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.

 

An Opportunity for CIT and P4T

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


So I suppose the jet engines found inside the Pentagon are not from a 757? Or the third engine from the APU wasn't either? How about the landing gear? Matches a 757s. What about the AA painted debris? If you all say its not from an AA plane, then how did it get there? You still cant answer that.

Please, explain how it would have worked:
They set off a massive explosion right in front the of the Pentagon, right next to a busy traffic jammed expressway, with people in and around the Pentagon doing their daly business. Now all of a sudden you have thousands of people coming out and looking AT the Pentagon burning, after the explosion. THEN you have special workers, in front of everybody watching, come out of a truck and start throwing aircraft debris all over the place, and then crawling into the hole before it collapsed and planting body parts and aircraft parts inside, right next to firefighters, police and workers, and not a single damned person noticed ANY of this? Nobody of the hundreds and possibly thousands of eyewitnesses that were in, outside, or next to the Pentagon or news helicopters on scene immediately afterwards saw any of that? WOW!


so, were they wearing cloaking devices?
Again, that is some imagination there.




posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
So I suppose the jet engines found inside the Pentagon are not from a 757? Or the third engine from the APU wasn't either? How about the landing gear? Matches a 757s.

Which 757 was the alleged wreckage from?



What about the AA painted debris? If you all say its not from an AA plane, then how did it get there? You still cant answer that.

Which alleged AA plane was it? Have you made a positive ID on the plane?

I don't know how the alleged wreckage got there. I don't even know if it is from the alleged Flight AA77, as no one has been able to prove it to me.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   


Which 757 was the alleged wreckage from?


Ah, so there was a 757 that impacted the Pentagon. Ok, glad we cleared that up.

next:



Which alleged AA plane was it? Have you made a positive ID on the plane?

I don't know how the alleged wreckage got there. I don't even know if it is from the alleged Flight AA77, as no one has been able to prove it to me.


Oh ok, so, a totally different 757 AA flight was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon, rather than AA77? Ahh I get it now, there never was an AA77 involved, it was a totally different flight? I see.....


So, to recap: there WAS an AA 757 that crashed into the Pentagon. You dont believe it was from AA77, so that must mean there was another AA 757 plane that was hijacked and crashed, while AA77 is a figment of everyone's imagination. I see. Its logical. We found the 757 debris inside and out, the passengers were found, inside and quite dead, people outside saw the plane flyover and plow into the Pentagon, and none of this was AA77? Woweee!
...............
......................



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Ah, so there was a 757 that impacted the Pentagon. Ok, glad we cleared that up.

Really? Which alleged 757 impacted the Pentagon?



Oh ok, so, a totally different 757 AA flight was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon, rather than AA77? Ahh I get it now, there never was an AA77 involved, it was a totally different flight? I see.....


What are you typing? You're making the claim that Flight AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. Please show me how all of the alleged wreckage has been forensically identified.



So, to recap: there WAS an AA 757 that crashed into the Pentagon.

Who stated that? I certainly didn't. I asked which 757 the alleged wreckage was from. I certainly never stated that a 757 did (or didn't) hit the Pentagon.

If there was 757 wreckage in the Pentagon, then what alleged plane was it from and how did it allegedly get there?



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Originally posted by tezzajw


Really? Which alleged 757 impacted the Pentagon?


What kind of a question is this? How many 757s are there? By this question you are accepting, whether you like it or not, the fact that, indeed, a AA 757 crashed into the Pentagon.



What are you typing? You're making the claim that Flight AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. Please show me how all of the alleged wreckage has been forensically identified.


No, its already been proven and known that Flight AA77 did crash. I would suspect that the passengers that have been ID'd through DNA would be enough proof. Or the debris of the 757 inside and out from an AA aircraft. Oh, and lets not forget the witnesses that saw the impact or the plane flying over them prior to impact. Or the radar data? Or the workers at the airport that saw Flight AA77 depart from the airport. Or the people who checked in the terrorists.



Who stated that? I certainly didn't. I asked which 757 the alleged wreckage was from. I certainly never stated that a 757 did (or didn't) hit the Pentagon.

If there was 757 wreckage in the Pentagon, then what alleged plane was it from and how did it allegedly get there?


So, there is more than one 757 involved now? Your quote:

I asked which 757 the alleged wreckage was from.......
If there was 757 wreckage in the Pentagon, then what alleged plane was it from and how did it allegedly get there?


Well, according to the evidence, the debris inside and outside and the passengers came from Flight AA77. Nowhere else does it say other aircraft involved. And according to rest of the OVERWHELMING evidence, it got there because AA77 plowed into the Pentagon as it was witnessed by many eyewitnesses. You see how that works? If you come across a scene with a car inside a house, with the lawn torn up, the front wall demolished and the debris of the wall inside the house, with a car inside, then using basic logic, the car is the source of the debris inside the house it crashed into. And the car itself being inside is the direct result of it crashing into the house. It was not beamed in, it was not planted, it crashed in. Plain and simple.

Using logic here again, now, we find that there is plenty of debris of an aircraft, a 757 and passengers, inside and outside the Pentagon. It has been documented, recorded and witnessed by thousands of people working and rescuing others inside and out. Now working backwards, we must infer that a plane, a 757 with passengers, HAD TO HAVE impacted the Pentagon for the debris to be inside and outside. Anything else is just being dishonest.

So to recap:
757 debris inside and outside the Pentagon with AA markings + remains of passengers from said flight (AA77) inside + eyewitnesses that saw the aircraft overhead and when it impacted the building = Flight AA77 (a 757) crashed into Pentagon.

Also there is an entire thread on this which shows the proof as well including pictures that you can look at to your heart's content:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And some more pictures as well:
www.911myths.com...

you may find this picture interesting in particular:
www.911myths.com...
Check the serial number of the part



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
I would suspect that the passengers that have been ID'd through DNA would be enough proof.

Human DNA identifies humans, it does not identify airplanes. Try again.



Or the debris of the 757 inside and out from an AA aircraft.

Please show me where this has been proven with documentation. Which alleged 757 was it? Which alleged AA plane was it?



Oh, and lets not forget the witnesses that saw the impact or the plane flying over them prior to impact.

How many of those witnesses are on record as stating that they saw the tail number and could make a positive ID of the plane that allegedly crashed? None. Try again.



Or the radar data?

How does the radar show that a plane allegedly crashed?



Or the workers at the airport that saw Flight AA77 depart from the airport.

Seriously? How far away was the airport from the alleged crash scene? So those witnesses could see across the country and follow the alleged plane with their eyes? Please give me the name of one 'airport worker' who saw Flight AA77 depart and has made a positive ID on the alleged plane wreckage.



Or the people who checked in the terrorists.

Huh? How does a person behind a deck make a positive ID on alleged plane wreckage at the Pentagon? You're starting to lose it now... try again.



If you come across a scene with a car inside a house...

Why are you taking this off-topic? The alleged crash involved an alleged airplane, not a car.



you may find this picture interesting in particular:
www.911myths.com...
Check the serial number of the part

Yeah, Reheat showed me the same picture, so I'll ask you the same questions that he never answered for me.

Who took the picture?
Where was it taken?
What time was it taken?
What date was it taken?
What is the piece of scrap metal in the picture?

You can't show an unsourced picture and expect a thinking person to believe that it proves anything.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The only way to identify the plane is for the serial parts to be viewed on the wreckage and then cross referenced with the appropriate documentation.


Why?

What's wrong with all the other evidence that converges on the conclusion that it was AA77?

You fell with the crazy notion that investigators HAVE to have serial numbers to know that a plane was a certain plane. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But the claim that you HAVE to have serial numbers to identify an aircraft is a standard evasive tactic of the 9/11 Denial Movement that gullible Truthers fall for hook, line, and sinker. It's the way Truthers have always avoided having to deal with the actual evidence that is contrary to their wishes and desires.

Serial numbers can play an important role in a post-crash investigation to determine things like a part failed and contributed to the crash and one would want to know if that is a design flaw or a manufacturing defect in a particular batch of parts. It is completely unnecessary to have serial numbers of parts to identify what plane or jet crashed since all of the other evidence already tells us that.

Your claim is just as silly as the one that says unless there is video of AA77 hitting the Pentagon, there is no "proof" that it did.

But that's why your 9/11 Denial Movement is dying a fast death.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

I don't know how the alleged wreckage got there. I don't even know if it is from the alleged Flight AA77, as no one has been able to prove it to me.


That's a problem only you can resolve when and if you finally decide to deal with all the lines of evidence that converge on the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Until then, it's your problem that you want to believe the "Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale."

[edit on 14-10-2008 by jthomas]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Yeah, Reheat showed me the same picture, so I'll ask you the same questions that he never answered for me.

Who took the picture?
Where was it taken?
What time was it taken?
What date was it taken?
What is the piece of scrap metal in the picture?

You can't show an unsourced picture and expect a thinking person to believe that it proves anything.


Do you have a clue what you are saying? Let's take it to it's logical extension.

Can you prove the Moon exists? Can you prove you exist?

Get back to us when you have provided proof that you and the Moon exist. Until you do, we can only assume you are a computer bot and not a real person.

That's how irrational your silly reasoning has gotten. It means that if you see news reports of car crashes, airplane crashes, presidential elections, or whatever, that you believe you have NO proof that they occurred.

Once again, we see the low level of thinking that informs the 9/11 Denial Movement and why your movement is dying out rapidly.

Get real and start to learn to think logically and critically.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


I gave you a picture of a part's serial number with AA markings on it, why not check it out yourself? I'm not going to do your homework because you refuse to acknowledge the facts.

[edit on 10/14/2008 by GenRadek]

[edit on 10/14/2008 by GenRadek]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


It never ceases to amaize me, the sheer willful ignorance and blindness of the so called "truthers". He still cant explain how they managed to plant all the debris in full view of hundreds and hundreds of eyewitnessess, and no one noticed.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
I gave you a picture of a part's serial number with AA markings on it, why not check it out yourself?

You supplied a picture with an unidentifiable piece of scrap metal in it.

You did not give me the name of the person who took the picture.
You did not give me the location of the photographer when the picture was taken.
You did not give me the location of the scrap metal when the picture was taken.
You did not give me a date for when the picture was taken.
You did not give me a time for when the picture was taken.



I'm not going to do your homework because you refuse to acknowledge the facts.

You're the one who needs to do his homework. You've provided NO facts. You've only shown an unidentifiable piece of scrap metal in a completely anonymous picture. I hope that you're never on a jury, if you're prepared to accept 'evidence' that easily.

jthomas, I know when you're clutching at straws if you have to resort to a very silly, off-topic argument like proving the moon exists. It would help your effort greatly to try and identify the alleged wreckage, rather than speculate about the nature of other bodies in the solar system.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

jthomas, I know when you're clutching at straws if you have to resort to a very silly, off-topic argument like proving the moon exists. It would help your effort greatly to try and identify the alleged wreckage, rather than speculate about the nature of other bodies in the solar system.


Don't you have a clue how ridiculous your thinking is? I used an example of proving the Moon exists to show you exactly what you are doing, and it flies right over your head.

No wonder you believe in the Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale. You're just the kind of Truther the movement loves to have.

Get real, tezzajw. Join us in the rational world where people choose to THINK.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 06:14 AM
link   

posted by tezzajw
You're the one who needs to do his homework. You've provided NO facts. You've only shown an unidentifiable piece of scrap metal in a completely anonymous picture. I hope that you're never on a jury, if you're prepared to accept 'evidence' that easily.

jthomas, I know when you're clutching at straws if you have to resort to a very silly, off-topic argument like proving the moon exists. It would help your effort greatly to try and identify the alleged wreckage, rather than speculate about the nature of other bodies in the solar system.


posted by jthomas
Until then, it's your problem that you want to believe the "Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale."

No wonder you believe in the Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale. You're just the kind of Truther the movement loves to have.

Get real, tezzajw. Join us in the rational world where people choose to THINK.

Yeah right. Hilarious reasoning jthomas.

Of all the alternate 9-11 Conspiracy Theories, the Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory with the alleged 19 'hijackers' defeating the multi-Trillion dollar US Military defense system is the most ludicrous of all.

Those 4 alleged hijacked aircraft with no evidence that any 'hijackers' ever boarded any one of the aircraft, flew all over the northeast, over nuclear power plants, over US Air Force bases, over Washington DC, right past Andrews AFB long after the WTC Tower impacts, and the multi-Trillion dollar US Military defense system was rendered helpless, not even capable of defending their own headquarters. Hilarious fantasy tale.

Then we are expected to believe that two of those unskilled at piloting 'hijackers' managed somehow by hand, to hit both of the WTC Towers at high speed, even though highly skilled commercial pilots the very next day, were unable to hit the towers in a programmed commercial 737 aircraft simulator setup specifically to test that BS fantasy.

But the BS gets much deeper, and gullible Americans mesmerized by their boob tubes are fed the fairy tale that these fanatic 'hijackers' would elect to fly all the way around the Pentagon to strike an impossible 1st floor target in the only area which was under construction and reinforced with steel. Such garbage. Only a complete fool would believe such nonsense.

If these freedom hating fanatical 'hijackers' had just aimed a little higher, they could have taken out Dummy Rumsfeld sleeping at his desk, and wrought ten times the deaths and destruction. They could have skipped the loop around the Pentagon and the difficult descent and impossible pull-up down the hill, and never ever worried about the wing destroying 247 lb light poles.

But that scenario was just not in the official script, was it?

No, Usama bin Laden, (CIA name Tim Osman) hooked up to his kidney dialysis machine in his cave, apparently had insisted that the Pentagon under construction reinforced area and those five Great Satan light poles had to be destroyed in order to take away the FREEDOM of Americans, and his fanatical 'hijackers' had to follow orders. Then Usama bin Laden says repeatedly 'But I didn't do the dastardly deed.' And Osama is NOT WANTED for 9-11 by the FBI because there is no physical evidence. Surprise surprise surprise.

What an official FAIRY TALE FOR ABSOLUTE FOOLS.

You call your world rational jthomas? Yeah right.

You regard the Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory as rational jthomas?

I want no part of your THINKing abilities.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   
SPreston,

You provide an illustrious example of repeating ad nauseum the Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tales.

ALL denial movements misrepresent known facts in order to advance their political ends and never can provide any evidence to support their claims.

The only question on the table left is why you would go to such lengths to deny the evidence in front of your nose while absolutely refusing to bring a stitch of evidence to support your claims. Such questions can only be answered by psychologists.

We all know the records and evidence that the hijackers boarded the planes have been right in front of you, SPreston, for seven full years. That you are incapable or completely unable to understand factual evidence and that you still refuse to present any eyewitnesses from the other side of the Pentagon to a flyover, despite the absolute necessity of the existence of those eyewitnesses IF there were a flyover, is a testament to how badly you are taken in by the Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale.

And how you are a responsible party for the demise of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Now, tell everyone here who still believes in your claims why you absolutely refuse to provide the necessary eyewitnesses to a flyover.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   

posted by SPreston
Of all the alternate 9-11 Conspiracy Theories, the Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory with the alleged 19 'hijackers' defeating the multi-Trillion dollar US Military defense system is the most ludicrous of all.


posted by jthomas
SPreston,

You provide an illustrious example of repeating ad nauseum the Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tales.

ALL denial movements misrepresent known facts in order to advance their political ends and never can provide any evidence to support their claims.

As do you jthomas; spoken like a true faith-based fanatical follower of the Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory. Being the hypocrite that you are, you operate through one continuous bluff; never ever providing the evidence which should support your ridiculous Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory.

The actor Harley Davidson guy and 9-11 Planner and Anthrax Expert Jerome Hauer
Dan Rather too can easily see that demolition charges brought down the WTC towers


Google Video Link


The top-down explosive demolition of the WTC Towers is right there, obvious to the open-minded, and even obvious to the live broadcast newscasters on the morning of 9-11. But those first broadcasts have been seared from the weak minds of the fools who would so easily believe the Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory and the endless lies of the defenders of traitors.



The ordinary demolition of WTC 7 was also obvious to the live broadcasters and remembered by those who were not so easily hypnotized by the boob tubes and the lies of the disinformation specialists.



And now that the actual flight path of the decoy aircraft at the Pentagon has been proven beyond any doubt as over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo, even the FAA has apparently agreed that this particular portion of the real flight path is accurate, as testified to by the CIT eyewitnesses from the Citgo and ANC and others.

Therefore jthomas, YOUR denial movement always misrepresents known facts in order to advance YOUR political ends and YOU refuse and never can provide any evidence to support YOUR claims.

Link to update FAA video source - 1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Find the file, right click on it, and download it to your hard drive



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
[Being the hypocrite that you are, you operate through one continuous bluff; never ever providing the evidence which should support your ridiculous Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory.

The actor Harley Davidson guy and 9-11 Planner and Anthrax Expert Jerome Hauer
Dan Rather too can easily see that demolition charges brought down the WTC towers
.. Vid snip! ..


Hilarious. You accuse someone of being a hypocrite and never providing evidence then directly after you post that youtube video. Awesome "evidence" there super-sleuth.


The top-down explosive demolition of the WTC Towers is right there, obvious to the open-minded


Another hilarious statement. Talk again about hypocrisy! The trash talk you post in EVERY single post is nothing but close minded hate-filled drivel.

If one does not agree with you they are called one of the following :

BUSH LOYALIST
PSEUDO-SKEPTIC
GOVERNMENT STOOGE
OFFICIAL STORY BELIEVER

etc, etc, etc.

I know it's hard on you coming from LCF where everyone has to agree or be banned and you are encouraged to go on your tirade. But here, where people are allowed and encouraged to freely debate this kinda junk, we can see through the charade. Posts like this and most others you write are a shining example of not having an "open mind".



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
SPreston doesn't think anyone notices that he hasn't yet provided any eyewitnesses from anywhere in the Washington, DC area, nor any media reports, of AA77 flying away from the Pentagon after it supposedly flew over it.

Note that SPreston consistently claims that AA77 flew over the Pentagon. But he can't provide any eyewitnesses or media reports testifying to a flyover. Just like his masters, Ranke, Marquis, and Balsamo can't.

Amazing that SPreston wants us to believe the impossible, isn't it? Sure enough, he knows how gullible 9/11 Truthers are, and that they will believe whatever he says, right, you 9/11 Truthers out there? You'll all take it for granted that there are absolutely NO eyewitnesses to a flyover, correct? Yet you'll ALL scream that you need a video to "prove" AA77 hit the Pentagon.

What amazing irrationality.

So, if any of you die-hard Truthers think there is something smelly about SPreston - or CIT or P4T - not producing flyover eyewitnesses in a heavily populated area, on grid-locked freeways, or heavily traveled bridges, around the Pentagon, just ask SPreston to tell you why.

I dare any Truther to ask him.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   


You supplied a picture with an unidentifiable piece of scrap metal in it.

You did not give me the name of the person who took the picture.
You did not give me the location of the photographer when the picture was taken.
You did not give me the location of the scrap metal when the picture was taken.
You did not give me a date for when the picture was taken.
You did not give me a time for when the picture was taken.


Ah. heh heh. Ah I see. When I provide pictures direct from the ground zero impact site, with aircraft pieces and markings, which prove an AA 757 crashed into the Pentagon, its not enough for you. when CIT says that a plane seen by no one magically overflew the Pentagon and never crashed into it, which was seen by NOBODY on the other side of the Pentagon afterward, and claimed by one totally unreliable witness 7 years later, is more than enough proof for you that no AA 757 hit the Pentagon. Sure sure. I get it.





You're the one who needs to do his homework. You've provided NO facts. You've only shown an unidentifiable piece of scrap metal in a completely anonymous picture. I hope that you're never on a jury, if you're prepared to accept 'evidence' that easily.


Hey you know what, how about you prove some REAL PROOF of any claims from CIT. Its funny how you don't demand any hard evidence of a flyover, other than some bumbling eyewitness who obviously wouldn't remember what he had for breakfast unless it was coached to him by someone. CIT didn't ask a single person on the other side of the Pentagon that would have clarified or confirmed a 757 flying super low over the Pentagon immediately after the explosion. Gee lets see, a large fireball explosion on one side of the Pentagon, within seconds thousands of pairs of eyes look directly at the Pentagon, and NOT A SINGLE EYE sees a lumbering 757 flying over the Pentagon trying to gain altitude from the "alleged" crash site and flying away. Dear God, I sure as hell HOPE you never go on a jury with your logic.

Physical evidence is not enough for you. But a bunch of innuendos, lies, and cherry picked, twisted eyewitness accounts is golden proof for you.

CIT has not a shred of evidence of any of his claims of no 757 AA flight hitting the Pentagon. In its place we have suggestions, innuendos, lies, distortions, unsubstantiated assumptions based on flawed logic and lies. And you gobble it all right up like its God's truth.

Here, ask him this:
Where is the proof the aircraft parts were planted in and around the Pentagon? Eyewitnesses, pictures, a video clip, anything to substantiate his claims.
Where are the eyewitnesses on the OTHER side of the Pentagon which should have seen a low flying 757 trying to gain altitude right after the fireball?
Why does he leave out all the eyewitness accounts from inside the Pentagon after the impact, or those that did see the plane hit the Pentagon?
Where are the eyewitnesses that could corroborate one of the claims that a second plane magically flew into the path of AA77 to take its place mere seconds before impact without ANYONE noticing the 757 doing an acrobatic wingtip turn and flight away from the Pentagon?

Lets see you ask these hard questions and lets see what he says.

So far, I have provided AMPLE evidence of a 757 flight AA77 impacting into the Pentagon. Debris confirms the make of the aircraft model and the paint job marking ID it as an AA. DNA evidence from the bodes confirms the IDs of the passengers that were aboard AA77. What more do you want?

Also, I would like for you to show me ONE instance where during an investigation of a plane crash, EVERY SINGLE piece of a plane was serial number ID'd and traced back to the plane that crashed. Show me one instance of such overkill measures.

[edit on 10/15/2008 by GenRadek]



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Two months ago, I demonstrated why CIT, P4T, and apologists like SPreston, have consistently evaded presenting any eyewitnesses to the flyover.

I showed, using GIS software, the enormous problem CIT, SPreston, and Rob Balsamo have in dealing with a total lack of eyewitness reports or media stories of the claim that AA77 flew over and away from the Pentagon.

You can read my analysis here: Penatagon View Shed Analysis #1

Needless to say, CIT, P4T, and SPreston have clammed up and refuse to address this fundamental issue.

Since it is the 9/11 Truth Movement these characters are trying to deceive, it is really up to YOU 9/11 Truthers to DEMAND from SPreston the explanation why ALL of the eyewitness reports - including CIT's 13 eyewitnesses (who each said AA77 crashed into the Pentagon) - are from the approach side of the Pentagon, but that there are none from the departure side of the Pentagon.

None. Zero.

I think you will soon understand why CIT, P4T, and SPreston have to avoid dealing with the implications of a flyover - and why they hope you will not notice.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join