It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The 2nd Plane Cover Story (new CIT release!)

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
What I like best is when the camera is taken to the location of where the witness was allegedly standing at the time of impact.

Showing that there is no clear line of sight from the witness to the point of impact is rather interesting.

Do they really see what they think they see, or have they imagined or guessed what they saw based on later MSM reports?

I'm not sure what to make of these reports. They all contradict each other, with the exception of stating that there was a second plane... hmmm...




posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   

posted by ThroatYogurt
He sure as heck would have seen a flyover!

What? He didn't? Those nasty necons fooled another one!!!

One of yours huh? Couldn't believe a single word from Keith Wheelhouse anyway.

The C-130 and the Decoy Aircraft




posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   
why wont they just release the video tape ... I Count 7 camera's that means 7 video's -- probably more... Freedom of Information ... time ...



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by BornPatriot
why wont they just release the video tape ... I Count 7 camera's that means 7 video's -- probably more... Freedom of Information ... time ...


See my avatar for the answer.



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Keep up the good work Craig and C.I.T.

I personally sit on the fence as to the Pentagon planes but the more I read and the more of my own research that I do sways me toward the C.I.T. line of thinking. All these 'skeptics' are merely either disinformation agents or complete idiots to ignore some of the evidence you present. I also note that many of the 'skeptics' in this thread alone have negative ATS points which tells me a lot about their character and disposition - get a little more credibility 'skeptics' and then people may give a hoot about what you are saying.

Keep pushing onward C.I.T. Your work only serves to get more and more people thinking about what actually DID happen that day.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
Keep up the good work Craig and C.I.T.

I personally sit on the fence as to the Pentagon planes but the more I read and the more of my own research that I do sways me toward the C.I.T. line of thinking. All these 'skeptics' are merely either disinformation agents or complete idiots to ignore some of the evidence you present.


How is this "disinfo", Kryties?:

Pentagon Attack & Flight 77 Evidence Summary & Links

Please be specific.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


How does any of that directly address the independent verifiable evidence presented in the topic?

Be specific.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
Keep up the good work Craig and C.I.T.

I personally sit on the fence as to the Pentagon planes but the more I read and the more of my own research that I do sways me toward the C.I.T. line of thinking. All these 'skeptics' are merely either disinformation agents or complete idiots to ignore some of the evidence you present. I also note that many of the 'skeptics' in this thread alone have negative ATS points which tells me a lot about their character and disposition - get a little more credibility 'skeptics' and then people may give a hoot about what you are saying.

Keep pushing onward C.I.T. Your work only serves to get more and more people thinking about what actually DID happen that day.


BEST COMMENT IN THIS THREAD HANDS DOWN.

took the words right outta my mouth.

thank you





Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by jthomas
 


How does any of that directly address the independent verifiable evidence presented in the topic?

Be specific.




and thats the SECOND BEST COMMENT in the thread.

these anti CT Disinfo agents will NEVER and can never win this debate, EVER. The facts, evidence, common sense and in the end, the simple TRUTH will always prevail as it continues to do so and grow, because it IS the truth.

Like I keep pointing out, as important as all the various debates are in specific areas, you only need one or two areas to focus on which in of themselves are profound enough to prove the conspiracy alone. IOW, if a few areas are factually or scientifically sound, and are irrefutable and obvious, the entire coverup falls apart if just one area cannot be explained or the facts disproven. And I've seen so many questions and facts evaded or ignored.

anyways, I think you know what i mean... those not in denial and those who use basic common sense, the facts are clear. Anyone who still believes there's no conspiracy, are not only in the incredible denial, but they only look more and more stupid the longer they support the official lie. Its almost a monumental a waste of time to ever engage these fools in debate since if they can't SEE the obvious by now aside from all the facts, they NEVER will... however I do understand it comes with the territory.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
The shadowing plane could of very well been the control craft.

This reminds me of the successful experiments using remote controlled planes as a missile.




Operation Aphrodite: Operation Aphrodite was the code name of a secret program initiated by the United States Army Air Forces during the latter part of World War II. The United States Eighth Air Force used 'Aphrodite' both as an experimental method of destroying V weapon production and launch facilities and as a way to dispose of B-17 and PB4Y bombers that had outlived their operational usefulness, although only two PB4Ys were modified for the Navy's sister operation, Project Anvil.[1]

The plan called for B-17 aircraft which had been taken out of operational service (various nicknames existed such as 'robot', 'baby', 'drone' or 'weary Willy')[2] to be loaded to capacity with explosives, and flown by radio control into bomb-resistant fortifications such as German U-boat pens and V-1 missile sites. It was hoped that this would match the British success with Tallboy and Grand Slam supersonic ground penetration bombs, but the project is now remembered as dangerous, expensive and unsuccessful.

en.wikipedia.org...

DIY that another Kennedy died during the exercise?

[edit on 13-11-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
The shadowing plane could of very well been the control craft.



Please watch the presentation.

There was no "shadowing plane".

This is the point.




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join