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.

 

How CIT uses "witnesses" to promote the No Plane/Wrong Plane Theory

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
LaBTop beat me to some of what I was going to say - I completely agree with his post.

Regarding the MATH...

After watching the videos from CIT, it is clear the witnesses draw very similar flight paths on the photos. Given that the aircraft needed to fly over the Navy Annex in order for the witness there to see and describe what he saw, we can reasonably conclude the flight path was NOT as described at the start of this thread, but was in fact a VERY plausible, gentle curve.

Here is a quick drawing:

i167.photobucket.com...

So, to the math.

Distance from Pentagon: 0.6169687 nm

Approx. required heading change: 30°

Assuming an airspeed of 350 kts:

Time to pentagon: 0.0017 hrs (or 6.3 secs)
Performing a rate one turn, in 6.3 seconds the aircraft could turn: 18.9°
Bank angle required for this turn at this speed: 42°

At that speed, the turn STILL isn't possible. According to eye-witnesses though, it was.

So, the only factor we have to play with is speed.

Let's asuume a more leisurely 250 kts (and FYI the maximum speed below 10,000 ft at which ATC will usually let you fly).


Assuming an airspeed of 250 kts:

Time to pentagon: 0.0024 hrs (or 8.8 secs)
Performing a rate one turn, in 8.8 seconds the aircraft could turn: 26.4°
Bank angle required for this turn at this speed: ~32°


Allowing for possible errors in my calculations (specifically on heading change), the second scenario, flying slower at 250 kts, is possible.

The flight path is also more in line with the eye-witness accounts of what they saw from their various vantage points.

Debunkers?

[edit on 19-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]




posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Okay, not too many slams in there and more of an effort (IMO) to discuss something of value.

For the sake of argument, (I don't really) lets agree on all your physics points. Don't you find it odd not a single person claims to have seen the plane fly over the Pentagon? Not a one?

Don't you find it odd that the Double Tree security camera which captured the explosion, didn't capture anything flying over the Pentagon?

How do you reconcile the aircraft wreckage - as testified to by SGT. Lagassee - found in the building? How do you reconcile that immediately after the event not a single person claimed they saw the plane do anything other than fly into the building?

P.S. Apologies as my initial response didn't address your math. Just three (key) points: the plane was traveling at more than 370 MPH at impact according to the FDR and your witness positions (if I understand you correctly, and I may not) are incorrect. Lastly, your impact point is incorrect. Or am I mistaken and your contesting the impact as well?

Even if we use your speed, the stall speed for the aircraft would be exceeded to execute the turn (flaps up, gear up as per the FDR)



[edit on 20-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Terry Morin told me it took 12 to 18 seconds from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon and that there was NO WAY it was going "cruising speed" or anywhere near 535 mph (and of course that there was no way it was on the south side of Columbia Pike).

Another witness testimony we will present soon who was right next to the Navy Annex said it was 10 seconds or more from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon.

(oh and on the north side)

There is plenty of evidence that it was going much slower than officially reported besides the fact that the official flight path is completely fraudulent since we know the plane came from east of the Potomac and flew over the Navy Annex and north of the former CITGO.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Do you have a transcript of this testimony?
You have been saying this for well over a year and a half.
BTW IT IS NOT TESTIMONY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TESTIMONY is done before an attorney, to a court, etc.
YOU DO NOT HAVE TESTIMONY!
Well I should add that you would if you had infact taken this to any court or attorney.
Please prove me wroing and reproduce some form of LEGAL TESTIMONY.
You dont have it and you never will.
Sorry Craig but what investigator doesnt know basic stuff like testimony versus statements.
You really need to educate yourself before you psot stuff like this.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Uuuuuuuh scared?
um of what?
So when will CIT be taking this proof and evidence to a court?
What kind of human being on a daily basis claims to have proof and evidence yet does not get it ASAP to a court!!!!
YOU ARE CLAIMING MASS MURDER!!!!
GET THAT #E TO A COURT ASAP!!!!
GET OFF THE FORUMS YOU POST AT ON A DAILY BASIS AND GET TO COURT!!!!!
Is that hard to do?



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Hi Graig,
I hope you caught my response to you where I emphasized that my contention is not (at all) with you, personally. Not a bit. I am sure we could share a beer and have a good time.

To answer you're response:
Okay, that's eyewitness testimony. The problem, for skeptics, is that you discount a very large amount of contradictory evidence (in relation to your work) in the very same form: eye witnesses that saw the plane impact, recovered bodies and airplane debris.

Is the issue a fly-over or, the path the plane took to actually impact the building? If you're only contention is that the plane took a different route than is commonly believed but, still wound up in the Pentagon then I have no issues: the entire argument is a moot one.

IF, as you have for the past two years or so, contend the plane never struck the building, the light poles were planted before hand, the generator damage was planted before hand, the explosives were planted beforehand, the bodies from the aircraft were planted post-mortum and the pilot some how managed to fly into the exact location of the pre-planted explosives and all of the hundreds (and that's being very conservative) of eye witnesses who saw the plane hit the building AND!!!! the first responders who pulled bodies and aircraft wreckage out of the Pentagon are wrong, then we have more to talk about.

If you're willing (and I am) to take your witnesses at face value, then you must weigh their testimony against all the other eye witness testimony. You have managed to produce a couple of eye witnesses that testify to a NoC approach. Only one, that I know of, agrees with you: that is, there was a fly over. Since the other three or so disagree with you conclusions, it doesn't really matter where they claim to have seen the plane. To them, it still wound up in the building.

So six years later you have produced one witness who says the plane flew over/around the Pentagon. This, one, person you think is preaching the gospel but, the hundreds of other eyewitnesses are all wrong.

Then there is the issue of math. If we take you're witnesses at face value and leave their assertions completely unchallenged - as in dismiss the hundreds of contradictory eye witnesses - their claimed positions are a mathematical impossibility.

It really is just that simple.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


I am curious. Based on you're claimed speed and distance, what would be the airspeed of the plane?

You know where I am going. Ten seconds to cover that distance? How slow would that be?

What's the stall speed of the aircraft in the flaps up, gear up configuration? Flaps down, gear down, ready for landing configuration?

See the problem there? I know you do.

EDIT: 370 is the correct speed, as per the FDR.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Even if we use your speed, the stall speed for the aircraft would be exceeded to execute the turn (flaps up, gear up as per the FDR)

No it wouldn't. Aircraft perform this kind of turn on a daily basis, and they don't stall.

To stall you need to exceed the critical AoA (that being the point at which the wing stops producing lift).

I need some more time to address your other points.



What's the stall speed of the aircraft in the flaps up, gear up configuration?

Depending on weight - approx. 130-160 kts.


Flaps down, gear down, ready for landing configuration?

Again, depending on weight, approx. 115-150 kts. (but remember that these speeds assume a stall margin of 1.3, so the stall speed is actually 30% slower than this). 115 kts is the minimum approach speed in the landing configuration.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

Here is a quick drawing:




Sorry mirage. All the witnesses that were on the highway would have seen the flyover. Your flightpath shows flight 77 too far away from the impact area to support CIT's claim that it was a military deception. In order for it to be pulled off, the plane would have to be VERY close if not directly above the impact zone.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Please scrutinize the drawing a little more - you're missing the point where I drew the line with a beizer curve that is far from uniform in radius.

If it was drawn properly, it would actually pass over the alleged impact point.


All the witnesses that were on the highway would have seen the flyover.

Would they? They would be looking downhill, but it's not as straight forward as that. CIT have a pretty neat video driving along that road towards the Pentagon. You see less than you think you would.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 



Don't you find it odd not a single person claims to have seen the plane fly over the Pentagon? Not a one?

Not entirely - if any of them had seen the news after the impact, they'd write it off as "just another plane" and wouldn't think any more of it. Note that I'm not seeing a CT here for the hell of it.


Don't you find it odd that the Double Tree security camera which captured the explosion, didn't capture anything flying over the Pentagon?

I find the Double Tree video to be questionable based on the fact that it *does* show what appears to be the tip of the aircrafts tail. I need to write a piece on this to demonstrate why that camera couldn't capture that.


How do you reconcile the aircraft wreckage - as testified to by SGT. Lagassee - found in the building?

There are several reasons I don't take the aircraft-hit-the-building story.

1) The whole reason I got researching 9/11 was after what I saw on TV that day about it (the Pentagon). The Pentagon hit me as odd. I commented to my friend about it at the time.

2) Sgt. Lagasse claims to have seen the aircraft yawing as it hit the building., Given that he seems a bit more clued-up on aircraft than other witnesses, I do weight his testimony over that of others, but his description of the way it hit the building seems at odds with someone who just witnessed a jet crash into a building. He talks of the jet, not of the building in general. Why?


3) The damage sustained to the Pentagon seems rather strange given what had occurred to it. That hole at the ?C? ring is bizarre to say the least.

4) For all the CCTV footage, why did the Pentagon only release a rubbish freeze-frame series of photos that show nothing?

5) The fireball that followed the aircrafts alleged impact is at odds with the physics of the aircraft that crashed into the WTC. There is a significantly different dynamic to the way it explodes (allowing for it being freeze-frame).

6) The initial reports were of explosions (multiple). The reporter outside who was first on the scene made specific note of the apparent lack of any aircraft.

7) That darn lawn. It's always the small details. It's untouched.


How do you reconcile that immediately after the event not a single person claimed they saw the plane do anything other than fly into the building?

Because given the shock of seeing the explosion, it's quite logical that they'd think it hit.


P.S. Apologies as my initial response didn't address your math.

No problems! Thanks for the reasoned discussion.



Just three (key) points: the plane was traveling at more than 370 MPH at impact according to the FDR and your witness positions (if I understand you correctly, and I may not) are incorrect.

The FDR has several major problems with it. They're detailed elsewhere in this forum by myself and others at great length. The conclusion is the FDR data is technically inconsistent with previous data and the way it works in general.

The witness positions are correct in my drawing. I was working off the guy stood by the Navy Annex (SW corner), and the position of Sgt. Lagasse as he gives a detailed description of where he thought the aircraft approximately flew in space, which he placed as just the other side of the highway.


Lastly, your impact point is incorrect. Or am I mistaken and your contesting the impact as well?

I'm contesting impact, but the line isn't as accurately drawn as I'd like. It's most correct around the Citgo area, but straightens out again after that point.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Hi there - thanks for responding to me.

I fully intend to answer and discuss your points. Today is Sunday and family time for me.

Give me a little time (perhaps I will have time on Monday?) and I'll read your posts very carefully and give them the thoughtful responses they deserve.

P.S. 115 knot stall speed flaps up, gear up? If I am not mistaken Vr is in excess of 130 KIA and landing occurs at a speed faster than that. DISCLAIMER: I am in no way a ATP rated pilot, nor do I have *any* experience in a Boeing of any kind (maybe some day).

(just a little more - don't stress about a nano-meter of discrepancy in the lines you have drawn to show a possible flight path. I'm not like that. I'm not going to call you out on 3 meters of - what I might think - is a discrepancy. I believe details absolutely matter but, we are talking about a 110 ton aircraft of considerable size. I hope that makes sense)



[edit on 22-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
How do you reconcile the aircraft wreckage - as testified to by SGT. Lagassee - found in the building?


You mean the wreakage that no report has matched to AA77?

And the FBI and FAA refuse to release serial numbers for the 9/11 planes so the poarts found can be matched.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Okay. I await the new "big" news.

If you have evidence that proves the murder of over 3,000 innocent Americans - please don't waste time engaging me. As a matter of fact, I would say it's your civic duty to bring this to all the major media outlets and before a prosecuting State Attorney ASAP.

Go to the authorities and get these people prosecuted. Is there any reason you haven't already done this?


after all this time and involvement in this argument, you MUST be kidding.
because of the enormity of the deceit, there is no question that all the key players in information dissemination are either complicit or have their hands tied.

the crimes of this administration are nearly identical to those of hitler's nazi germany. all the same propaganda techniques, false flags, lying, murder and mayhem, blackmail(anthrax)....mass brain-washing.

what is amazing to watch is how you started this thread based on a COMPLETELY FABRICATED email, and yet pursue the very diligent and honest CIT for being deceitful. you can't even stick to your own topic, now, after hassling dr. love about the same thing.

you are about as hypocritical a poster as i've ever come across.

and you type too much.

mind you, the more you type, the more you help readers realise that craig and the CIT are not only onto something, but that they HAVE it.

and speaking of lying and deceit, there was no 16 foot hole on the inner ring, and there was no 90 foot hole on the outside. just keep repeating it, though, eh, goebbels?


“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

thinkexist.com...




[edit on 22-6-2008 by billybob]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Dude that was really low and cold blooded to say he types too much!
I think you should apologize.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Ultima, I appreciate your sheer tenacity in parroting the very same line in something like 100 posts now.

However, it has nothing to do with this post. Start your own thread in relation to this and I will be more than happy to discuss this misconception there.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   


after all this time and involvement in this argument, you MUST be kidding.
because of the enormity of the deceit, there is no question that all the key players in information dissemination are either complicit or have their hands tied.


Ah yes, yet another conspiracy that plays into the other conspiracy you are referencing?

No, I am completely serious and you just boxed yourself right into the corner:
(1) So, the smoking-gun evidence CIT has uncovered isn't (as much as you would like to think)

(2) CIT, and by extension the truth club, is solely interested in creating nicely edited videos for You Tube consumption for self edification and nothing more

(3) The so-called truth club is a bunch of cowards not willing to risk anything for the justice and preservation of our representative republic?

You're kidding right? Don't you find it odd the so-called defenders of democracy, those who claim to want to preserve the constitution, those internet warriors you align yourself with are so cowardly as to be content with flash videos on their web sites?

What's the point? Convince who? To what end? For what purpose? If the truths club measure of success is You Tube views, bravo...mission success.



the crimes of this administration are nearly identical to those of hitler's nazi germany. all the same propaganda techniques, false flags, lying, murder and mayhem, blackmail(anthrax)....mass brain-washing.


Thank you for brilliantly highlighting my next point: the so-called truth club is a (generally) far left political movement that is neither interested in 9-11, nor the "truth". What you are interested in is using 9-11 as yet another battering ram for your political agenda.

(oh, and not a bit of evidence for any of your assertions)



what is amazing to watch is how you started this thread based on a COMPLETELY FABRICATED email,


Actually, it's quite real and highlights what the SGT thinks of truthers, like you. Keep in mind CIT believes the plane flew over the building. The SGT personally pulled wreckage out of the building. CIT uses the SGT as proof-positive a fly over occurred.

By the way, your above quote is known as projection.



you are about as hypocritical a poster as i've ever come across.

and you type too much.


In your multi-paragraph, point by point rebuttal, with a dose of ad hom on top. Priceless.



mind you, the more you type, the more you help readers realise that craig and the CIT are not only onto something, but that they HAVE it.


Disagree. Hard-overs like you are beyond any hope of help. You literally can't see the forest for the trees. My posts aren't for you and as such draw the entirely predictable responses.

My posts are for those who are not blinded by ideology, who are not willing to accept the enormous leaps (the false flag nonsense) between reality and fantasy, have an inquisitive mind and may be sitting on the fence.

If I am so wrong, why bother responding to me? Won't my clearly irrational, unthoughtful, emotionally based arguments prove themselves wrong without any help from you?



and speaking of lying and deceit, there was no 16 foot hole on the inner ring, and there was no 90 foot hole on the outside. just keep repeating it, though, eh, goebbels?


This isn't even open for debate and you parroting this only makes you look, well.....you already know. Why don't you ask CIT, who you claim to know so much about - and are defending - what they think about the outer ring hole and it's size? Let me make it really easy for you: hear CIT say it in their own words on Clout.

Your inference that I am a Nazi is disgusting and pretty typical for an emotional based thinker. I use the term thinker very loosely. It's imperative that before you head to the deep end with the grown ups you know how to swim in the first place.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 



Not entirely - if any of them had seen the news after the impact, they'd write it off as "just another plane" and wouldn't think any more of it. Note that I'm not seeing a CT here for the hell of it.


No need to explain the CT business. I am trying to understand what you're trying to communicate to me and, make sure I understand you correctly. I am not trying to play a game of "gotcha" with you.

I appreciate your opinion. However, (surprise!) I disagree. The witnesses I am referring to were physically stopped in traffic, walking into the building, at work around the building (like SGT Lagassee), had their car totaled from the light pole the plane knocked over on the way in, etc, etc, etc. They were physically there and saw the plane impact with their own eyes.

Just a few quotes from eyewitnesses:



The plane approached the Pentagon… clipping a light pole, a car antenna… It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in
- Evey, Walker Lee



He appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building
- Hemphill Albert



The plane's left wing actually came in near the ground and the right wing was tilted up in the air. That right wing went directly over our trailer, so if that wing had not tilted up, it would have hit the trailer
- Singleton, Jack



I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11… [It] slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon.
- Anderson, Steve



[I] saw the plane hit the Pentagon
- Bradley, Pam



I saw the plane hit and the fireball and explosion at the Pentagon.
- Carroll, Susan



[he saw the plane] strike the building. ‘It seemed to be almost coming in slow motion,’ he said later Tuesday. ‘I didn't actually feel it hit, but I saw it and then we all started running
- Dobbs, Mike



He saw the plane approach and slam into the west side of the structure… it crashed into the building and burst into flames
- Elliott, Bruce



I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building.
- Riskus, Steve



Those are but just a few of the eyewitnesses that completely, utterly contradict the theory put forth by CIT. But yet, four witnesses (yes I know they are hurriedly editing the "new" witnesses) more than six years later "proves" all these witnesses were wrong, the wreckage in the building was planted after the fact, the bodies were planted after the fact, the light poles and generator were placed after the fact with not a single person noticing? In addition, (arguably) the center of western worlds military might was attacked with a military weapon and none of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines or Coast Guardsmen in the building and among the first responders - could figure that out? Conversely, there were two planes and the second impacted the Pentagon? Why? To what end? For what reason would you complicate the conspiracy by a factor of two?

I had a rebuttal to the information you provided (concerning flaps, stall speed, etc) but if you think the plane didn't hit the building - would it even matter to you? Why have the discussion when - to me, not a dig against you - something as obvious as the impact is dismissed?

For the sake of the argument, I would have to pretend the massive, overwhelming amount of evidence that the plane hit the Pentagon doesn't exist.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
eyewitnesses like this?

the mystery of the moved taxi (and the mystery of the published witnesses' potential motivations and affiliations)

CIT's eyewitnesses are eyewitnesses. why did you put it in quotes in the title? spin much?



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Just a few quotes from eyewitnesses:



The plane approached the Pentagon… clipping a light pole, a car antenna… It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in
- Evey, Walker Lee



Lee Evey was the PenRen manager. HE WAS AT HOME DURING THE ATTACK. Do some research. He is NOT an eyewitness.




He appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building
- Hemphill Albert


Did you ask him if it went on the south side of Columbia Pike and on the south side of the Citgo? No? Well then that isn't much help is it? Did you ask him if watched the whole event or whether he turned away and deduced the impact?





The plane's left wing actually came in near the ground and the right wing was tilted up in the air. That right wing went directly over our trailer, so if that wing had not tilted up, it would have hit the trailer
- Singleton, Jack


Jack Singleton is NOT an eyewitness. Mickey Bell his employee is allegedly the witness. Jack wasn't even there when the event took place. Please do some research, as we already have.




I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11… [It] slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon.
- Anderson, Steve


Really? He made that out from that far away at the old USA Today building in Rosslyn? Why didn't you post that whole account? Besides, I wouldn't be so quick to trust a USA Today employee as they have already proven to have provided a statistical improbability with their reporters and editors on the highway which makes them suspect. Regadless, from that distance why didn't he see the "second" jet Roosevelt Roberts saw over the south parking lot banking away or the one Kelly Knowles' report said was over the Pentagon as the AA jet allegedly plunged into the Pentagon. Or hell even the jet his co-worker, Vina Narayanan, saw "hovering" in the skies after he hopped out of his car after the explosion?

BTW, did you ask him whether he saw that on the south side or the north side of the Citgo?



[I] saw the plane hit the Pentagon
- Bradley, Pam


She did? You confirmed it? You confirmed her location? You spoke with her? Because all we found was she was that she " works in Washington DC area, and was on my way to work, in my car, sitting on a bridge". Which bridge-you sure she isn't deducing seeing the plane and then smoke or fire after? 14th st bridge or memorial bridge toward DC would place her back to the Pentagon. Are you sure, she didn't see the fireball rising in her rear view? Are you sure she is a real person or is telling the truth? Her name is common and it is merely a write-in from readers of the BBC. news.bbc.co.uk...

Sorry she is not a genuine confirmed witness to an impact.



I saw the plane hit and the fireball and explosion at the Pentagon.
- Carroll, Susan


Oh this is priceless. We've shown how she is not a witness to the impact on this very forum...

She was on the Reagan Metro platform.

Please explain how she saw the plane "hit the Pentagon"...







[he saw the plane] strike the building. ‘It seemed to be almost coming in slow motion,’ he said later Tuesday. ‘I didn't actually feel it hit, but I saw it and then we all started running
- Dobbs, Mike


Well there you have it. He was inside looking out at the plane approaching. Which side of the gas station did he see the plane on, S.A.P.? Did you ask him? He said he did not feel it hit, meaning he also DID NOT *SEE* IT HIT. He saw it and then started running.



He saw the plane approach and slam into the west side of the structure… it crashed into the building and burst into flames
- Elliott, Bruce


He was about to board a shuttle in the south parking lot. How come he didn't see the jet Roosevelt saw banking away over the south parking lot? Could he have missed it flying away over with a shuttle he is about to board right in front of him? Is it possible he ducked or covered up and missed the flyover? Absolutely. Is it possible he is covering up the flyover? Possibly.

If you read his account, he said he said he "felt" it was headed toward the Pentagon, the author adds that he saw it hit the Pentagon. He also said it was "banking" garnering speed. That would be the north side flight path, my friend.

web.archive.org...://www.thehawkeye.com/features/911/IdxThur.html





I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building.
- Riskus, Steve


There is something about this witness that you don't know.


Just curious did he see it on the north or south side flight path? Could he have seen a flyover in the south parking lot from where he was at on the highway. No, he couldn't. He very well deduced it.

Sorry he is not an impact witness. Who knows? He may be a north side flight path witness.

Clearly SAP does not get why we do what we do.



[edit on 25-6-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

[edit on 25-6-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join