It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


CITGO witnesses: north side vs. impact claim.

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 01:00 PM
The most common reason critics of our research will dismiss the testimony of the CITGO witnesses is due to the fact that they all believe the plane hit the building.

However there is little logic in this assertion particularly from those who believe that 9/11 was a military deception.

Nobody argues the FACT that both claims can not possibly be true.

If the plane caused the physical damage there is no possible way it flew on the north side of the station so everyone is forced to CHOOSE which claim to believe.

Either the CITGO witnesses were all simultaneously and drastically mistaken in the exact same way or else 9/11 has been proven to be an inside job.

There is no other option.

But the reasons why it is more logical to accept their placement of the plane over their belief of an impact are quite strong.

1. They were much closer to the plane as it passed by the station compared to when it reached the building.

2. They all independently state that they are 100% certain that they SAW the plane on the north side while they all admitted that they really just saw the "fireball" as opposed to the plane physically enter into the building.

Turcios: "No I did not see it hit, all I saw was the fireball."
Brooks: "What I'd seen then was a great big fireball rise into the sky."
Lagasse: "Did I see what happened after that? No because there was a big fireball".

So in essence they all merely deduced the impact while they actually witnessed the massive jet airliner fly past the north side of the station right next to them.

Therefore you can not logically suggest that both claims are just as strong.

In fact as Lagasse stated; he wouldn't have been able to see the plane at all if it was low and level on the south side where it needed to be to cause the physical damage.

These gifs demonstrate the extreme difference in their POV's with each claim...

POV of plane as it passed by the north of the station:

POV of plane as it reached the Pentagon:

There is simply no comparison.

Remember.....both claims can not be simultaneously true.

Everyone must choose whether to believe their definitive placement of the plane 10's of feet away right next to them OR their deduction of the alleged impact many 100's of feet away in front of them.

There is zero logic in choosing the impact.

And think of how incredibly different it would look if the plane was on the complete opposite side of the station in the opposite angular trajectory as it needed to be to hit the poles!

The notion that all CITGO witnesses independently made the exact same drastic and absurd mistake about such a simple right or left claim is not a feasible conclusion.

[edit on 25-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

new topics

log in