Alfie

Jul 31 2009, 03:34 PM

22205

Just for the record, I am not marley, jimbob etc and I have nothing to do with JREF. I am posting from the UK and I have never been on this forum under a previous name. The mods may be able to confirm.

I do understand that it must be difficult when you have put effort into something to have it rubbished but this is all way beyond your feelings.

It is not the fault of debunkers that there now seems to be a civil war amongst what is left of the truther movement and I shall be interested to see what is left when the dust settles.

I would personally be very interested to speak directly to witnesses but I have the Atlantic Ocean to consider.

espresso

Jul 31 2009, 04:39 PM

I don't expect their contact information to be handed over. I have stated many times that I would be content with having someone with their contact information simply forward an e-mail to them on my behalf. I respect the fact that you and others have worked very hard to obtain that information which is why I suggested an alternative that wouldn't require you to give me any of it.


My Loss? What have I lost? There's no loss on my part. Aldo is the one who wanted skeptics contact the witnesses so if it's anyone's loss then its his. I gain nothing by contacting them.

Aldo Marquis CIT

Jul 31 2009, 04:27 PM

I don't like you or your kind so we are not doing your work for you and we are not divulging personal information.

This has gone on for what 2-3 pages? What are you not getting besides the information?

Just do some homework and find a way to contact them. It is not that difficult.

Unless, wait a minute, you aren't trying to flip this on me as if it is my responsibility are you? It isn't my responsiblity to give you people's contact information.

Stop being a lazy, cowardly individual and get their contact info. Why not just fly to Arlington and walk onto ANC grounds, it is free and all those guys are in the maintenance area.

espresso

Jul 31 2009, 04:53 PM

Why should I spend my time & money tracking down these people, flying to Arlington, interviewing them, and whatever else just to satisfy the demands of someone who "doesn't like me or my kind".

Aldo Marquis CIT

Jul 31 2009, 04:33 PM

Quote:

 

Alf: The major problem seems to be that although they have identified witnesses who thought the plane passed north of the Gas Station most, or all, of those witnesses still stay the plane hit the Pentagon. CIT have it that a pass north of the Gas Station means the plane must have overflown the Pentagon. The fact that there are no witnesses to that, apart from a couple of questionables, gives rise to the incredulity.

Actually that is not a problem. Thats because if they saw it approach on the north side of the gas station they couldnt have seen an impact and were clearly fooled. you do understand that right?

But of course you already knew that. You clearly are well informed but trying to feign an innocent igorance. Nice try sock.

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-can_north_side_plane_hit.html

And clearly you forgot about those pesky light poles huh, "Alf"?

Aldo Marquis CIT

Jul 31 2009, 04:58 PM

espresso

Jul 31 2009, 04:53 PM

Why should I spend my time & money tracking down these people, flying to Arlington, interviewing them, and whatever else just to satisfy the demands of someone who "doesn't like me or my kind".

Because, you don't believe your own eyes and ears.

Again, you are doubting them right? You don't believe the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo right? So my challenge was for you to contact them and tell them this, explain how they are wrong, explain how they actually saw it on the south side of the gas station-not BANKING to the right on the north side of the gas station. You are supposed to ask them questions that either confirm it to you or give you cause to deny it.

Don't flip this on me. This is not about pleasing me. This is about pleasing yourself. You want the truth right? Stop trying to reverse this.

tedscotland

Jul 31 2009, 04:42 PM

Alfie

Jul 31 2009, 03:34 PM

22205

Just for the record, I am not marley, jimbob etc and I have nothing to do with JREF. I am posting from the UK and I have never been on this forum under a previous name. The mods may be able to confirm.

I do understand that it must be difficult when you have put effort into something to have it rubbished but this is all way beyond your feelings.

It is not the fault of debunkers that there now seems to be a civil war amongst what is left of the truther movement and I shall be interested to see what is left when the dust settles.

I would personally be very interested to speak directly to witnesses but I have the Atlantic Ocean to consider.

just out of curiosity, what questions would you like to ask them? In the presentations i watched they weren't coerced or mis quoted in any way so what more do you think you are going uncover?

Alfie

Jul 31 2009, 05:12 PM

tedscotland

Jul 31 2009, 04:42 PM

Alfie

Jul 31 2009, 03:34 PM

22205

Just for the record, I am not marley, jimbob etc and I have nothing to do with JREF. I am posting from the UK and I have never been on this forum under a previous name. The mods may be able to confirm.

I do understand that it must be difficult when you have put effort into something to have it rubbished but this is all way beyond your feelings.

It is not the fault of debunkers that there now seems to be a civil war amongst what is left of the truther movement and I shall be interested to see what is left when the dust settles.

I would personally be very interested to speak directly to witnesses but I have the Atlantic Ocean to consider.

just out of curiosity, what questions would you like to ask them? In the presentations i watched they weren't coerced or mis quoted in any way so what more do you think you are going uncover?

I didn't mean that I just wanted to speak to CIT witnesses. I would like to speak to any witnesses and just ask them to describe what they saw and how they felt.

Quote:

 

Aldo

No, I haven't forgotten the light poles.

Quote:

 

I think that the broken light poles and the impact to the Pentagon are the primary evidence of the flight path in.

Quote:

 

Somewhere between 90 and 110 witnesses say they saw something impact the Pentagon. Many of them say it was a passenger jet and some even say an AA plane.

Quote:

 

If you asked them all to indicate what they thought was the flight path I suspect you would get a spiders web.

Quote:

 

I appreciate what you are trying to do in relation to the Gas Station but what is the width of that ? The plane itself has a wingspan of 124' 10", doesn't that pretty much cover it ? You are talking small margins.

Quote:

 

In a horrendous and terrifying event like this it does not surprise me in the least that witnesses vary.

Quote:

 

However, what they emphatically don't say is that they saw a flyover.

Quote:

 

Here this might help you with understanding the mentality and view of a flyover or potential flyover witness:

imo the effect of a massive explosion would be like a stun grenade to (at least) the 10th power. blinded by the light (at least momentarily), and deafened by sound/concussion (again - at least momentarily), you would not be able to gather your wits for at least 3-5 seconds. most people would be "shell shocked" and probably caught in an awe or daze, with everything feeling surreal/unreal (which you hear/read in alot or the accounts - even from people who only felt/heard it inside the building). but even if you did keep your wits about you, thanks to the few seconds of blindness/deafness, you would not know where to look to follow (or find) the plane visually. the 3-5 seconds it would take for your sense of sight/sound to return, is enough time for the plane to disappear from view and either land at the airport, or turn around enough to appear like a plane on DCA's normal comeNgo route.

only from a few very specific visual perspectives (based on very specific locations) would you be able to see what happened and KNOW what became of the plane. imo - for the best view - you would have to be on the 14th st bridge approaching virginia (going south), with the pentagon on your right and the sheraton in full view. you would have to see the approach over the annex, take notice of it, and follow the plane's path. only from there on the highway could you see from the beginning approach, to the exit end of the plane, AND know that it was the same plane (not a "2nd" one) - that is if you bothered to look AND took your eyes off the road long enough to watch the whole thing.

the following are a sequence of pics showing the view (from 395south/14th st. bridge into viriginia) that im referring to:













NOTE: the above have me exiting to the right on the washington blvd exit,
if you keep straight on the highway you will have a much more limited view:




but from the majority of other locations, your view of the approach and the exit of the decoy jet, would be seperated by not only the explosion, but by the building itself (example: roosevelt roberts). if you saw a plane from these other (limited) perspectives, it would be hard to realize that that it wasNt a second plane, but actually the "attack plane".

the south parking lot would be an ideal on-foot location to see from, and in fact (at least) one official witness was there, noel sepulveda. if he's not lying about where he was, he would be under the plane (over lane 1 as roberts puts it), and he should technically see the exit path. BUT sepulveda conveniently claims that he was knocked back and knocked out by the explosion, so he avoids placing himself as a witness to the flyover event. he walks the safe line of supporting the official path without putting himself in a legal position to have to ever answer for those few very crucial seconds when the plane diverted instead of impacting.

note: lincoln leibner is the only southlot guy who claims to have seen the impact, but he places the plane as coming into the 2nd or 3rd floor:

[url="http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=244269&t=577603"]http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums...69&t=577603[/url]

he also displays some of the "shell shock" i alluded to before. but aside from him, there is no one from that crucial location to say what the plane did or didnt do. i think that if you saw it flyover, and you were in the pentagon (south) parking lot, then you most likely worked for the DoD in some direct or indirect capacity, so you probably knew it was best to keep your mouth shut.

speaking of keeping quiet, there is dewitt roseborough who was also in that location (near southlot somewherez), and who displays some of this "shell shock". even tho he was caught in a surreal moment of wtf, he still seems to have witnessed exactly what happened, hinting at ever so carefully (subconsciously or knowingly) in his one of his online accounts of the events. but when cit interviewed him, he would NOT even describe what he saw! that was all that was asked of him and he clammed up, saying he "appreciates what craig and them are doing", but he declined any comments about the plane's path:

[url="http://www.thepentacon.com/DewittRoseborough.mp3"]http://www.thepentacon.com/DewittRoseborough.mp3[/url]
[url="http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=449"]http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=449[/url]
[url="http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/876461/1/"]http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/876461/1/[/url]


here is his account here:
[url="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBQ/is_2002_Sept/ai_93449441/pg_4?tag=artBody;col1"]http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IB...ag=artBody;col1[/url]

It was as he was leaving the Pentagon that the world Roseborough knew changed forever. "I got out into the parking lot, just walking along, and all of a sudden, I hear what I would describe as a 'lion's roar' above my head," Roseborough said.

"It caught my attention, and as I looked up, I heard another roar and I saw this airplane flying low. I thought, 'Oh, my God, this thing is really low.'

"I thought it was going to crash onto the highway," recalled Roseborough. "Just as I thought that, I saw a fireball come from over the Pentagon. I was just standing there dumbfounded, thinking, 'What just happened?'"

As debris floated and flew his way, he realized he needed to take cover. "I ducked under a walkway for what seemed to be a long time, but actually was only about a minute," Roseborough said. "That's when I noticed this woman screaming out in the parking lot. It broke my 'shock state.'" He ran to her and helped calm her down.

i think that that either he himself omitted describing the actual impact (i.e. flyover), OR whoever recorded roseborough's account and/or interviewed him, may have taken certain editorial liberties, because it seems some of the connecting details of dewit's recollections were omitted. the author credited with his original account is a navy communications specialist, Chris Strawss. interestingly, look what he wrote in November 2001:

[url="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBQ/is_/ai_82321322?tag=artBody;col1"]http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IB...ag=artBody;col1[/url]

Loose lips can still sink ships - management of unclassified information by naval personnel
All Hands, Nov, 2001 by Craig Strawser

Military strategists have long understood the value of catching an enemy by surprise. Historical examples abound, with the Japanese success at Pearl Harbor and the American victory at Midway being prime examples.

If you can deny an adversary the opportunity to predict your actions, you can achieve significant tactical advantage. That the terrorists who attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001, could execute such an elaborate plan without detection, proves that they understand an important military concept -- operations security (OPSEC).

OPSEC attempts to prevent adversaries from gaining critical or sensitive data about our intentions or capabilities by evaluating available information -- often unclassified -- which is conveyed unintentionally by our words, actions or behavior...

Internet chatrooms and discussion boards, which give many people a place to share their feelings with others in a "real-time" discussion, could also give our adversary the information he needs to avoid being caught by surprise. Now is the time to be especially vigilant in protecting information that could compromise ourselves, our ships, our military and our country.

How can we do that? We just need to heed the words of wisdom from our past. Think OPSEC.

"If you your lips would keep from slips, Five things observe with care -- To whom you speak, of what you speak, And how, and when, and where."


i think that pretty well sums up the protocol that would come to mind and be adhered to, if in fact you were a pentagon south lot witness on 9/11, and saw the flyover:

OPSEC = STFU.

another sequence of pics heading south with the pentagon on the right, taken at a different time of year:























[

(For higher resolution pics: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=17693&view=findpost&p=10774498)

ps- the point (of the pics) btw - in case it got lost in the mix - is that a- there was no "second plane", and that b- the only way to realize or be cognizant that it wasNt a second plane, would be to have seen the full path of the decoy jet, from approach to exit.

imo that is.

Quote:

 

It's about convincing myself?

Quote:

 

I must have misunderstood your post because I thought you were calling skeptics traitorous cowards because we wouldn't submit to your challenge to explain to these eyewitnesses that they were wrong.

Quote:

 

I don't need to speak with these witnesses to know that they're wrong. Your video was enough to convince me. I don't need to tell them.

alfie

 

22205

Just for the record, I am not marley, jimbob etc and I have nothing to do with JREF. I am posting from the UK and I have never been on this forum under a previous name. The mods may be able to confirm.

I do understand that it must be difficult when you have put effort into something to have it rubbished but this is all way beyond your feelings.

It is not the fault of debunkers that there now seems to be a civil war amongst what is left of the truther movement and I shall be interested to see what is left when the dust settles.

I would personally be very interested to speak directly to witnesses but I have the Atlantic Ocean to consider.

22205

Jul 31 2009, 06:12 PM

alfie

 

22205

Just for the record, I am not marley, jimbob etc and I have nothing to do with JREF. I am posting from the UK and I have never been on this forum under a previous name. The mods may be able to confirm.

I do understand that it must be difficult when you have put effort into something to have it rubbished but this is all way beyond your feelings.

It is not the fault of debunkers that there now seems to be a civil war amongst what is left of the truther movement and I shall be interested to see what is left when the dust settles.

I would personally be very interested to speak directly to witnesses but I have the Atlantic Ocean to consider.

note alfie, i quoted you using your current screen name, so for the time being i retract my accustion/assertion about you being a sock. but im curious alfie, what brought you here to this forum? is this your first forray into 9/11 truth? or have u been pursuing (and trying to debunk) it for some measure of time? can you forward me to any of your posts or profiles at other 9/11 related sites (jref included)? how about that fairly populated uk911 truth board, are you or have you been active there?

here's the thing alfie: there's a dozen or so guys/gals who have devoted themselves to "duhbunking" at "truth sites" on a fulltime basis for about 2-3 years now. at this current incarnation of LCforums, maybe half of them got banned and keep coming back under new socks (they are transparent as cellaphane and easy to generally recognize). then there are some prominent debunkers/jrefers who are NOT banned here, but whom i dont see posting under their "real" names anymore. yet i know they havent disappeared or left, so i guarantee they are posting here as socks. so if i suspect you of being one of them, its not all that outrageous or incredible, and its THEIR fault for being so deceptive.

so you walk in here showing that you are fairly familiar with "things" and because i haveNt seen a duhbunker named "alfie" anywhere, i made a calculated guess that you are someone's sock. if not RanB's then maybe some other knuckle-headed obssessor/naysayer. so maybe i got the wrong guy, but overall i still suspect the shoe fits. frankly, all of that is secondary to wether or not you guys are willing to contact any of witnesses. since you cant be trusted - thanks to your extreme bias and intellectual dishonest - then i dont think i want to be the guy to lead you to these witnesses. you will have to find them yourselves. and yes while many of them were hard to find, some were not and are listed openly in public domain (in simple to find places).

so dearest "espresso", how much time and effort does it take to use the white pages, online? quit bluffin man. in fact - go back and read the lightpole witnesses thread, there is legit contact info for at least 2 (alleged) witnesses there, posted months ago and waiting for you to use. so there you are - i gave you 2 witnesses' contact infos, will you finally do what you've been claiming you're gonna do? or are you going to find a new pretext/excuse to hide behind?

btw- we will not play middleman for you and forward messages. the one thing you take most for granted, is how delicate a processs it is to actually impose on these people and how hard it is to get them to open up about a tragedy they have wanted to forget about. so until you take your first step towards reaching one of them, you wont have a clue whats up or why we wont be the one to do your bidding. let me say it one more time: you have to EARN knowledge, its not your's to have for free - you are NOT worthy. try establishing some contact with some witnesses and you will finally begin to understand exactly what i mean when i say "EARN".



***


ps - alfie maybe i was abit rash when i called a certain skepticsock a "turd", but as far as the "moblogging" comment, that wasnt a characterization by me. the sock in question (or at least whom i suspect it is) has/had a blog where in it he used the phrase and had a subsection called "moblog", which if i understand correctly, is some sort of a refrrence to homosexuality. so i admit i (regretfully) got heated for a minute there and was rude, but since you specifically quoted that part of my outburst, i wanted to clarify that it wasnt me who came up with that specific term.

espresso

 

"It's about convincing myself?

I must have misunderstood your post because I thought you were calling skeptics traitorous cowards because we wouldn't submit to your challenge to explain to these eyewitnesses that they were wrong.

I don't need to speak with these witnesses to know that they're wrong. Your video was enough to convince me. I don't need to tell them."

Aldo Marquis CIT

Jul 31 2009, 05:34 PM

Quote:

 

It's about convincing myself?

Yes it is. Because clearly you are concerned about this issue. You are here debating it. So you should go to the source no?

Quote:

 

I must have misunderstood your post because I thought you were calling skeptics traitorous cowards because we wouldn't submit to your challenge to explain to these eyewitnesses that they were wrong.

Yes that and I was encouraging, no daring, you to speak with the witnesses.

Quote:

 

I don't need to speak with these witnesses to know that they're wrong. Your video was enough to convince me. I don't need to tell them.

Then why are you on this thread? In fact, why are you worrying about it? You were just going to do this to please me?

So you weren't there, they were, and you know they are wrong? Does that about sum it up?

ok moving right along. Next.

22205

 

so dearest "espresso", how much time and effort does it take to use the white pages, online? quit bluffin man. in fact - go back and read the lightpole witnesses thread, there is legit contact info for at least 2 (alleged) witnesses there, posted months ago and waiting for you to use. so there you are - i gave you 2 witnesses' contact infos, will you finally do what you've been claiming you're gonna do? or are you going to find a new pretext/excuse to hide behind?

btw- we will not play middleman for you and forward messages. the one thing you take most for granted, is how delicate a processs it is to actually impose on these people and how hard it is to get them to open up about a tragedy they have wanted to forget about.

22205

 

maybe i was abit rash when i called a certain skepticsock a "turd", but as far as the "moblogging" comment, that wasnt a characterization by me. the sock in question (or at least whom i suspect it is) has/had a blog where in it he used the phrase and had a subsection called "moblog", which if i understand correctly, is some sort of a refrrence to homosexuality. so i admit i (regretfully) got heated for a minute there

Alfie

Jul 31 2009, 06:06 PM

Aldo

Many thanks for the very clear photos of the Pentagon from the car.

Between you and JFK I must admit that I am getting pretty keen on visiting the area.

However, as it stands, I have to say that I do not have a sliver of a doubt that AA 77 was crashed into the Pentagon.

The theory of the flyover of the Pentagon just has no witnesses, when you would expect hundreds, and is obviously not getting any traction.

Aldo Marquis CIT

Aug 1 2009, 01:33 PM

Alfie

Jul 31 2009, 06:06 PM

The theory of the flyover of the Pentagon just has no witnesses, when you would expect hundreds, and is obviously not getting any traction.

There is no theory. There is evidence for a flyover. No matter how coy and confident you act, Mr Anonymous Poster.

The very fact that you use the word theory over and over shows your intent. You are trying to manipulate the reader.

Aldo Marquis CIT

 

16. All 911 calls from the Arlington area were confiscated and sequestered and have never been released, could this be construed as supportive evidence of a cover up of the flyover?

tedscotland

Jul 31 2009, 04:42 PM

just out of curiosity, what questions would you like to ask them? In the presentations i watched they weren't coerced or mis quoted in any way so what more do you think you are going uncover?

espresso

Aug 1 2009, 07:32 PM

Calling it a theory is manipulative? All we have to explain what happened on 9/11 are theories, some better than others.
If the flyover isn't a theory then what is it?

I'll allow the poster you addressed your questions to the opportunity to answer them, but I did want to touch on one of them:

Aldo Marquis CIT

 

16. All 911 calls from the Arlington area were confiscated and sequestered and have never been released, could this be construed as supportive evidence of a cover up of the flyover?

No. Because as you said earlier "ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE"

Quote:

 

Calling it a theory is manipulative? All we have to explain what happened on 9/11 are theories, some better than others.
If the flyover isn't a theory then what is it?

Quote:

 

I'll allow the poster you addressed your questions to the opportunity to answer them, but I did want to touch on one of them:

Aldo Marquis CIT

 

16. All 911 calls from the Arlington area were confiscated and sequestered and have never been released, could this be construed as supportive evidence of a cover up of the flyover?

No. Because as you said earlier "ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE"

Aldo Marquis CIT

Aug 1 2009, 08:25 PM

espresso

Aug 1 2009, 07:32 PM

Calling it a theory is manipulative? All we have to explain what happened on 9/11 are theories, some better than others.
If the flyover isn't a theory then what is it?

I'll allow the poster you addressed your questions to the opportunity to answer them, but I did want to touch on one of them:

Aldo Marquis CIT

 

16. All 911 calls from the Arlington area were confiscated and sequestered and have never been released, could this be construed as supportive evidence of a cover up of the flyover?

No. Because as you said earlier "ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE"

Quote:

 

Calling it a theory is manipulative? All we have to explain what happened on 9/11 are theories, some better than others.
If the flyover isn't a theory then what is it?

No, actually, the north side flight path was witnessed and has been documented and corroborated. This means the plane could have only flew over and away as was seen by Roosevelt Roberts. To call it a theory at this point, is manipulative. You know it is. But you don't care about truth. You only care about being right.

Aldo Marquis CIT

 

Quote:

 

I'll allow the poster you addressed your questions to the opportunity to answer them, but I did want to touch on one of them:

Aldo Marquis CIT

 

16. All 911 calls from the Arlington area were confiscated and sequestered and have never been released, could this be construed as supportive evidence of a cover up of the flyover?

No. Because as you said earlier "ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE"

Well the calls were confiscated and sequestered and have not been released, this is fact. This is the presence of something, not the absence of it. The presence of evidence that potentially points to the cover up.

Aldo Marquis CIT

 

Why didn't you answer the other questions? Well we all know why.

Aldo Marquis CIT

 

Why are you even here? U believe the official story and flight path, hook line and sinker. Shouldn't you be playing WoW or reading comic books or something?

Aldo Marquis CIT

Aug 1 2009, 08:59 PM

It's not a theory. It is an event that happened.

The confiscation of 911 calls is the presence of a cover-up.

Since we have evidence that the plane did not hit light poles and the building, then a military deception was involved and the confiscation of the 911 calls is a evidence of a cover up.

I know you want to keep going in circles, nicepants, but this is where i get off the merry-go-round.

Aldo Marquis CIT

Aug 1 2009, 01:33 PM

Alfie

Jul 31 2009, 06:06 PM

Aldo

Many thanks for the very clear photos of the Pentagon from the car.

Between you and JFK I must admit that I am getting pretty keen on visiting the area.

However, as it stands, I have to say that I do not have a sliver of a doubt that AA 77 was crashed into the Pentagon.

The theory of the flyover of the Pentagon just has no witnesses, when you would expect hundreds, and is obviously not getting any traction.

There is no theory. There is evidence for a flyover. No matter how coy and confident you act, Mr Anonymous Poster.

The very fact that you use the word theory over and over shows your intent. You are trying to manipulate the reader.

The flyover has witnesses: Roosevelt Roberts Jr., Erik Dihle's Co-Workers.

Dewitt Roseborough saw a plane above him in South Parking lot, saw the explosion over the Pentagon, and could not figure out what happened. When confronted about the flyover by us, he did not want to speak about his experience but said he appreciated what we were doing.

Plus, ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE and niether is your personal incredulity that there should be witnesses to this event coming forward. We have a serious problem in the north side approach and pull up and we have a precedence set in the eyewitnesses.

Let me walk you through this with a series of questions and get you to think this through. Hopefully you will have the balls to answer the questions honestly.

1. Do you agree with everyone that a plane on the north side of the gas station approach can't cause the physical damage as outlined by the official story? Yes or no?
2. Can a plane on the north side of the gas station approach show up low and level across the lawn as seen in the surveillance video? Yes or no?
3. Can a plane on the north side of the gas station approach hit the 5 light poles? Yes or no?
4. If a plane on the north side of the gas station can't cause the light pole damage path, then logically one would assume they were staged, if they were staged would it make sense to crash a plane into the Pentagon?
5. Do planes ascend and descend very closely next to/over the Pentagon all day and every day due to Reagan National Airport? Yes or no?
5. If you were driving down 395, but couldn't see the Pentagon clearly but simply saw plane flying away would you think anything of it?
6. If you were driving down 395, could you see the Pentagon in the distance, saw a huge fireball and saw a plane flying away would your attention be on fireball or on the plane? Which is a more common occurence in the area?
7. If you were driving down 395, could see the Pentagon a little more clearly, saw a huge fireball and a huge airliner flying away as the fireball rose, while later you hear that a plane is said to have hit the Pentagon would you assume the plane you saw was the plane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon or another "second" plane, possibly thrown off course by the event that happened on the other side of the Pentagon? Would you go out of your way to tell your story? Would you get off the highway and look for a reporter or would you get the hell out of there?
8. If you were driving down 395 or sitting in a high rise or at a great vantage point at ANC and saw the plane approach, pull up, and fly over and away the side of the Pentagon what would be your immediate thoughts? Would you be confused? Scared?
9. Do people normally stare out their highrise windows waiting for an event to happen? How about people at the wheels of their cars are they looking left or right waiting for an event to happen?
10. Would there be a coalition of flyover witneses who all know each other and can band together or would there be individuals in one single car or a specific area who would witnessed this? One person in an office in a highrise in Crystal City trying to convince his office mates of what he just saw or entire office staring out the window at the exact precise moment to witness the whole event in the distance?
11. Once an individual figured out what they saw, what would be the next step? Go to a reporter? To the FBI? How many would do it? If they saw what they considered to be multiple deceptive people on TV stating they saw an impact when they realize that is a lie or simply not true, would they be scared or would they be confident enough in what they saw to march down to the reporters and the FBI? After "seeing" and hearing about 2 planes hitting the towers, in one case live on TV, would the FBI and reporters be inclined to believe them or not believe them?
12. If they went to a reporter live on the scene, would that reporter be looking for people who believed orsaid they saw it hit, or would they put on a person who said they didn't think it it, after two planes just hit the towers?
13. Is it true that northside witnesses and Roosevelt Roberts became very evasive and uncooperative after learning the implications of what they saw? Can this construed as being scared to talk?
14. Did Roosevelt Roberts back out of our interview because he said, "it was all happening too fast"? Is this a sign of being frieghtened of the implications of speaking out or something else?
15. Is it true several witnesses in Shanksville were forcibly told by FBI that they didn't see what they said they saw and saw something else entirely according to Domenick Dimaggio's interviews with said witnesses? Does this show a pattern of coercion by the authorities that could be used on flyover/away witnesses who did come forward?
16. All 911 calls from the Arlington area were confiscated and sequestered and have never been released, could this be construed as supportive evidence of a cover up of the flyover?

jason's_coffeeluvin_sock

 

I know you pride yourself on your research skills but you might want to google the word "moblog" before you continue making derogatory comments about people you think are gay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_blogging