The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed, page 12
Pages: <<  9    10    11    12    13    14    15  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 204 times


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 11:42 AM by PplVSNWO
reply to post by emsed1


You are the one trying to get off topic and I have insulted nobody(unless asking you to do research before posting is insulting). The OP is not about light poles, it is about 1st hand eyewitness testimony of the plane flying on the north side of the Citgo station, which is confirmed many times over proving the official flight path a lie.

If Sean Boger saw the plane on the north of Citgo as the other witnesses, how would it have hit the Pentagon as the phisical damage suggests? Perhaps you should interview Sean yourself and ask him if he saw the plane hit the light poles, which should have been in plane sight from his viewpoint. Then you can ask him also if he actually saw the plane impacting, or if he deduced the impact.


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 11:43 AM by emsed1
Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Roosevelt Roberts Jr. is a flyover witness, so don't claim there is a single flyover witness. If the plane was not on the official flight path and nobody actually saw it impact the building, it only makes sence to deduce the poles were staged, the dna evidence was staged, the minimal amount of aircraft debris was staged, the fdr was fradulent, etc...
Stop trying to distract from the evidence presented in the op. The only extraordinary claims that are unsupported by evidence is the official story.


Roosevelt Roberts is the ONLY PERSON IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD that saw a plane flying away from the Pentagon.

I am sorry to get emotional here, but what you guys are posting is pure nonsense.

You should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to profit off the misery of the families of people killed in the airliner and at the scene.

It is obvious that no amount of fact, testimony, photography, video, etc. will ever convince you that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

All your 'evidence' adds up to is one person saying 7 YEARS LATER that he thought he saw a plane flying away.

I hope your Limited Liability Company makes a LOT of money selling videos and playing into the paranoid fantasies of all the folks who refuse to weigh both sides of the evidence.

ATS is not your personal 'viral marketing' service to use for profit and traffic redirection to your site.

Your video also insults all the conspiracy theorists who are trying to put together a valid, factual theory of a conspiracy. You are making them all look bad by associating yourselves with them. I would be insulted if I put a lot of work into a balanced presentation of facts proving a conspiracy and a couple of money-hungry hucksters invalidated the whole thing by their infantile attempts to make money.

Again, sorry for the emotion but your continued refusal to answer questions and parroting 'just go watch the video' can only lead to the conclusion that you never really intended to offer evidence, you just want to drive traffic to your site to make a buck.

Again I say, shame on you.


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 12:04 PM by Boone 870
reply to post by PplVSNWO

Can you provide verifiable witnesses of the flight path of AA77 and/or the C130 on the official flight paths?


Yes, as a matter of fact, I can.

I consider this guy a legitimate witness because CIT has used him in the past to prove a "military deception."

Scott Cook:
As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. It was coming from an odd direction (planes don’t go east-west in the area), and it was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft. Trailing a thin, diffuse black trail from its engines, the plane reached the Pentagon at a low altitude and made a sharp left turn, passing just north of the plume, and headed straight for the White House. Link
I bolded the relevant part.

Below is an image of Scott Cook's position relative to the Pentagon and the C-130.
The blue pin depicts the location of the C-130 according to the RADES data.

As you can see, one of CIT's own witnesses confirmed the government's account and placed the C-130 exactly where they said it was.

I wonder how Craig is going to spin this one away.


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 12:13 PM by dariousg
reply to post by emsed1




You should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to profit off the misery of the families of people killed in the airliner and at the scene.


My friend, I don't think that this is what it is about. If I had family members on that flight and there was the LEAST possibility that they didn't die how the government told me they did then I would be ALL OVER trying to figure it out. It's not a shame to try and bring the truth to the light. Now, I agree that making money off of their deaths is a shameful act. Wait, what am I saying, our current administration has made hand over fist full of millions of dollars off of this event. Should they be ashamed?

Can you say 'Haliburton'? Who has received roughly 95% of all of the military contracts in Iraq? The hint is that it is the company I named in the beginning of this paragraph. Isn't it just a bit of a coincidence that our VP used to be on the board of that company and still owns shares of its stock. Enough to amount to millions of dollars worth of increase since the war was started?

That and much much more. So who's making the money off of the memories of the deceiced? Not someone who will get $25 for a DVD (not many will sell, only enough to probably recoup the time and effort he put into making the video and collecting the interviews).

You see, you keep throwing that out there but you simply ignore the FACTS that point to us being lied to by this administration. They have been caught in many lies since 911. What's to say they didn't lie about 911 too?


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 12:22 PM by PplVSNWO
reply to post by Boone 870


i22.photobucket.com...
That is a graphic made based on Scott Cook's testimony, looks more like he agrees with CIT's flightpath for the C130 than the RADES data. He said the plane was coming almost due west, not due south west.

[edit on 7-8-2008 by PplVSNWO]

[edit on 7-8-2008 by PplVSNWO]


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 12:27 PM by emsed1
reply to post by dariousg


I understand what you are saying.

I will offer my fourth and final challenge to Craid or Aldo to debate me on ATS in the controlled debate forum.

Only the two of us will be able to post but everyone on ATS can follow the debate.

It is a socratic style, which is designed to explore the topic deeply rather than fight about who is right.

I think it's only fair that if CIT wants to use ATS to get their message out, that they should be willing to debate in front of ATS in a controlled environment with agreed-upon rules.

The type of debate that Craig/Aldo/Bedouin/SockPuppet want is an open free for all so they can appeal to the visceral emotions of the observers in a chaotic slinging of mud.

The same goes for a telephone interview.

If you really want to stand up and prove what you are saying, then let's do it as gentlemen.

I know you guys worked hard on this and put a lot of money and energy into it, but it has of yet been proven to be true.

If you don't want an ATS debate, I will have no hard feelings and I will walk away from your thread so that you can continue your quest with at least one debunker out of the way.

Take some time to read through the debate forum and the Fight Club for the rules and decide if you want to do it that way. If you don't I won't imply that you are hiding anything, just that you don't want to do it.

Then we can agree as men that we will not agree and I will leave you to your thread.


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 01:18 PM by Boone 870
reply to post by PplVSNWO


Here is what Scott Cook said, "Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office".

Did you notice how the green line ran directly over the impact location at the Pentagon?


You can spin "almost due west" all you want, but it doesn't matter because he used the smoke plume from the Pentagon as a direct reference as to where he saw the C-130.

Nice try though.


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 01:40 PM by Reheat
Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by Boone 870


i22.photobucket.com...
That is a graphic made based on Scott Cook's testimony, looks more like he agrees with CIT's flightpath for the C130 than the RADES data. He said the plane was coming almost due west, not due south west.



This is ignorance personified. Do you not know or understand magnetic declination?

You are merely swallowing a fraud hook line and sinker simply because you are as completely ignorant of the details you are parroting from deluded frauds.


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 01:51 PM by PplVSNWO
reply to post by Reheat


It isn't aerodynamically possible to fly a plane north of Citgo? Maybe you should contact the witnesses and tell them that they didn't see what they saw, tell them they are liars. You have proven the flightpath impossible using the variables you have plugged in to a formula. Since you don't know what speed the air craft was flying, how can you say the witnesses are wrong based upon your calculations?


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 01:51 PM by Aislin
reply to post by spookjr


If the people on board these aircraft were still alive later then it is obvious that they were executed afterwards in order to silence them. This is almost more frightening than the crashes themselves. Imagine if you will, these people being executed one-by-one after surviving the most terrible ordeal of their lives.
It is time that the people responsible were held accountable. PERIOD.


I'm sure most of us have seen the documentaries that have been done on the cell phone calls of the passengers on the flight that crashed in the field to their loved ones. Would it be possible to silence everyone's cell phones at once? If this was part of the deception, it is a very believable part. Does anyone have any theories on this?


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 01:58 PM by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by Aislin


Not to be snitty (promise)........the answer is the plane crashed right where we think it did, at the time reported, with those claimed onboard.

(I'm not suggesting you believe one way or another)

[edit on 7-8-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 01:59 PM by Reheat
Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by Reheat


It isn't aerodynamically possible to fly a plane north of Citgo? Maybe you should contact the witnesses and tell them that they didn't see what they saw, tell them they are liars. You have proven the flightpath impossible using the variables you have plugged in to a formula. Since you don't know what speed the air craft was flying, how can you say the witnesses are wrong based upon your calculations?


Of course it's possible to fly North of the Citgo. It just depends upon where you start. However, taking CIT's witness statements and applying them to aerodynamics it is IMPOSSIBLE. Now do you get it?

I cover all plausible speeds by any transport aircraft imaginable. Do you really want it slower than 250 KIAS?

If my formulas are wrong, prove it! I suspect you don't have that kind of knowledge, but you may get any Pilot, any physicists, any aeronautical engineer, any mathematician to provide the numbers to prove them wrong.

Go ahead, do it. That page is not going away any time soon.

www.911myths.com...
Pages: <<  9    10    11    12    13    14    15  >>    ^^TOP^^



Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 10 days ago with 48 member flags
9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 2 days ago with 45 member flags
9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 13 days ago with 43 member flags
What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 6 days ago with 17 member flags
Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 14 days ago with 13 member flags
Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 16 days ago with 9 member flags
British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 7 days ago with 8 member flags