useless piece of shit who uses alot of words to say absolutely NOTHING, and who possesses no intellectual honesty. johnwood/albion/jthomas needs to come to Arlington (as he had claimed he was gonna do) and find these alleged southside witnesses, or forever hold his peace. until then, his position is unfounded and unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. *** now albion may deny that he is jthomas' sock, and he may have even found a proxy ip to keep from being directly identified. but his views and his specific context however, are transparent and make it glaringly obvious who he is. so when are you gonna rebook that flight to washington jthomas? when are you going to finally document and validate the OCT witnesses?   |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Nov 21 2008, 08:05 AM Post #6 |
|
Patriotic American
|
  Ummmmm ........ johnwood/albion/jthomas which one of them is you? Are you bringing flowers instead of comfirmed re-interviewed witnesses to the south flight path?  On second thought, maybe your bonus check will not be in the mail soon.  Edited by SPreston, Nov 21 2008, 08:16 AM.
|
|
|
|
| albion | Nov 21 2008, 05:32 PM Post #7 |
|
Please see: http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/42668/1/ |
|
|
|
| JFK | Nov 21 2008, 06:21 PM Post #8 |
|
Personally I agree with him... And you mean this ? - http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/boardrules/ |
|
|
|
| 22205 | Nov 29 2008, 01:00 AM Post #9 |
|
Arlingtonian
|
so albion, do you confess to being a jthomas sock? ? |
|
|
|
| 22205 | Dec 3 2008, 10:16 PM Post #10 |
|
Arlingtonian
|
bump for albion. the reason this is so important jthomas, has little to do with your being banned. the real agenda here is that i want you to answer for what happened with the trip you were supposed to take to Arlington to find and document South of Citgo witnesses. either you came and found witnesses, but for obvious (NoC) reasons, you are not divulging what you found out, or- you were full of shit, and never intended to come here. thus your claim of having booked a flight for Arlington was supposed to be some sort of way to call CIT's bluff, hoping they would be scared that you would find some witnesses to contradict the 13+ people who saw a North of Citgo plane. but it looks like your bluff blew up in your face! you still have no one to stand by or allege a south of citgo approach. NOT ONE! all you have are highly suspect static accounts on paper and in cyber space parroting the official story. yet you continue your pseudo-skeptical grift without shame or conscience. you run circles around the truth, moving goalposts and building strawmen, instead of doing the one thing that can substantiate YOUR claims: find, document, and validate even one south of citgo flight path witness. nevermind that you cant find 13 of them. all you need is ONE! cuz even with just one such witness, at least you have earned some sort of credibility and respect. without any effort on your part to find such a witness, you are nothing but a liar and hypocrite, who recklessly spews falsehoods in a conscious effort to marginalize and undermine THE TRUTH. |
|
|
|
| justfacts | Jan 9 2009, 02:59 PM Post #11 |
|
"Some witnesses to contradict"?? How about all the witnesses. |
|
|
|
| albion | Jan 11 2009, 10:14 AM Post #12 |
|
Just a reminder that there are still no eyewitnesses to a flyover from the CIT/P4T crew. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jan 11 2009, 10:19 AM Post #13 |
|
No matter how many times you tell yourself that JThomas, it won't make roberts go away. |
|
|
|
| icu | Jan 11 2009, 01:22 PM Post #14 |
|
If people from FBI come and tell Shanksville eyewitnesses what they should have seen (instead of what they actually have), how can you expect any flyover eyewitness to speak up? Edited by icu, Jan 11 2009, 01:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
| pguillory | Jan 11 2009, 01:44 PM Post #15 |
|
So you are saying that anyone in a postion to see the flyover, would not report it, because they are afraid of the gov? Why did people report seeing the 'white plane' or the C-130? I thought the truthers theory was that the people were fooled into thinking the plane hit the pentagon. Now you are saying that they were just afraid to say that they saw the flyover? |
|
|
|
| icu | Jan 11 2009, 01:47 PM Post #16 |
|
Exactly. It is so simple to figure that out. Would you not be scared? C-130 plays its role in the official story. Edited by icu, Jan 11 2009, 01:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Jan 11 2009, 01:57 PM Post #17 |
|
A C-130 is not jet powered, the "white plane" which the existance of was denied, yet recorded and broadcast, was several thousand, not a couple of hundred feet off the ground. |
|
|
|
| icu | Jan 11 2009, 01:58 PM Post #18 |
|
Oopss..
Edited by icu, Jan 11 2009, 01:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
| albion | Jan 12 2009, 06:38 PM Post #19 |
|
CIT is trying to make Roberts go away since it couldn't sell Roberts's contradictory testimony. Anyway, Roberts never saw a flyover unless you agree with his statement about seeing an aircraft 1/2 hour before the attack. If he had, so would a whole slew of others. And we can see how CIT doesn't want to go there. [/quote] |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jan 12 2009, 07:15 PM Post #20 |
|
[/quote]But it is you and you kind which have twisted his timeline from what he stated. |
|
|
|
| 22205 | Jan 12 2009, 09:14 PM Post #21 |
|
Arlingtonian
|
jthomas - answer this simple question: what event is roosevelt describing? if it was really 9:11 or 9:12 am as you allege, then what explosions shook the inside of the building? did hani hanjour or alqueda place explosives INSIDE the building and detonate them at 9:11 or 9:12am? based on such a literal and tunnel minded interpretation of time as yours, then this footage is actually from september TWELFTH and NOT the 11th of september 2001 and at 5:37pm:  right? since the parking lot timestamp from DoD's own secuirty camera says its 17:37 on 9/12, then we should abandon all logic and assume that 9/11 actually happened on the 12th at the pentagon, right? its obvious whatever clock rossevelt saw and is remembering was about 20 minutes off. its the event itself that marks and indicates the correct time, not a clock/watch or roosevelt's misrememberance of the exact time. but as mentioned, if we DO take him literally, you have yet to explain what caused the event (explosion, panic, people running, ceiling tiles falling) that roosevelt attributes to a 9:11 or 9:12am occurrence. so: -what was that event at 9:11/9:12am? -who caused that event at 9:11/9:12am? -how come no one has stepped forth and placed the event at 9:11/9:12am? its obvious that the event he experienced was THE 9:37am explosion. your attempt to convolute/obfuscate that reality not only exposes how married you are to your official story beliefs, but how desperately lame your only choice is. there is no way around roosevelt's account and you know it. if u think otherwise, then i demand you explain what this other ("earlier") event was and how any of the 19 hijackers committed it. and if not them, then who? who had access to the inside of the pentagon enough to blow stuff up in there at 9:11am or 9:12? who? and btw - when you gonna come to arlington and interview one of those "thousands" of official story witnesses? im still waiting to show u around town bud, so quit delaying. lets go talk to khavkin or hagos. or lets go talk to uhm, who else is there? gerrard? or morin? go ahead and name some of your "1000's" of witnesses, and lets go talk to them locally. i'll film and you do your thing, get em to validate their accounts. shit lets go to roosevelt's house and you can go up to his door and ask him if there were 2 separate explosive events inside the building, one at 9:12 and one at 9:37. are u game? how about you call him? lets settle this timing thing once and for all. he is in the whitepages, show some "investigative gumption" and see if you can find him. then call him and record you asking him your questions. do it. or stfu with your multiple socks and quit trying to spread ur amateur-grade disinfo. Edited by 22205, Jan 12 2009, 09:16 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 13 2009, 06:56 AM Post #22 |
|
for real though. you can tell the real disinfo artists from the amateur faux news addicts. this bozo could never achieve something like russell pickering or mark roberts status. but could fit right in with porky76 and bobert. |
|
|
|
| albion | Jan 13 2009, 10:57 AM Post #23 |
|
AA77 hitting the Pentagon 1/2 hour later.
There were no explosions at 9:11, 9:12.
We're all smart enough to know that the clock on the camera was incorrect. Unless you believe the "government" set it to make you suspicious.
It's not obvious at all. He described events in sequence. He NEVER said any explosion took place at 9:11, 9:12. He specifically stated he had a phone call warning him of a potential attack on the Pentagon. He was watching the TV showing the replay of UA175 hitting WTC 2 and when he hung up the phone he ran out to the loading dock. Why? To look for any possible attack plane. ALL he said was that he saw an "aircraft flying around the south parking lot at 9:12, 9:11." THEN he heard an explosion when he was outside. "THEN" does not automatically mean "immediately"; it simply refers to the NEXT significant event in his narrative. No matter what you want to read into it, Roberts then tells CIT a completely different story, leaving CIT hanging as to what Roberts meant, and never able to clarify it. And you think Roberts makes a credible witness? That has long since proven how desperate CIT is. You can read whatever you want to it, Roberts is no more a witness to any flyover than a prairie dog.
At 9:37, yes. Not at 9:11.
Whenever Truthers are cornered they resort to the "official story" canard. You know full well that Robert's contradicted himself in 2 different interviews and left CIT not knowing what he meant in the second. You call yourselves "investigators? It only takes logic and critical thinking to see through the CIT nonsense.
LOL! You still want me to do YOUR investigation for you? Amazing. Get off your butt and interview them like you should have from the beginning. And while you're at it, go find the dozens of eyewitnesses that were in a position to see any jet fly over the Pentagon. Oh, that's right, you can't, can you? [/quote] |
|
|
|
| albion | Jan 13 2009, 11:08 AM Post #24 |
|
Not really. He is just relating in sequence what what he remembers in his first interview. It is only a narrative; the interviewer did not ask questions of clarification since that was not the purpose of the interview. It can be interpreted differently which is only one of multiple reasons why any real investigator would never use Robert's testimony as evidence of anything. The others being: The contradictions of the first interview in the second interview. CIT's acknowledged confusion in what Robert's meant in the second interview. CIT's inability to obtain any clarification of that confusion. The complete and total lack of any eyewitnesses to any flyover. The complete and utter refusal of CIT to present ANY eyewitnesses to a flyover. This is why CIT is completely flummoxed by it's contradictory and unproven theory. Edited by albion, Jan 13 2009, 11:09 AM.
|
|
|
|
| 22205 | Jan 14 2009, 03:22 AM Post #25 |
|
Arlingtonian
|
albion, are you or are you not a jthomas sock? did you or did you not lie when you said you had booked a flight to come to arlington with the purpose of interviewing witnesses? why did you lie? or did you come and find NO witnesses to support the official path/story? i have done my homework and investigated and continue to do so, and so far i have found at least 2 more witnesses to corroborate what CIT's witnesses remember. i have also found contact information for several of the "official story" witnesses, but none of them have been willing to respond when they were called. so there's no failure on my part to "get off my butt", no. its that none of these alleged "official story" witnesses are willing to discuss anything. if you would get off your lying, obfuscating, obtuse ass, and actually attempt to reach these people instead of lying and pretending to do so, then you too would find that there is NO ONE in arlington willing to corroborate any of the "official path" accounts attributed to them. so albion, are you or are you not the liar, jthomas? will you or wont you attempt to validate your "official path/story" allegations? will you or wont you (attempt to) find and contact roosevelt roberts? you can keep twisting roosevelt's account, and while i admit there are grey areas to his recollections, its still does not change the gist of his account. you can live in a bubble, void of all the other pieces of information/evidence that prove the plane did not fly where its alleged to have, and you can ignore/deny the implications of the sum of all of these facts, but it wont change a damn thing. it might occupy 20 minutes of my time when im dumb enough to argue with a 15 year old idiot who lies about trying to obtain real information, but thats about all. the plane did not fly south of the citgo, therefore none of the damage in its alleged (official) path could have been made by the plane in question. you've denied it before, but i've been quite clear (and yes correct) that a- not that many people would have seen the entire event enough to actually know they witnessed a flyover and b- if they had, there is an overwhelming amount of legitimate reasons that they would keep it to themselves. and here's one last thing that comes to mind jthomas: if - as you say - roosevelt's account is so benign, so free of any damaging facts to the official story, so withOUT implication, then why do you suppose he went from willing to talk, to complete shut down? why do you think he refused to even diagram a simple picture with where he saw this plane go? why jthomas, why? why wouldnt he divulge a few simple facts about the event he witnessed, if they happened at 9:11 or 9:12? what would the big deal be about describing some random plane? you know why. *** a few other points: why would dewit roseborough refuse to describe ANYTHING at all about what he saw? you say there are no "flyover witnesses", yet there are a few that are good candidates, yet they refuse to talk. you deny my assessment, where i suggest that anyone who saw the actual flyover would NOT speak about it, yet here are roberts and roseborough shutting the door in our faces, refusing to say a word about the events they witnessed. there is a very good reason for them and any other flyover witnesses to keep their peace: BECAUSE what they saw does NOT match the official story. only people who didnt see the full event, or saw a part of it and dont get the implications are willing to speak. i just spoke with another witness last week who saw the plane in a place the official data denies it was at. she's a bit far back in the path, so i doubt she would ever have any idea that what she saw isnt supported by the official data. thus, without knowing any of the implications, she was open about her recollections of the plane, when she and i spoke on the phone. she said she would consider going on camera, and come some warmer days ahead, i will get her on camera and share it. on the other hand, another witness i spoke to, who was closer to the final approach (near the annex - several houses north of ed paik on ode street) smells that there must be some implications to what she saw, and she wont speak to me. she's not even a flyover witness, just a north of columbia pike witness, yet she's reticent to go on record about it. why? because i asked her to tell me what she saw and asked her if she would do it on location and on camera. thats all. my eagerness to document her account tipped her off that her account must mean something. she's probably thinking "this guy wouldnt be calling me 3 times in one week asking for an interview, if what i saw was no big deal". so now she wont even return my calls. my only hope at this point is to give her enough space to come around on her own. but thats why its so important for you to try and reach some of the witnesses yourself jthomas. so you can get a taste of how delicate a task it is, and how some people would rather not talk about it. but more importantly - you need to reach some of these people for yourself, so that you'll know no one is pulling your chain and hiding contradictory (to NoC) witnesses. there are no south of citgo/colpike witnesses who are willing to say so on the phone, but especially on location and on camera. judging by the number of interviews you've conducted/shared so far, there isnt even ONE official story witness willing to EMAIL YOU with their account, much less let u record a phone call about it. so you have zero, zilch so far to defend your assertions. get one, just one witness, even by email, to tell you they saw the plane south of the pike. find one witness who saw the plane hit the poles. find one witness period jthomas. but you wont. you can, but it aint gonna happen. i know why and you know why. so keep spinning more tall tales and keep being obtuse. but you have jackshit to refute anything. YOU LIED ABOUT COMING HERE, YOU LIED ABOUT INTERVIEWING WITNESSES, and you have the nerve to tell me to do YOUR homework. i will keep doing what i've been doing, bringing up the topic of 911 with people i meet locally, hoping to again run into someone who saw something (the plane) that day. i dont set out to define them as NoC witnesses, nor do i set out to find them based on some categorization. i just look for witnesses. what they divulge is the innocent truth, meaning they have no ruse nor reason for lying. so far, 2 of 2 random witnesses by way of their truthful recollections have corroborated CIT's witnesses and contradicted the official path. thats why i know there are no official path witnesses, cuz everyone who did see the plane, saw it where CIT has documented it went. you can latch on to the one thing thats harder to prove conclusively via witnesses, namely the flyover. but all these other holes your official story roof need mending, namely the contradictory flight paths (real vs. "official"). but thats where you have zero southside witnesses, only static accounts on paper and in cyber world. find one in the flesh and establish communication with just one of them to the point of being granted an interview, and then document it. i dare ya. im working on my two witnesses and eventually arranging their official interviews, one way or another. in due time, that will be at least 2 more (documented) people who saw the plane while it was flying in place where it shouldnt have been if the official path was true. but- what will you have? more rhetoric and spin. what wont you have? any official path witnesses, validated and documented. what will we have? 13 or more (+ 2) witnesses contradicting the official path what will we have? 13 or more (+ 2) witnesses who prove a deception took place i can live with that jthomas. can you? you're gonna have to, or you can stay in denial forever. enjoy your willful ignorance. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
7:47 PM Nov 30
