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.

 

New FAA "Flight 77" flight path animation shows north of citgo approach

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
Imagine CIT trying to prove there was a flyover but go completely hysterical when asked for the necessary eyewitnesses that they need!

Imagine jthomas trying to prove that AA77 allegedly crashed but go completely hysterical when asked for the alleged parts to be formally identified by serial numbers.


I don't have to prove anything. I easily showed no one needs serial numbers to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Even the NTSB agrees with that fact:


“Yes. NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent."
- Susan Stevenson, NTSB





Imagine jthomas trying to prove that AA77 allegedly crashed but go completely hysterical when asked for the video evidence to be shown, to help identify the alleged plane.


I laughed hysterically at such nonsense. It's hysterical that you think videos are needed when all of the evidence already clearly demonstrates AA77 hit the Pentagon and you have to pretend no evidence exists.




posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


posted by jthomasThe list of where the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage from inside the Pentagon was provided to Craig Ranke and Aldo over two years ago. Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis BOTH refused to interview any of those people and they are on record of refusing to do so. If you don't know that then you are really gullible.

Let's provide the big list again:

Maybe my eyes are failing me, but I don't believe I see one single name in that list. It would take a crew of a hundred investigators to sift through that jthomas list. How did that infamous jthomas bogus claim go again? Oh yeah. Here it is.


Shall I continue with CIT's two-year refusal to interview any of the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage inside the Pentagon?

Amazing isn't it? All those people and not one photo of a passenger strapped into a seat; not one serial number; NO JET FUEL near ground zero.

Craig, Aldo, I know you have been doing all this patriotic duty out of your own pockets, but jthomas thinks that you need to do the work of 100 investigators, and that out of your own pockets too. jthomas thinks you need to break into the Pentagon.

A terrible crime was committed at the Pentagon, but jthomas believes that it is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to solve the crime; not professional highly trained police investigators with a huge stable of professionals to assist, and modern criminal investigative tools and computers, all paid for by the taxpayers. Go figure.

You guys have already PROVEN that the aircraft Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo could not possibly have impacted the Pentagon. Now it is time for a real criminal investigation team to take over. You guys have done a good job. You should not have to PROVE how the criminals got away. You should not have to PROVE if jthomas's 1000 witnesses actually exist or not, or if the Defense Department has ordered them all to LIE.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by jthomas
 


posted by jthomasThe list of where the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage from inside the Pentagon was provided to Craig Ranke and Aldo over two years ago. Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis BOTH refused to interview any of those people and they are on record of refusing to do so. If you don't know that then you are really gullible.

Let's provide the big list again:

Maybe my eyes are failing me, but I don't believe I see one single name in that list.


Of course you don't. That was the list given to CIT over two years ago so they knew where to find the people that had access to the wreckage, some say 8,000 people, I say just a 1,000. A whole list.

Yet, as you well know, CIT refused to search them out while it was perfectly happy to find the previously-unknown and undocumented (by name) NoC eyewitnesses.

You're new at this, aren't you?


It would take a crew of a hundred investigators to sift through that jthomas list. How did that infamous jthomas bogus claim go again? Oh yeah. Here it is.


CIT is proud of finding 13 eyewitnesses all on their own. I made it easy for them to conduct their "investigation" two years ago by providing a list of those who had direct access to the wreckage from inside the Pentagon to make some phone calls. What more help has ANYONE given CIT then me?


Shall I continue with CIT's two-year refusal to interview any of the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage inside the Pentagon?



Amazing isn't it? All those people and not one photo of a passenger strapped into a seat; not one serial number; NO JET FUEL near ground zero.


It's funny that you would out yourself as a newbie. I'll leave you to explain to everyone how you could possibly know there are no photographs, no serial numbers, and no jet fuel when you have already conceded that CIT never interviewed the people who would know.

I love it when newbies like you firmly plant their feet in their mouths and make my case for me. This is great comedy!

Thanks, SPreston, for outing CIT even more as inept and incompetent "investigators."



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 

pinch, your whole post was off topic. What did any of those plane crashes have to do with the alleged plane crash at the Pentagon?

Why should I respond to off-topic plane crashes and derail the thread to your liking?



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
pinch, your whole post was off topic. What did any of those plane crashes have to do with the alleged plane crash at the Pentagon?

Why should I respond to off-topic plane crashes and derail the thread to your liking?

Allow me to answer on behalf of Pinch.

I believe his(her?) point was that nobody disputes these crashes occured, and that the planes involved with them were as described. However, they have not met the criteria you require for basic confirmation of the events at The Pentagon.

Why is AA77 special?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Allow me to answer on behalf of Pinch.

I believe his(her?) point was that nobody disputes these crashes occured, and that the planes involved with them were as described. However, they have not met the criteria you require for basic confirmation of the events at The Pentagon.

Why is AA77 special?


"His", btw.

Exactly.

Again, you must be new to this online discussion world. Threads migrate to various topics as ideas are explored or discussed. As long as you don't run afoul of the Moderator Gods, go with it.

You are the one who first stepped out by asking us to imagine jthomas " go completely hysterical when asked for the alleged parts to be formally identified by serial numbers." or "go completely hysterical when asked for the video evidence to be shown, to help identify the alleged plane."

I was merely picking up on your post and discussed that. If you are going to complain that tough questions that you can't answer are "off topic", don't build an off ramp to that area.

Now that is settled, are you going to answer? What is your answer regarding those mishaps I detailed, when compared to the aircraft that impacted the Pentagon and did not approach on a north of the service station flight path? No video of the crash, no released serial number verification of aircraft parts tying it to the mishap aircraft.


by tezz
Why should I respond to off-topic plane crashes and derail the thread to your liking?


That, I guess, is the point. It isn't whether or not you should respond, its that you can't respond.


[edit on 29-10-2008 by pinch]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
Again, you must be new to this online discussion world.

No, pinch. I'm hardly new to anything online. I've been there and done it probably more often than you have. In fact, I liked some things that much, that I even did them twice. Don't worry about my ATS join date, as it wasn't the first time that I ever used an internet forum.



Now that is settled, are you going to answer? What is your answer regarding those mishaps I detailed,

Those other aircraft crashes had nothing to do with 911. I'm not playing your off-topic game. See, if I was a net newbie, you might suck me in - too bad I'm not, huh? Like I care, anyway...

Read the title of this thread and this forum - it has nothing to do with your rant about other aircraft crashes. Try again, pinch.

By the way, how's your proof developing to support your claim that the FBI has all parts and serial numbers from the alleged planes that allegedly crashed? Remember a couple of days ago you tried and failed to supply some? Linking to the FBI and NTSB websites did nothing to support your claim.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
Threads migrate to various topics as ideas are explored or discussed. As long as you don't run afoul of the Moderator Gods, go with it.


I don't think so. This thread is about the New FAA "Flight 77" flight path animation shows north of citgo approach, so everyone, please stay on topic and remember...

Courtesy Is Mandatory



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   

posted by tezzajw
pinch, your whole post was off topic. What did any of those plane crashes have to do with the alleged plane crash at the Pentagon?

Why should I respond to off-topic plane crashes and derail the thread to your liking?


posted by exponent
Allow me to answer on behalf of Pinch.

I believe his(her?) point was that nobody disputes these crashes occured, and that the planes involved with them were as described. However, they have not met the criteria you require for basic confirmation of the events at The Pentagon.

Why is AA77 special?

Why is AA Flight 77 so special? You don't know why? Were those other aircraft involved in the worst sneak attack on American soil ever in our history? Are there millions of people clamoring INSIDE JOB and TREASON on those other aircraft?



Why is AA77 special? Could it be because Flight 77 is in dispute? Because multiple eyewitnesses originally interviewed in 2001 by the CMH with those testimonies CENSORED from the American public, and since RETURNED to the American people in 2008 by FOIA, and UNCENSORED and reinterviewed, PROVING that the actual aircraft which was NOT Flight 77, flew Over the Naval Annex (ONA) and North of the Citco (NOC), rendering the Official Flight 77 flight path as scripted IMPOSSIBLE? Because of the recent release of the different FAA flight path showing the actual aircraft which was NOT Flight 77, flew ONA and NOC, rendering the Official Flight 77 flight path as scripted IMPOSSIBLE?



Why is AA77 special? Because the light poles had to be staged and the taxicab had to be presented to the American public in a scripted play with government agents as actors deliberately hoaxing the American public, since there is no possible way that aircraft ONA and NOC could have knocked down those 5 light poles?



Why is AA77 special? Because the Flight 77 FDR and 84 RADES data have been PROVEN falsified? Because the alleged Flight 77 loop southwest of the Pentagon has been PROVEN falsified because the actual aircraft which was NOT Flight 77, flew east of the Potomac and over DC and around Reagan? Because the C-130 has been PROVEN flying about 3 minutes behind the actual aircraft which was NOT Flight 77, and actually flying an approach over Arlington National Cemetery from the west northwest?



Why is AA77 special? Because the actual aircraft which was NOT Flight 77 and ONA and NOC, could not possibly have created the damage pattern inside the Pentagon? Because April Gallup testified that the Defense Department ordered her to LIE and she REFUSED to LIE? Because April Gallup told the TRUTH and testified that she witnessed no aircraft and no sign of an aircraft and NO JET FUEL inside the Pentagon?

1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive

It seems every open-minded and honest person can see why Flight 77 and the recently released official FAA flight path ONA and NOC is not very special to you. In fact it is a NIGHTMARE for you isn't it?

Guns and Butter April Gallup - audio live testimony



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

Why is AA77 special?


According to you and CIT, AA77 is special because it could be seen by hundreds of independent eyewitnesses approaching the Pentagon but became invisible to the naked eye as it flew over and away from the Pentagon.

That government of ours really has some cool tricks up its sleeve, doesn't it, SPreston?

How do you think it made AA77 invisible?



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   

posted by SPreston
Why is AA77 special?


posted by jthomas
According to you and CIT, AA77 is special because it could be seen by hundreds of independent eyewitnesses approaching the Pentagon



Hundreds? Really? Mind linking to those hundreds according to me and CIT?



A slight exaggeration on your part, perhaps?



AA77 was so special, that a light pole/taxicab script was written, carried out, and Federal agents were out in force guarding that taxicab in the road, and forcing the elderly black man driver to stand out in the open for hours for photo-ops.



Do you reckon that makes AA77 special?




posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by SPreston
Why is AA77 special?


posted by jthomas
According to you and CIT, AA77 is special because it could be seen by hundreds of independent eyewitnesses approaching the Pentagon


Hundreds? Really? Mind linking to those hundreds according to me and CIT?


Yes, the ones CIT tried to discredit but conceded that they did see AA77 approach the Pentagon, and CIT's 13 NoC witnesses. ALL on the approach side to the Pentagon. Have you forgotten already?

And no eyewitnesses or media reports of a jet flying over and away from the Pentagon. None.

It's over for CIT, no matter how much evasion you practice, SPreston.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Sorry, wrong thread.
[edit on 31-10-2008 by PplVSNWO]

[edit on 31-10-2008 by PplVSNWO]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   


Just a reminder that the new FAA video released on 9-12-2008 showing the decoy aircraft Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and somehow mysteriously disappearing high above the ground near the Pentagon, is still available for FREE download to your hard drive. The video somehow looks unfinished, so the FAA is probably working on a revised edition showing a flyover of the Pentagon. I expect jthomas, currently deliberately pushing disinformation on another dead thread of his, might have an update for us.

Apparently a disagreement has erupted among the Federal agencies protecting the 9-11 perps and the FAA has apparently decided to try to save some of their own butts. I wonder which will be the 2nd Federal agency to turn on the BOSS?

1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive




posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

Just a reminder that the new FAA video released on 9-12-2008 showing the decoy aircraft Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and somehow mysteriously disappearing high above the ground near the Pentagon, is still available for FREE download to your hard drive.


The facts speak for themselves. The CIT - Pilots for 9/11 Truth "mysteriously disappearing imaginary aircraft" is over.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 
You appear to be running out of original material, jthomas. Instead of explaining to us all why the FAA has a different flight path from the one that you claim, all you're doing is supplying a link?



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
reply to post by jthomas
 
You appear to be running out of original material, jthomas. Instead of explaining to us all why the FAA has a different flight path from the one that you claim, all you're doing is supplying a link?



There is nothing more foolish for you to do than illustrate my point for me.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
There is nothing more foolish for you to do than illustrate my point for me.

You consistently make yourself look foolish when you don't address the topic of the thread, here and elsewhere.

jthomas, why does the FAA flight path show the alleged Flight AA77 flying North of Citgo?



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

jthomas, why does the FAA flight path show the alleged Flight AA77 flying North of Citgo?


Don't be a fool. The FDR data quite clearly verifies that AA77 flew the flight path south of the Citgo gas station and crashed into the Pentagon.

You can't refute that fact just because you are a CIT lackey and believe in its Pentagon fairy tales. See my sig for further details.

You really should apologize to the families of ALL the victims of AA77's crash into the Pentagon.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join