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 Impossibility of CIT's Flyover... many SHOULD have seen it!

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
How could this dramatic aeronautical maneuver have taken place?

How could the hundreds if not thousands of people sitting in their cars not have seen this?

How could the people working around the Pentagon not see this?

How were they ALL fooled?

The animations that have been posted (CIT) make it look so much less extreme.

I posted this video on another thread here. It failed to receive one response. I am hoping that by starting another thread, this may stimulate some ideas.

Please watch this video that you have all probably have seen, but this time, try to imagine this plane flying across a busy highway toward a very large building. I believe the maneuver in this video can somewhat represent that of what CIT and others claim it could have done. WITHOUT anyone seeing it.






[edit on 10/18/0808 by ThroatYogurt]




posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


maybe you could explain what your talking about... ??? all I saw was an air show... with a really cool low flying jet maneuver...



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by philjwolf
 


Sure.

CIT claims that flight 77 or a "duplicate" attack jet was flown toward the Pentagon, but at the last minute went over the Pentagon at the last second timed to coincide with a large pre-planted explosion.

This flyover was a military deception as Craig Ranke states.

The video I posted is showing the extreme nature of a rather large aircraft making this maneuver.

I find it impossible that so many people were duped by the government and NOT seeing a plane of this size flying over and away from the Pentagon.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I think you are asking a very valid question. (And you know me. I'm no friend of the Bushwhackers.)

I'm not trying to trivialize the question you are asking, but there are a couple of things to keep in mind.

First: There was a large explosion of some kind at the Pentagon itself which might have drawn people's attention, no, which very likely did draw most people's attention away from the overflying plane. It would be a rare person who was ideally placed and cool headed enough to take in the entire scene, including the departing plane, after the explosion had occurred.

Second: The proximity of Reagan National Airport and all the comings and goings of aircraft associated with it, may have caused virtually anyone who saw the plane leave to write it off as part of the Reagan traffic.

Third: It is highly likely that anyone who saw something that didn't add up with regard to an overflying aircraft, would just have written it off. People often do that when they have actually caught the fatal anomaly that throws everything into question. They edit it out of their mental picture because it doesn't fit in with what they later learn, through the press and government spokespersons, is the generally accepted version of events.

Fourth: The media that most people have access to is simply not reporting the events as recounted by the witnesses that CIT has found. There are virtually no questions of substance about 9/11 being raised by boob toob media. When they do raise them, they are treated in debunker like fashion or not followed up on in an investigative sense. I'm sure most ordinary Americans are learning about the 9/11 truth movement through their teenagers.

My two cents worth. You are asking a very valid question though. One which should be followed up with other questions concerning where the alleged overflying plane went when it left the Pentagon grounds. What radar traces might there be of that flight, etc.

P.S.: Love the video. I don't know if you've read Len Deighton's book Bomber, but somewhere in there, he alludes to the notion that the real pilots in WW2 were the ones flying the bigger planes like the big bombers.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 18-10-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Great reply ipsedixit.

You covered most of the important reasons why most would have missed the flyover.

Remember, for people on the ground, it would have been a very fast event and they would have been caught by surprise and ended up unclear or confused about what they saw.

We interviewed a woman who was on route 27 right in front of the building and directly underneath the flight path. Like most people she was stuck in traffic, pre-occupied on her cell phone, so the explosion completely surprised her and she did not know there was a plane involved at all until she got home and heard it on the news.

She thought the Pentagon had been "bombed".

The account from "Skarlet" (available here) is a fine example how people will doubt what they initially thought they saw and fill in gaps in their memory after being "told" what happened.

But the fact is that we have never denied that people saw the flyover and of course the first critical flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts Jr. proves that some did.

Watch the end of part 2 of The North Side Flyover for his account.

But the most important point here is that Roosevelt went all of these years reconciling what he saw as a "2nd plane".

The 2nd plane cover story is KEY to how they were able to pull this off in broad daylight.

See our video presentation on this here:
The 2nd Plane Cover Story

There is a reason that proven incorrect suspect witness Keith Wheelhouse reported the C-130 as shadowing the attack jet up until the very last moment and USA Today employee Joel Sucherman falsely reports it veering away from the scene immediately (within "3 to 5 seconds") after the explosion.




So if you choose to believe these witnesses then you have to ask yourself why everyone didn't see this "2nd plane" flying away from the building immediately after the explosion!

If you don't believe them then you must understand how their proven false accounts serve as PERFECT cover for anyone who may have seen the flyover.

Furthermore we also know how there is was a direct cover-up of what people REALLY first reported before the media kicked in with their brainwashing because suspiciously, the 911 call tapes and transcripts were confiscated by the FBI and have been permanently sequestered while they were released in NY.

But yes, I also agree that TY raised a valid question for once.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
So, the 757 banked roared it's engines and climbed over a section of the Pentagon at the SAME time as the explosion. This was supposed to dupe the hundreds if not thousands of people in and around the vicinity of the Pentagon. I understand a few of the witnesses describe a bank. But this would have been huge. This would have been seen.

There also would have been many people that would not have seen the impact but would have seen the flyover. Look at the video, and listen. I can not fathom the possibility that not one single person that was around that area did not witness this amazing feat.

This was not Wonder Woman's plane guys.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


So why didn't they all see the alleged shadowing 2nd plane veering away immediately after the explosion as described by Wheelhouse and Sucherman?


You need to understand there are CONSTANTLY low flying planes over the Pentagon every few minutes all day long every day due to Reagan airport.



Listen to our interview with heliport Air Traffic Controller Sean Boger who describes the planes as flying so close to the Pentagon that you can read the numbers off the planes!

Like the first critical flyover witness, Roosevelt Roberts, that interview also available in Part 2 of The North Side Flyover:

Google Video Link



But with the Pentagon burning a plane flying away over the river would not even get a second glance.

Although of course there are a few prime spots to witness the entire event go down, most people who were in a position to see the plane fly away would NOT be in a position to see it approach or see the alleged impact side of the building at all and would be oblivious as to what had just happened.

NOBODY across the river in DC would have a clue at all.

Remember, the Pentagon is in Arlington, not downtown Washington DC.

So you are really over-exaggerating the potential places for people to be able to see the flyover and put it together with the violent event.

Furthermore you need to understand the topography of the area and it seems as though you do not. It's not like it's completely flat ground where you have a clear view of the Pentagon from all over the place.

Most people look at topographical maps or google earth but that is not what it looks like to someone driving on the highways surrounding the building or crossing the river on the 14th street bridge.

I suggest you take a tour and watch all three of our location videos, CIT Jettin' Crosstown.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   
The plane would get a second glance from those that did not see the impact.

You are also forgetting that any plane flying over the Pentagon would be 90 degrees off from the approach path. Anyone used to seeing planes land there constantly would probably be immediately aware that something odd was happening because it wouldn't appear normal.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


There are actually very few places where it is possible to see the alleged impact particularly with any detail up close.

The alleged impact or west side of the Pentagon is at the bottom of a topographical bowl.

People in that bowl, particularly on route 27, would NOT be in a good position to see the flyover at all.



People on the other side of the Pentagon who saw the plane flying away would not be able to have seen the impact.

Roosevelt Roberts proves how the 2nd plane cover story worked wonders.

He saw a massive "commercial airliner" with "jet engines" at less than 100 feet clearly not on the normal flight pattern banking away from the building immediately after the explosion.

He thought it was a 2nd plane.

People saw it.

They absolutely did.

We don't deny this.

There is a TON of evidence for a deliberate 2nd plane cover story as well as a deliberate cover up of the only evidence proving what people really first reported along with all the surrounding video.

If this doesn't bother you or at least raise serious questions it's because you have pure unadulterated faith in the government at all costs even if it means covering up the 9/11 operation for reasons of "national security".



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Also realize how people were fully confused and NOT generally aware of what had just happened immediately after the event.

There were tons of wild reports of different things happening all over the place.

Obviously that is to be expected during a massive tragic event like this but perhaps even some was deliberately interjected to add to the confusion.

It's not like everybody instantly believed that a AA jet came in low and level and hit the building.

Virtually everyone even in the direct vicinity was completely confused about what had just happened until the media told them.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   
There were several witnesses outside of the "bowl" that would have seen the flyover. This didn't happen.

Those that were able to witness what happened didn't rely on the media. They knew what they saw. (although as with ALL eyewitness testimonies there were some discrepancies.)

As far as the flight path, on several days during the week, I have a flight path that brings air traffic toward my home. Let me tell you, If a commercial airliner deviates from that flight path, or comes from ANY other direction other than what I am used to, it will grab my attention immediately. Kind of like those guys across the way that work in their tower every day.

Sorry, there was WAY too many people there, and WAY too many things that could have gone wrong.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I think you are asking a very valid question. (And you know me. I'm no friend of the Bushwhackers.

I'm not trying to trivialize the question you are asking, but there are a couple of things to keep in mind.

First: There was a large explosion of some kind at the Pentagon itself which might have drawn people's attention, no, which very likely did draw most people's attention away from the overflying plane. It would be a rare person who was ideally placed and cool headed enough to take in the entire scene, including the departing plane, after the explosion had occurred.


I've already dealt with that. That's just speculation. Many people would have been in a line-of-sight position of the plane and the explosion. In fact, the explosion would draw their attention to it, particularly drivers on the freeways and bridges in which case they would be in a position to see the low-flying aircraft flying away from the Pentagon and even right over them.


Second: The proximity of Reagan National Airport and all the comings and goings of aircraft associated with it, may have caused virtually anyone who saw the plane leave to write it off as part of the Reagan traffic.


Pure speculation. A plane flying that low and that fast in a direction consistent with the NOC flight path would not be anything consistent with the flight path, altitude, and direction of an aircraft flying away from the Pentagon.


Third: It is highly likely that anyone who saw something that didn't add up with regard to an overflying aircraft, would just have written it off.


That's even poorer speculation. Anyone seeing a low-flying, fast-moving aircraft flying away from the Pentagon as an explosion took place would react in many different ways, including calling 911, media outlets, relatives, friends, or doing nothing. To claim that eyewitnesses would all do the same thing - nothing - is illogical.

In addition, the fact that people would have seen such an event and never hear a single media report would have them speaking out, calling the media and so forth. Particularly 9/11 Truther types who would instantly suspect a media coverup.


Fourth: The media that most people have access to is simply not reporting the events as recounted by the witnesses that CIT has found.


Show me any intelligent person who would take CIT's account seriously, particularly when all his witnesses say AA77 hit the Pentagon.


There are virtually no questions of substance about 9/11 being raised by boob toob media.


Because none exist. AA77 still hit the Pentagon and no one has shown otherwise.


When they do raise them, they are treated in debunker like fashion or not followed up on in an investigative sense. I'm sure most ordinary Americans are learning about the 9/11 truth movement through their teenagers.


It's really a matter of not understanding that most Truther "questions" are invalid questions, i.e., not pertaining to the actual facts, and ignoring the answers one does not like to other questions. In the meantime, if anyone asks TRUTHERS questions, they react if someone has violated their rights and refuse to answer.


My two cents worth. You are asking a very valid question though. One which should be followed up with other questions concerning where the alleged overflying plane went when it left the Pentagon grounds. What radar traces might there be of that flight, etc.


I've been asking CIT to provide the flight path away from the Pentagon. Did you note that CIT won't answer? You don't find it peculiar that his so-called NOC "eyewitnesses" are all on the approach side of the Pentagon, but NONE are on the departure side?

Until you understand that the burden of proof falls on anyone claiming a flyover, you won't get far.

See www.abovetopsecret.com... for the likelihood that scores of eyewitnesses would have seen a flyover had one occurred.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Great reply ipsedixit.

You covered most of the important reasons why most would have missed the flyover.

Remember, for people on the ground, it would have been a very fast event and they would have been caught by surprise and ended up unclear or confused about what they saw.


I already showed you the absurdity of your claim, Craig. You remember that everyone of you were unable to refute me.

Let's show them why: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread402827

NOBODY across the river in DC would have a clue at all.

Remember, the Pentagon is in Arlington, not downtown Washington DC.

So you are really over-exaggerating the potential places for people to be able to see the flyover and put it together with the violent event.

Furthermore you need to understand the topography of the area and it seems as though you do not. It's not like it's completely flat ground where you have a clear view of the Pentagon from all over the place.

Most people look at topographical maps or google earth but that is not what it looks like to someone driving on the highways surrounding the building or crossing the river on the 14th street bridge.



Craig does not want you to see how easy it was for me to use GIS software to refute his above claims.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Craig has never been able to address these facts and refute me.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I'll repeat what CIT and P4T have to deal with



Pentagon View Shed Analysis #1

I'm going to take a look at CIT's claim of a "flyover" from a realistic perspective by showing a View Shed analysis of the topography around the Pentagon to demonstrate the visibility of any aircraft flying over the Pentagon from any location in the area.

This analysis is not needed in any way to refute CIT's claims. Numerous individuals have easily refuted all of CIT's claims (despite angry denials to the contrary) here and on other forums. Reheat has done a masterful job right here. I am doing this because it just further illustrates why CIT refuses to deal with evidence and eyewitness reports.

A View Shed Analysis is a common feature of GIS software and is used to determine the optimal placement and height of transmission antennas intended for television, radio, public utility, microwave, phone, and cell phone usage. It's use is intended for hilly or mountainous areas where topography presents obstructions in direct line-of-sight transmissions, or broadest area coverage, between transmitters and receivers.

I've done a View Shed analysis to illustrate a fundamental problem CIT has with its claims that a "flyover" took place - but no such "flyover" has ever been reported.

CIT claims that one eyewitness, one Roosevelt Roberts, stated that he saw a jet fly over the Pentagon and then took a route to the left over the Potomac River, flying south of The Mall. This is the only eyewitness CIT has ever presented to a so-called "flyover" after persistent requests for eyewitnesses for a long time.

CIT now claims that this sole, apparent eyewitness, "proves" that a "flyover" took place in a planned, calculated deception by the "government" to deceive people into believing a passenger jet, American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon.

CIT has stated, for the record, that interviews with 13 other "eyewitnesses" have demonstrated conclusively that AA77 flew on the "north side of the Citgo gas station rather than the south side as the government has claimed," thereby flying a route to the Pentagon that, if it had crashed into the Pentagon, would have produced damage entirely inconsistent with the observed damage. (Not insignificantly, each of CIT's 13 eyewitnesses were in a position to see an aircraft approach the Pentagon.)

Therefore, CIT concludes, the observed jet could not have flown into the Pentagon but, consistent with the statements of 14 "eyewitnesses" CIT found, the jet must have flown over the Pentagon to land in parts unknown. Furthermore, CIT claims, a deliberate deception was planned so that, as the jet began its flyover, a pre-planted bomb in the Pentagon, at the intersection of the flight path of the jet, was detonated producing both an explosion and smoke that obscured the view of the 13 apparent eyewitnesses CIT relies on for its claim that a flyover took place.

I have confined my study to the claim that a "flyover" could have taken place without there being eyewitnesses anywhere on the far side of the Pentagon whose views would never have been obscured by the explosion and subsequent smoke column.

Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, sole members of CIT, the "Citizens Investigation Team," have declared individually and separately that no other eyewitnesses to a "flyover" are required. They put their sole trust in 13 eyewitnesses whom they readily acknowledge whose views of an actual flyover would have been obscured by the "explosion" and resultant smoke column at the Pentagon. There remains the one eyewitness, Roosevelt Roberts, on whom CIT's entire claim that a "flyover" took place rests.

The observation comes immediately to mind that if a flyover took place whose flight path would take the jet over and within view of a densely populated geographic area as it flew away from the Pentagon - and the explosion that took place - including heavily-travelled freeways and bridges, should there not be eyewitness reports from a wide geographic area on the other side of the Pentagon in which no topographical obstructions existed? CIT has been asked that question repeatedly and the response has either been that those eyewitnesses are not needed or, "do your own investigation."

The topography around Washington includes obvious obstructions of buildings, trees, overpasses, etc., which are not included in this first run. Obviously, a person standing behind trees or buildings obstructing the view toward the Pentagon, or looking in a different direction altogether, isn't going to witness a plane over the Pentagon as an explosion takes place there. That changes, of course, as the plane moves forward, climbs, and turns.

What is the probability that a such "flyover" could take place in a densely populated metropolis, with many drivers on various roads and bridges around the Pentagon, a spectacular explosion and smoke alerting numerous motorists, and unrefuted testimony that a jet was seen approaching and crashing into the Pentagon at high speed?

I am not in a position to calculate such a probability, but I am in a position to define the extent of the geographic area in which a plane over the Pentagon could have been easily seen.

In this view, I have deliberately limited the range to the jet to two miles, a reasonable distance in which an aircraft the size of a 757 would draw attention moving away from the Pentagon after an explosion. Of course, the jet can been easily at a further distance away.

This instantaneous view places the jet at 100 feet above ground level (not above the building itself) over the central courtyard of the Pentagon. The yellow-shaded area shows the geographic areas up to two miles away from that jet in which a person whose eyesight is five feet above the ground could see that jet, given the observation limitations of structures and vegetation outlined above. Any person within the two-mile range not shaded yellow would be unable to see a jet 100 feet above the ground over the Pentagon courtyard. As one can see, these are very few. It should be obvious as the jet moves forward, and climbs, on a flight path away from the Pentagon, the geographical area at a two-mile range expands, opportunity for it to be observed increases, and the number of potential eyewitnesses increases.



It should also be obvious how the potential for drivers on the freeways and bridges, whose positions are changing and whose attention is necessarily on their surroundings, are in an excellent position to see a jet fly away from the Pentagon, many of whom would see the jet in a direct line of sight to the fireball rising from the Pentagon.

Yet there are no such reports.

This View Shed analysis illustrates the tremendous problem CIT has in facing the probability that many numbers of eyewitnesses would most certainly have seen a flyover take place from a large geographic area and that no such reports have ever surfaced. It also illustrates why CIT refuses to look for any such eyewitnesses. We can imagine many drivers stuck in freeway traffic seeing the explosion at the Pentagon, immediately followed by a jet flying fast and climbing from the direction of the Pentagon. Some would reasonably think there is a connection - perhaps the aircraft dropped a bomb.

But the big problem for CIT is a very reasonable situation. These people who would have seen a flyover would wonder why there were no subsequent media reports of a flyover. Would not even a handful contact media outlets, each competing with each other for breaking news, and say, "Wait a minute! There was a jet flying away from the Pentagon right after the explosion!"

Furthermore, CIT's reliance on Roosevelt Roberts' description of the jet's turn to the left over the river actually puts CIT in a no-win position of having a jet visible from a large area.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

You need to understand there are CONSTANTLY low flying planes over the Pentagon every few minutes all day long every day due to Reagan airport.



Craig, there is nothing like using the foreshortening of a telephoto lens shot to deceive posters into thinking that jet is flying "over" the Pentagon when it is well beyond the Pentagon

I think that should earn you a warning. But it does demonstrate how low you stoop in trying to deceive Truthers.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas


Craig, there is nothing like using the foreshortening of a telephoto lens shot to deceive posters into thinking that jet is flying "over" the Pentagon when it is well beyond the Pentagon

I think that should earn you a warning. But it does demonstrate how low you stoop in trying to deceive Truthers.


Oh Really?

So are you calling heliport tower ATC Sean Boger a liar?

Apparently you haven't bothered to listen to his interview where he no only corroborates the banking north side approach like all other witness but explains in detail how the air traffic from Reagan is so low as they take off and land over the Pentagon that you can see the numbers on them!

That's in Part 2 of The North Side Flyover.

Obviously from your foolish analysis it's clear you have never been to the area and are completely unfamiliar with the topography.

I suggest you take a tour with our on location videos CIT Jettin' Crosstown.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You need to understand there are CONSTANTLY low flying planes over the Pentagon every few minutes all day long every day due to Reagan airport.


That's funny. Spoken like the true uninformed amateur "investigator" that Ranke is. Not only is it not CONSTANT, but they never fly "over" the Pentagon, either.

Ranks is experienced at saying things he has absolutely not clue-1 about. Planes fly NEAR the building often, lining up for Runway 15, nut never "over" the building unless the approach is off-line, and having sat in the Pentagon center-courtyard on many occasions is a rare, rare ocurance.

Ranke also like to toss out the "People would think it was regular Reagan traffic", displaying even more ignorance (not necessarily a pejorative) in his assumption that people, seeing an airliner flying from west to east, at 50 to less than 100 feet, over a parking lot that holds over 2,000 cars, headed towards the White House, as Captain Bob has opined.

How about your witnesses that saw the aircraft hit the building, Ranke? Brooks? Lagasse? Boger? You know...those "government" employees whose testimony you don't accept because they work for the perps in this event!



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
There were several witnesses outside of the "bowl" that would have seen the flyover. This didn't happen.


You don't know this because you have not talked to ANY of them.

The 911 calls were confiscated and permanently sequestered for a reason.

That implicates a deliberate cover up of what people really first reported.

Funny how your faith in the government allows you to not care about this.




Those that were able to witness what happened didn't rely on the media. They knew what they saw.


Very true and they overwhelmingly saw the plane on the north side proving it did not hit.

1. Robert Turcios saw it "pull up".


2. Maria De La Cerda thought it hit "on top".

3. Roosevelt Roberts Jr. saw it banking around and flying away from the building immediately AFTER the explosion.


There is only one thing for a plane on the north side approach to do.

All of these people could not be so drastically wrong in the exact same way.

13 north side witnesses = proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this is where the plane flew.









As far as the flight path, on several days during the week, I have a flight path that brings air traffic toward my home. Let me tell you, If a commercial airliner deviates from that flight path, or comes from ANY other direction other than what I am used to, it will grab my attention immediately. Kind of like those guys across the way that work in their tower every day.


Yeah well the Pentagon area is different. There are military helicopters and all kinds of large government helicopters flying every which way all the time over that bowl IN ADDITION to being right next to a National airport that is open 24/7.

Plus there was a massive explosion that greatly changes the dynamic here.

But you keep forgetting, Roosevelt Roberts most certainly DID see the massive "commercial airliner" with "jet engines" banking around off normal air traffic course at less than 100 feet immediately after the explosion!

He simply wrote it off as a "2nd plane" for years.

No doubt many others did this as well and there are others who are confused and others who are scared.

We have never denied that people saw.

We know that they saw it and we have evidence proving it.

The 2nd Plane Cover Story was absolutely key to the operation and this is what handled many of the people who saw the flyover.

If they called it in to report it, their accounts were blown off as anomalous or confiscated by the FBI.



Sorry, there was WAY too many people there, and WAY too many things that could have gone wrong.


You don't know what you are talking about because you haven't even been there. Besides this argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.

Faulty logic does not refute evidence.

Back to the drawing board pseudo-skeptic!



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
If people haven't seen it yet we go into full detail about all the mechanics of HOW they were able to pull off such a deception in broad daylight with this full feature presentation:

The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off

Google Video Link


I STRONGLY recommend that those who think the north side evidence is compelling but still have questions about the flyover set aside the time to watch this 1 hour and 40 minute long full feature presentation.

Never forget, if these pseudo-skeptics really thought it was so "impossible" they wouldn't be so obsessed with us and our work.

They are scared and with good reason.

We all should be.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join