Originally posted by matrix911

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by matrix911

and while you're at it, i'm curious what evidence you have and support for the explanation you've given for how a boeing 757 can (within simple physics and known data on what happens when a 757 crashes anywhere into anything) fits in the hole made at the pentagon.

Don't be so upset. EVERYONE here is claiming that AA77 could not have hit the Pentagon. I already know that.

I am just asking questions about their claims that AA77, instead, flew over and away from the Pentagon. BIG and LOUD 757s just don't disappear on command, do they?

Would you please be so kind to provide the eyewitnesses and media reports reporting a jet, AA77 or the claimed "decoy" jet that supposedly flew the NoC flightpath, flew toward, over, and away from the Pentagon?

Is there a claim here by tezzajw and other cit members saying there are?

second, I'll ignore that you didn't answer my other 2 or 3 very simple questions... for now.

again, As for aa77 flyer over the pentagon claim... are tezzajw and others saying that? I think most are saying something flew over or may have, but not aa77... is that correct or the issue IYO?

jthomas, i never got a response to my reply above...

Craig,

For what it's worth...

You're work is the first I've seen since 9/11 that puts a face and a name to the people on-the-ground involved in a vast conspiracy that, if true, would require the coordination of hundreds of people.

Keep going. This may very well be the "Magic Bullet" that unravels some truth, conspiracy or not, of the event.

If Roosevelt took 10 seconds to reach the outside, and Tribby's video begins 15-20 seconds after the impact, this means Roosevelt walked outside 5-10 seconds before Tribby started filming.

In those 5-10 seconds, traveling at max cruising speed, the plane would have traveled 0.69 miles.

A plane flying at that speed, at that altitude, for that long, should produce more than just one "solid" eyewitness, no?

If the plane gained altitude, it would not have been able to maintain cruising speed. My aerodynamic math is not all that sharp and we don't know the angle of ascent, but let's assume the speed decreases to 350 mph, equal to the cruising speed of the C-130 and a decrease of 30%. This puts the aircraft 0.49 miles away from the Pentagon when Tribby turned on his camera to start filming.

Did Tribby or anyone else on the 395 witness the 2nd plane Roosevelt described? It would seem that if Tribby were able to capture the Pentagon fires within 15-20 seconds after the impact that he very well witnessed the initial explosion, potentially witnessed the plane prior to impact, and is highly likely to have witnessed a second airliner as it flew off.

Are you attempting to refute the 9/11 report or conduct your own investigation? If you are refuting the 9/11 report that is one thing, but if you are attempting an honest investigation of the incident your investigation is incomplete in its inclusion of any contradictory evidence.

Again, you're on the right track but there's still so many unanswered questions that the theories you posit to "fill in the blanks" in the witness testimony is woefully misleading at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

EDIT: Note that Andrews AFB is ~15mi away from the Pentagon and the rogue aircraft would pass between Andrews AFB and P-56A. Using the speed data above at cruising speed, that puts the plane passing the nose of Andrews AFB 1.8 minutes after it flew over Roosevelt's head. If it was really going THAT fast then it's totally possible that Tribby missed it while fumbling for his camera. I still don't think it was even going 350mph, much less 500mph, if it existed at all. Unless you are suggesting that it landed at Andrews, in which case it would need to be moving much slower, and therefore within the ability of Tribby to catch it within his POV.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by cogburn] Various typos and math errors.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by cogburn]

[edit on 17-11-2008 by cogburn]

[edit on 17-11-2008 by cogburn]

Thanks for taking the time to stand behind your statements. I'll confine the remainder of my comments in this post to the poles and how they fell. I will also confine my further comments only to the video in the OP. They are fair enough requests. The search functions on ATS leave much to be desired and GSS tends to provide more information than can be sifted through. It's not pleasant for any of us.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Could you point me in the direction of the theory on how the poles got to be in their state if not struck by an aircraft of the appropriate dimensions?

We explain it in the presentation linked in the OP.

Apparently you haven't even bothered to watch it.

Please do and report back with the hypothesis we present.

Disregarding the repeated ad hominems...

@ 8:55 You mention no official documentation of the light poles
@ 11:51 You state that the light poles indicate staging on multiple levels
@ 1:25:00-1:31:00 you mention "sooty residue", "agents drop the pole" and then "cover the area so you couldn't see". You state "there is no logical conclusion other than the poles were staged" and while stating that the facts presented by the light poles are "irreconcilable" with the testimony collected.

You do theorize how the poles arrived on scene possibly some time prior which seems absolutely plausible. However after that, you offer nothing more than a list of the oddities of the physical evidence and how it does not fit with eye witness testimony you collected.

Did I miss anything major?

My point is nothing more than this: theories are based on evidence. Evidence is born from fact. Fact, in crash analysis, is derived from reconstruction of the event with all known data and the application of physical laws to describe reality. Analysis of this level, which would be required for a successful prosecution, is not offered in the video to describe this physical evidence. Not a single time. All that is offered is conjecture that can easily be countered with more conjecture. I'll make three examples.

Ex #1- Men in suits at 9:45am appearing from all sides on a major traffic artery that cuts around the Pentagon in Washington D.C. is not de facto proof they are "agents" or even suspicious. Judging from the immediate area (Navy Annex, Pentagon, Arlington Cemetery), there's a high probability they are all government, if not military, employees or contractors. Why don't they come forward? It's not impossible to think that some people don't want folks like us harassing them for testimony for the rest of their lives. The only difference between Lloyd England and the others is car damage. Lloyd would then be the "oddity" in respect to everyone else witnessed on the bridge.

Ex #2- You offer the difference in damage to the base of two poles as evidence of something however I cannot discern what that would be. The first image is of a wind induced stress fracture in the material at the base of a light pole. The image of pole #4 shows a failure of the rings into which fit the base restraining bolts. This is not inconsistent with physics in that the failure point would change based on the difference in the application of force. A strong wind would impact the pole along its entire length thereby causing a different failure point. This ignores the possibility of pre-existing damage or inconsistent materials.

Ex #3- I don't understand how VDOT refused to provide the information if you filed a FOIA request with the state. Did you just call them up and expect admission of a cover-up or was receiving an answer that could be interpreted as a cover-up sufficient? If you did file a FOIA request it wasn't mentioned in your video and one wonders why you would choose to make unfounded allegations as opposed to just saying "we're waiting to hear back from our FOIA request".

All facts mentioned were taken directly from the OP video and nothing more.

Originally posted by cogburn
Fact, in crash analysis, is derived from reconstruction of the event with all known data and the application of physical laws to describe reality.

Exactly.

Where have we seen this level of detail to examine the light pole allegedly hitting Lloyde's taxi, as claimed?

There was no forensic work done on the light pole to determine how it could hit the windscreen, lodge in the back seat, hang over the bonnet and survive a skidded stop, all without scratching the windscreen frame or the bonnet itself.

Besides Lloyde, there are no other reported witnesses who corroborate his story.

Originally posted by cogburn
Disregarding the repeated ad hominems...

Sorry?

I issued no ad hominems.

Please refrain from false allegations.

@ 8:55 You mention no official documentation of the light poles
@ 11:51 You state that the light poles indicate staging on multiple levels
@ 1:25:00-1:31:00 you mention "sooty residue", "agents drop the pole" and then "cover the area so you couldn't see". You state "there is no logical conclusion other than the poles were staged" and while stating that the facts presented by the light poles are "irreconcilable" with the testimony collected.

You do theorize how the poles arrived on scene possibly some time prior which seems absolutely plausible. However after that, you offer nothing more than a list of the oddities of the physical evidence and how it does not fit with eye witness testimony you collected.

Did I miss anything major?

What more do you need?

You just repeated the hypothesis proving that you were already fully aware of it when you asked the question.

Unless of course you just watched the presentation for the first time AFTER asking the question.

We believe the poles were removed and damage pre-fabricated in advance.

We believe the pre-fabricated damaged poles were possibly placed the night before the event or even the day of under the cover of "securing" the area for the President's 12:00 noon scheduled arrival and/or the renovation clean up.

My point is nothing more than this: theories are based on evidence. Evidence is born from fact.

Correct.

Such as the FACT that 13 independent witnesses unanimously corroborate each other in regards to the north side approach proving the plane did not hit the poles.

Fact, in crash analysis, is derived from reconstruction of the event with all known data and the application of physical laws to describe reality. Analysis of this level, which would be required for a successful prosecution, is not offered in the video to describe this physical evidence. Not a single time. All that is offered is conjecture that can easily be countered with more conjecture. I'll make three examples.

The forensic analysis you are speaking of should be what you demand from the authorities as evidence that a 757 caused the damage as reported. They failed to provide this analysis so the notion is merely conjecture as you stated.

It is not our responsibility to conduct such an analysis.

We present scientifically verified evidence proving the plane was nowhere near the light poles. This is not conjecture and is the evidence we cite proving the plane did not hit the poles or the building.

Ex #1- Men in suits at 9:45am appearing from all sides on a major traffic artery that cuts around the Pentagon in Washington D.C. is not de facto proof they are "agents" or even suspicious. Judging from the immediate area (Navy Annex, Pentagon, Arlington Cemetery), there's a high probability they are all government, if not military, employees or contractors. Why don't they come forward? It's not impossible to think that some people don't want folks like us harassing them for testimony for the rest of their lives. The only difference between Lloyd England and the others is car damage. Lloyd would then be the "oddity" in respect to everyone else witnessed on the bridge.

So?

How does this change the fact that we provide evidence proving the plane was on the north side nowhere near the poles?

I will concede that the suits in the image could very well be completely innocent.

But they remain suspects who are implicated merely by photographic evidence showing direct association with this proven staged scene.

This is all we have ever claimed when considering them and we stand by it.

Ex #2- You offer the difference in damage to the base of two poles as evidence of something however I cannot discern what that would be. The first image is of a wind induced stress fracture in the material at the base of a light pole. The image of pole #4 shows a failure of the rings into which fit the base restraining bolts. This is not inconsistent with physics in that the failure point would change based on the difference in the application of force. A strong wind would impact the pole along its entire length thereby causing a different failure point. This ignores the possibility of pre-existing damage or inconsistent materials.

We find it questionable that the impact of the plane would allow for perfect uniform damage to the cast aluminum break-away base.

If you don't that's fine but this does not change the fact that we have evidence proving the plane was nowhere near the poles.

We have never cited the anomalous damage to the poles or sooty residue as proof of this.

Ex #3- I don't understand how VDOT refused to provide the information if you filed a FOIA request with the state. Did you just call them up and expect admission of a cover-up or was receiving an answer that could be interpreted as a cover-up sufficient? If you did file a FOIA request it wasn't mentioned in your video and one wonders why you would choose to make unfounded allegations as opposed to just saying "we're waiting to hear back from our FOIA request".

We most certainly did file FOIA requests and had a direct dialog with more than one individual who was trying to fulfill the requests.

I stated this in the presentation just as I stated how they failed to provide the information we were seeking which was merely documentation as to the exact location of the downed poles.

Not whether or not there was a cover up.


We aren't stupid and we would not ask such a thing.

They claimed they went through all of their records and that no records were kept regarding the replacement of the downed light poles in question and that they can not speak as to their exact location.

It seems as though you may have finally watched the presentation (perhaps earlier today?) but clearly did not pay very much attention to it before deciding to level further unjustified criticism.



[edit on 17-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

I'm sorry but this was hardly the nature of the response I was expecting. Within your own post you contradict your own logic and I see no reason to lend your theories any further credence, regardless of the quality of the eye witness testimony. Your flaws go to the very heart of the narrative you are attempting to potray and to refuse to reconcile them is intellectually dishonest at best or disinformation at worst.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So?
How does this change the fact that we provide evidence proving the plane was on the north side nowhere near the poles?
I will concede that the suits in the image could very well be completely innocent.
But they remain suspects who are implicated merely by photographic evidence showing direct association with this proven staged scene.
This is all we have ever claimed when considering them and we stand by it.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The forensic analysis you are speaking of should be what you demand from the authorities as evidence that a 757 caused the damage as reported. They failed to provide this analysis so the notion is merely conjecture as you stated.
It is not our responsibility to conduct such an analysis.
We present scientifically verified evidence proving the plane was nowhere near the light poles. This is not conjecture and is the evidence we cite proving the plane did not hit the poles or the building.

You provided probable X,Y flight plots based on eye witness testimony. There are no experiments conducted to gauge the exact X, Y, or Z plot of the north side flyover other than eyeball recollection... That is not "scientifically verified evidence". Produce the exact science that extrapolated it so we may duplicate it ourselves independently. Why not drag those witnesses individually out to an airport and stand them under the landing path of airplanes and have them identify incoming planes as "how big it was" at various points in their testimony. Obtain the FAA data from the tower and compare it to your position on the ground and plot that data in 3 dimensions. My suspicion is that the Z plot would look like the Cyclone at Coney Island. "Above that tree" or "about over there" is about as non-scientific as you can get.

You cannot concede that the people in the images are probable innocents and yet claim that the scene is proven to be staged in the same sentence. You have asserted that if the scene was staged that the people immediately surrounding England are in on it. If the people are probable innocents it is logical to then assume that it is equally probable that a light pole was struck by a 757 and pierced Lloyd England's windscreen. That is logic, sir.

Scientific evidence must include an explanation of how the poles aren't related to the 757 to explain how they came to be where they were found at the time of the event due to the anomalous nature of their position. Your eye witness testimony is unsupported by science and your overall theory it rests on is not scientific in that it is not in keeping with the physical evidence that you have yet to prove was staged. How can you say that your "evidence" says one thing while absolutely discounting potential physical evidence to the contrary as "staged" with no proof of staging? Bravo Sierra.

Great effort is expended to document evidence that supports your pre-supposed hypothesis, however you do not make the additional effort to attempt to reconcile physical evidence with eye witness testimony you collected 7 years after the events. To attempt to make any hypothesis as to the reality of events prior to first reconciling all physical evidence, or even the contradiction between previous statements and the ones you recorded (Lagasse), is the very foundation of pseudo-science.

We expect better at ATS and when you tire of 9/11 the GFL may require your services.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by cogburn]

Originally posted by cogburn
Why not drag those witnesses individually out to an airport and stand them under the landing path of airplanes and have them identify incoming planes as "how big it was" at various points in their testimony.

cogburn, I'm interested to get your opinion on Lloyde's demeanour during the interview with Craig?

What do you think about Lloyde's claims that he was not located where the pictures were taken when the light pole allegedly struck his taxi?

What do you think about the interesting words that Lloyde's wife had to say in passing?

All you have proven in your video is that an old cabby changed his 9/11 testimony on film over 7 years after the initial event and in direct contradiction to photographic evidence.

Anything else is what you brought to it.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by cogburn
Why not drag those witnesses individually out to an airport and stand them under the landing path of airplanes and have them identify incoming planes as "how big it was" at various points in their testimony.

cogburn, I'm interested to get your opinion on Lloyde's demeanour during the interview with Craig?

What do you think about Lloyde's claims that he was not located where the pictures were taken when the light pole allegedly struck his taxi?

What do you think about the interesting words that Lloyde's wife had to say in passing?

I think they were having some fun at the expense of some over-eager white boys.

Let's face it... Lloyd got to hang out and be the center of attention all day long. The more he contradicts himself the more he'll be remembered as a part of 9/11.

Do you remember Lloyd England's name prior to the CIT videos? He's famous now as being the first accomplice. I'd tell my grandkids if I were him.

EDIT: Not to mention... his wife was hella annoyed when they showed up. Let's assume she's no fool and just decided that she was going to screw with them to get even for barging in and ruining her afternoon.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by cogburn]

To support my version of Lloyd and his wife's state of mind:

In the video Lloyd says "It's not History it's his-story."

Craig responds "Yeah, yeah."

Lloyd was quoting Flava Flav? Either Craig buys it or just plays like he does. Either way from that point the conversation just gets more like a poorly written cold war spy movie.

Don't, don't... don't believe the hype.

I don't argue theology with true-believers, so I think I'll pass at this point and allow others to take swings at you. I think our discourse up to this point validates my points quite sufficiently.

I'll correct one thing I said before.

What you do isn't pseudo-science... it's no science.

Feel free to judge me, my motivations or my conclusions. You may say what you like, but I have no vested interest in your being a hero or a fool in this venture. I'm a classically educated fan of occult knowledge that trolls ATS and challenges anything from 9/11 theory to reptilian alien hybrids on YouTube.

I spent a few days on your psychosis and have deemed it to be wanting. After careful consideration of what you have offered as "facts" I choose not to drink your kool-aide.

I wish you the best of luck and should you ever produce anything other than unfounded contrivance based on eye witness testimony only that is corroborated on the surface of the account and unsupported by fact... I'll be the first to congratulate you.