| Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit. 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! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Flyover/Flyby Deception; Russell Pickering's 17 points | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 24 2010, 12:36 AM (2,306 Views) | |
| shure | May 29 2010, 08:02 AM Post #31 |
Administrator
|
An analysis of the omissions and misrepresentations made in National Security Alert by CIT Tuesday, December 22, 2009 12-31-09 Summary and Analysis of "National Security Alert" by Chris Sarns http://csarnsblog.blogspot.com/ Like many others I was impressed with the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) video "National Security Alert" (NSA) when I saw it for the first time. I thought that the unanimous testimony of the witnesses confirmed the north flight path of American Airlines flight 77, but I could not see how that in any way proved their "flyover theory". I did not give the "flyover" theory much thought because it seemed to be a minor point. As it turns out, the strong evidence for the north flight path was just the "hook", and "flyover" was actually their main point. I started to doubt the validity of NSA when I found out that CIT had misled me into thinking that the witnesses were unanimous in confirming the north flight path. That is not true. There are numerous south flight path witnesses including four that CIT had interviewed. CIT claims that these witness statements are "dubious" and this justifies not mentioning them in the video. CIT not looking for south flight path witnesses and excluding the ones they did find is like NIST not looking for evidence of explosives and excluding the FEMA C report. You can't find something if you don't look for it. A real investigative report would give all the evidence and let the viewer decide. Like NIST starting with the conclusion that the plane impacts and fires brought down the Trade Towers, CIT started with the conclusion of flyover. They included the statements that supported that conclusion and left out any statements to the contrary. Most notably the clear, unambiguous and unanimous statements by the five witnesses CIT interviewed who could see the Pentagon. They all said the plane hit the Pentagon. Four said they saw the plane fly into the building and the fifth said he "could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon" but it "was a direct line to go into the Pentagon [and it] collided". CIT asked him if the plane flew over the Pentagon and he said "NO". Once again the viewer is given only the information that supports the flyover theory. Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis are not acting like investigators. They are acting like lawyers for the defense of the predetermined flyover theory and therefore not required to tell the whole truth. This reply from Aldo is rather telling. At the "Pilots for 911 Truth" forum, I noted that CIT had included the part of Erik Dihle's statement that seemed to support flyover and left out the part that supported fly into. Chris: You do misrepresent the facts about the Erik Dihle statement. Aldo: WHICH PART OF ERIK DIHLE'S ACCOUNT DO YOU THINK WE WOULD LOGICALLY FOCUS ON? Which part of his account is more important to us in light of the evidence we have collected and the conclusions we have come to? http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18306&view=findpost&p=10778730 The so called "proof of flyover" is that a plane on the north flight path could not cause the directional damage (leading to and including the hole in the “C” ring). However, the flyover theory assumes the directional damage was caused by something other than the plane, such as explosives. If the directional damage was caused by something else in the flyover theory then it could be caused by something else in the fly into theory. Therefore, the directional damage does not prove that a plane on the north path did not hit the Pentagon. At 74:00 of National Security Alert As shown, the evidence proves the plane actually flew directly over the Naval Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station, and therefore did not hit the light poles or the building. At 74:30 "A plane on this flight path cannot . . . cause the directional external and internal damage leading to the curiously round C ring hole." http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html * * * * * * * * * * The following is an analysis of the video "National Security Alert" by the Citizens Investigation Team, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis. National Security Alert - Omissions and misrepresentations 1) The five witnesses that CIT interviewed who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon. 2) The witnesses were not unanimous in confirming the north flight path. 3) CIT says Roosevelt Roberts, Erik Dihle and Maria de la Cerda are flyover witnesses. They are not. * * * * * * * * * * 1) The five witnesses that CIT interviewed who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon. Citgo Gas Station Witnesses Sgt. Brooks, Sgt. Lagasse and Robert Turcios were at the Citgo gas station across Hwy.27 from the Pentagon: At 25:30 of NSA Ranke "Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?" Turcios "Fly over the Pentagon???" [He was surprised anyone would ask that question] "No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon. (It) Collided." 37:56 Ranke "Were you actually able to see the plane hit the building? Sgt. Brooks: "Correct" At 49:40 of NSA Ranke "Did you see the plane hit the building?" Sgt. Lagasse "Yes". Did I see what the plane did? No, there was a big fire ball. When the plane hit it just kinda disappeared. 78:46 Ranke says: "He admitted that he did not see what the plane actually did as it reached the building because of the fire ball." and plays this part of what Sgt. Lagasse said: "Did I see what the plane did? No, there was a big fire ball." Ranke gives the viewer the impression Sgt. Lagasse did not see the plane hit the Pentagon. Then at 78:57 he says: "Both police officers at the gas station have agreed that we presented their accounts fairly and accurately." http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-pentaconsgv.html Witness at Pentagon Heliport Control Tower Sean Boger was in the heliport control tower at the Pentagon. He had the best vantage point, about 100 feet from the impact point. Official interview 11-14-01 Page 11: "I just see like the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us and he didn't veer. You just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I watched the plane go all the way into the building." "So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered my head." http://www.thepentacon.com/neit299 Witness in Arlington National cemetery Keith Wheelhouse was in the Arlington National Cemetery. At 9:36 ”And then it just evaporated into the side of the building." http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3383333411025014760# Ranke left these statements out of his video "National Security Alert" and claimed instead: "But the fact is that a flyover is 100% proven by the Citgo station witnesses alone." http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18306&view=findpost&p=10778662 "ALL of the north side witnesses were deceived into believing the plane hit the Pentagon." http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18306&view=findpost&p=10778748 2) The witnesses were not unanimous in confirming the north flight path. At 7:45 of National Security Alert "Thirteen eyewitnesses from the five most critical vantage points unanimously confirmed the plane crossed to the north side of Columbia Pike, flew directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station." At 15:30 "There is no room for error in the official flight path at all. So these critical details should have been easily confirmed by the witnesses. But as you are about to see for yourself. they independently and unanimously reported the opposite." http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html In "The 2nd Plane Cover Story" video at 13:35, Keith Wheelhouse drew the south path on the same satellite photo CIT had shown the north path witnesses in the other CIT interviews. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3383333411025014760# Ranke and Marquis use double talk and a double standard to discredit Wheelhouse. They write him off as "Some guy who lied . . . for attention." They then use this as an excuse to not include Wheelhouse's statement in NSA so they could claim the witnesses unanimously support the north flight path. At 17:14, Marquis quotes the black box data of a jet traveling 530 mph despite the fact that CIT refutes this [at 46:25 in NSA] and claims the jet was going much slower. At 17:20, Ranke says "Most of the genuine witnesses said they could only see the plane for one or two seconds." and uses that to refute Wheelhouse saying he saw the plane for about a minute. These statements are in conflict with several other north flight path witnesses who said it was 10 to 13 seconds from the time they first saw the plane until it hit the Pentagon [10 sec. Naval Annex to Pentagon = 180 mph]. CIT tailors their misrepresentations to fit the situation and ignores the inconvenient fact that the "one or two seconds" and the "530 mph" also refute the north flight path witnesses who said they saw the plane for 10 to 13 seconds. I believe Wheelhouse's recollection of time is simply inaccurate and his memory of the distance between flight 77 and the C-130 was also flawed, but this does not make him a liar. After all, he was interviewed 5 years after the event. At 11:48, Wheelhouse says he was near the fence at the East end of the Arlington National Cemetery (ANC). At 9:36 Wheelhouse said ”And then it just evaporated into the side of the building." At 17:40, CIT shows a video they say was taken from the exact place where Wheelhouse was standing. It shows the view of the Pentagon mostly blocked by shrubs. But Wheelhouse had just drawn an X on a satellite photo of ANC. The center of the X was about 100 feet in diameter. Ranke and Marquis say Wheelhouse could not see the plane hit the Pentagon - but that is just supposition on their part. CIT interviewed 3 other witnesses who said the plane flew the south path. At 26:07 Ranke: "We've spoken with Mike Walter, we've interviewed on camera Joel Sucherman, we've interviewed over the phone Vin Narayanan." But did not include them in NSA because, according to CIT, these witness statements are “dubious”. CIT claims 13 north path witnesses. There were only eleven witnesses who said the plane flew north of the Columbia Pike. The other two, Roosevelt Roberts and Erik Dihle, were not north flight path witnesses. CIT falsely claims that they are "flyover" witnesses. Eleven north flight path witnesses and four south path witnesses is not “unanimous”. CIT is entitled to their opinion but they did not say it was opinion, they stated numerous times that the witnesses were "unanimous" as if it were a fact. It is not. 3) IT says Roosevelt Roberts, Erik Dihle and Maria de la Cerda are flyover witnesses. Roosevelt Roberts was a security guard, in the Pentagon who heard an explosion, ran outside to the center of the south parking lot loading dock. He states that he then saw a plane flying away to the south-west. Ranke insists he said it flew away to the north. It does not matter. A plane approaching from the west could not make either turn. The plane Roberts described could not be the plane approaching from the west. Roberts is not a flyover witness. "coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC . . . it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side [north] and turned around . . . . the plane . . . was facing west, so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon. . . around the lane one area [west end of south parking lot], and it was like banking just above the light poles like. It was heading . . .back across 27.. . . that plane was heading . . . southwest. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread382628/pg1  Sarns 12-20-09 The green line is the official flight path. The orange lines are the flight paths drawn by the CIT witnesses. The purple dots are what Roberts surmised from what he saw - a plane approaching from the north-west and flying away to the south-west. The red dots combine what the north path witnesses saw with what Mr. Roberts describes. As shown, the resulting turning radius is about 350 feet. But an airliner flying at 200 knots requires a turning radius of about 5,000 feet. So clearly the plane Mr. Roberts describes could not have been the plane approaching from the west.  Nate Flach screen capture 12-5-09 From Pilots for 911 Truth video at 14:40 The speed is 200 knots, the turning radius is 5,090 feet and the bank is 35 degrees. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509&hl=en# Erik Dihle is not a witness, he only overheard conflicting accounts (by unknown persons who may not even have been witnesses). “The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building." http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3 CIT misrepresented this hearsay account by including the persons Dihle overheard who thought the plane kept going and leaving out the part where someone said the plane ran into the building. It is not known what if anything these people saw and no assumptions can be made. Maria de la Cerda is not a flyover witness. Here is the double talk and omission CIT uses to justify calling her one: 58:27 NSA shows the .pdf file of her statement. The camera zooms in, excluding "it seemed" and just shows "like it struck the other side". Center for Military History #567 pg 10 http://www.thepentacon.com/neit567 58:50 Maria says and the screen has the subtitle "Yea, my mind's eye I saw it hit on top." They underline "I saw it hit on top" and ignore "my mind's eye". 59:10 “My sense of it was not that it was a side impact but rather that it was on top”. http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html In other words, she did not see an impact or a flyover with her eyes, she just thought it hit top. If her quote makes any point at all it supports the fly into theory, not the flyover theory. She did not even imagine the plane flying away. However, since she is not a witness at all she should be included as one. CIT did not research what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11, they set out to prove flyover and they built a case on misinterpretation, assumption and omission. |
 |
 
|
| shure | May 29 2010, 08:03 AM Post #32 |
|
Administrator
|
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show', Aug 1, 2009 At the heart of it, what CIT has really created from the witness accounts is an elaborate historical fictional drama focused around the narrow theme of witnesses appearing to describe a different flightpath for the plane that day. Without any viable corroborating evidence for the claim that the plane never hit, but instead flew over the building, the filmmakers instead offer up a fascinating premise: "Everything was faked!" http://911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce, July 26, 2009 Yet absent the success of these 'no Boeing' efforts, PentaCon couldn't have achieved anything like the notoriety it now enjoys, because acceptance of the no-757-crash premise is the key prerequisite to taking The PentaCon seriously. Instead of reconciling that premise with the vast body of eyewitness evidence by insisting that onlookers mistook a cruise missile or other small aircraft for a Boeing 757, The PentaCon holds that the witnesses were right about seeing a jetliner but were fooled into thinking that it crashed. The jetliner, we are told, disappeared behind the huge explosion and snuck away, unobserved. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentacon/index.html |
|
|
|
| A Storm is Coming | May 29 2010, 05:58 PM Post #33 |
|
QUOTE: At 17:20, Ranke says "Most of the genuine witnesses said they could only see the plane for one or two seconds." and uses that to refute Wheelhouse saying he saw the plane for about a minute. These statements are in conflict with several other north flight path witnesses who said it was 10 to 13 seconds from the time they first saw the plane until it hit the Pentagon [10 sec. Naval Annex to Pentagon = 180 mph]. I believe I saw the plane for about 5 - 7 seconds from the time it was directly overhead to the time it impacted the Pentagon in the video broadcast in Detroit! I could be wrong but my impression was about 5 - 7 seconds TOPS and have serious doubts about any statements indicating 10 seconds or more! Remember however (and this is important) that all video's were confiscated and those who saw the video's were told to keep quiet about what they saw. This is important for anyone (Like myself) who believes the south approach was a missile causing the damage to the light poles and exiting the C Ring! This would also be a very good indicator of why nobody is willing to speak of a missile even if they saw one! Roosevelt Roberts himself indicated that he knew there was going to be some kind of countermeasure, but now refuses to discuss the matter any further from what I understand. So what could that countermeasure possibly be? Did they shoot the aircraft with pistols? Lawn Darts? Exotic Ray guns from space? Hit it with bad music from a sound cannon? Lets get real! They would have fired a missile explaining the South approach damage and ordered all witnesses to keep quiet about what they saw and seized all known video's of the event! It would then be a crime for any witness to discuss the matter publicly. However, it is not a crime to manufacture misleading or confusing statements that contradict the North side approach or impact as long as they do not discuss the missile! IT IS NOT A CRIME TO LIE! But it IS a Crime to tell the truth about what happened at the Pentagon if there was a missile fired at the plane Edited by A Storm is Coming, May 29 2010, 05:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Cams2 | May 30 2010, 04:47 AM Post #34 |
|
A tad risky isn't it A storm is coming? IMO, the whole conspiracy at the Pentagon was a psyops operation perpetrated by the Deptarment of Defense and the seed was planted when Rumsfeld first mentioned that a missile hit the Pentagon. http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3845 He also mentiond a plane getting shot down in Shanksville which may or may not have occured. Now, it could have been a couple of fraudian slips or indeed Rumsfeld may just be a senile old fool, but would he have lasted as Defense secretary until 2006 if he was 'accidentally' telling the public the truth about the Pentagon attack? Also 9/11 Commissioner slips up, says missile hit Pentagon (plus Rumsfeld Shanksville) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3LJXoXpAHE The DoD has been sheepish about releasing information and videos which I see as a tactic rather than an admission of guilt. See also: General A Stubbline who was in charge of all of the Strategic Army Intelligence Forces (early 80s) also happens to believe a wingless aircraft hit the Pentagon and could find no evidence of Flight 77. He can't have looked too hard. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwtv1vr-NK0 Thierry Meyssan - truck bomb, missile. His book was also translated into almost 30 different languages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thierry_Meyssan In Plane Site - missile hit the Pentagon. (no CD of towers mentioned but lots about military planes) clip http://youtube.com/watch?v=JL5JF3m7APc In Plane Site definitely aired twice on Australian Commercial television (also aired in NZ ) as well as on CNN and probably elsewhere. Then we have other variations: Fetzer - "the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757 or by a cruise missile but, given this evidence, was probably struck by an A-3 Sky Warrior instead" http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm Paul Andrew Mitchell, Supreme Law Firm - A3 Skywarrior and a missile http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=128951 Pilots for 911 truth - Flight data indicates plane is too high and too far north to impact as claimed officially. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/techpaperAA77 CIT - Flyover plus many others such as holograms, drones, global hawke.. So, what is the common theme with all of the above? Flight 77 or a commercial airliner did NOT hit the Pentagon even though it was witnessed by many many people.... and Rumsfeld planted the seed. IMO, It would be is safe to say that it is therefore NOT "a Crime to tell the truth about what happened at the Pentagon if there was a missile fired at the plane" Now your theory does incorporate a plane striking the Pentagon plus a missile with each having two very distinct flightpaths, not to mention very different shapes, yet none of the witneses mentioned a missile whatsoever, but, yes it is possible that the witnesses could have been silenced (eg JFK assassination witnesses) but it would have be extremely risky and therefore I can't see it happening to be honest. What would be the point? Either simply use the Boeing or use a 'missile' and jet that actually travel on the same flightpath. Anyway, virtually all witnesses saw a commercial airliner hit. It trumps CIT's theory though. 
Edited by Cams2, May 30 2010, 04:50 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Cams2 | May 30 2010, 05:12 AM Post #35 |
|
Edited by Cams2, May 30 2010, 05:15 AM.
|
|
|
|
| YougeneDebs | May 30 2010, 05:26 AM Post #36 |
|
Are you sure about that? CIT seem to be convinced that the so-called "official flight path" was a straight line path. Surely you must be mistaken! The CIT would never lie about something like that! 
|
|
|
|
| scott | May 30 2010, 06:13 AM Post #37 |
|
I know broken sticks and perhaps others think that Roosevelt Roberts saw a C-130, but no one (not even Wheelhouse, come to think of it) claims that the C-130 got so close to the pentagon.
I'm very well aware of the fact that many of CIT's NoC witnesses believed that they saw the plane hit the pentagon. There are many reasons as to why they would hold such a belief. There is a lot of evidence that if the pentaplane flew over the pentagon, it did so by -barely- flying over it. It's also fairly well established that the explosion happened at just around the time that the pentaplane began this theoretical flyover. As CIT has pointed out, it would have been easy to be fooled into thinking that the pentaplane must have hit the pentagon because of the explosion. Most people wouldn't consider the possibility that the plane kept on going. Still, apparently not everyone was fooled, atleast initially. Erik Dihle, who believes that the plane hit the pentagon, nevertheless stated this soon after 9/11: “The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building." Here's the audio recording of him saying it: http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3
Actually it does matter. If it took an NoC approach, the light poles and the SoC directional damage couldn't have been made by the pentaplane. And the pentaplane itself would have had to have vanished into thin air, because there was no NoC damage.
True, planes aren't limited to flying in straight lines, the plane would have had to have flown into a fairly straight line if the NTSB data and directional damage is believed to have caused the damage. Secondly, in order for the pentaplane to transition from a North of Citgo path to a path that would have been consistent with the light pole damage is simply impossible; it would have had to have made such a sharp bank, that the wings wouldn't have been able to hit all of the light poles that it allegedly hit; I recently saw a presentation made by Pilots for 9/11 Truth on this, I'll link to it if I find it.
Are we talking of Craig's views, or yours? Edited by scott, May 30 2010, 06:15 AM.
|
|
|
|
| scott | May 30 2010, 06:21 AM Post #38 |
|
Ever think it might have been a coincidence? If you look closely at their video, you can see that you can see part of the Sheraton as well. |
|
|
|
| shure | May 30 2010, 07:12 AM Post #39 |
|
Administrator
|
Scott, David Handschuh was standing right under the tower when the plane hit, but didn't see a plane: http://www.livevideo.com/video/6846354366724C0AAD269D1C2AD97ED0/911l-david-handschuh-propelle.aspx Do you now believe no plane hit the WTC after hearing David's eyewitness testimony? |
|
|
|
| scott | May 30 2010, 08:33 AM Post #40 |
|
The plane was high up on the building and on a certain side. What side of the building was he on and what was he looking at when the plane hit? Edited by scott, May 30 2010, 04:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
| shure | May 30 2010, 08:37 AM Post #41 |
|
Administrator
|
Here is a picture he took: |
|
|
|
| A Storm is Coming | May 30 2010, 09:44 AM Post #42 |
|
Cam2 Quote: Also 9/11 Commissioner slips up, says missile hit Pentagon (plus Rumsfeld Shanksville) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3LJXoXpAHE -------------------------------------------------- It sounds like an edit between the words ( missile / a airplane ) as I listen to his statements beginning at 24 sec It would make sense to cut the word "And" out of the sentence at that point (Missile and a airplane) The reason I say it would make sense is because if they couldn't edit the word "missile" out of the video without making it look like an edit, then they could just eliminate the word "and" which would either make it sound as if he was referring to the airplane as a missile or would simply confuse the public which seemed to be an acceptible tactic at that time Can you confirm that the video was not altered in any way? Edited by A Storm is Coming, May 30 2010, 09:58 AM.
|
|
|
|
| scott | May 30 2010, 04:48 PM Post #43 |
|
So he saw the building from the opposite side of the crash. Don't you think it makes sense that he wouldn't see the plane? |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | May 30 2010, 09:17 PM Post #44 |
|
you've totally misunderstood my point dude - the plane near the lightpoles roosevelt sees is the 757! and the plane he talks about flying away to the west was the C-130! Aldo confuses the issue on the tape. he gets roosevelt to talk about the FIRST plane (757), then he says "what direction did it fly away?", to which roosevelt doesn't know what he's one about! so ALDO says: "the SECOND plane, which direction did it fly away?". its only THEN that we hear roosevelt talk about the C-130, the SECOND plane he saw that day! he even says himself "there were TWO planes that day!" in the tape. Edited by broken sticks, May 30 2010, 09:18 PM.
|
|
|
|
| A Storm is Coming | May 31 2010, 03:23 AM Post #45 |
|
Aaaaaaahahahahahha! The jokes on me I just got it after reading page's 1-2 and 3 again I too believed CIT's North side approach and Black Box analysis based on bull$hit because the Perspective, Perspective Perspective of the video I saw seemed to matched their bull$hit analysis Maybee if I haddn't taken a year long vacation from this forum, I might have got what you all were trying to say Anyone not understanding the Perspective, Perspective Perspective statement should check out the Albert Hemphill Phone call Jeff made today and read the entire post http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/ah_053010.mp3 http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3369020/1/ Very funny now that I see where your coming from Amazing what a little Perspective can do Thanks Jeff Edited by A Storm is Coming, May 31 2010, 10:34 AM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Drama Club · Next Topic » |
12:44 PM Jul 13