CIT eyewitness points to South side flight path

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   
In another blow to CIT's North Side flight path claim, one of CIT's Citgo eyewitnesses actually points to the South Side flight path that we know AA77 flew in lining up to hit the Pentagon.

It is the second blow to both CIT's claims and Pilots for 9/11 Truth's latest animation in one day.

CIT's Citgo eyewitness, Robert Turcios, is shown pointing to the South Side flight path, the flight path AA77 actually took, in Pilots for 9/11 Truth's latest video here:

video.google.com...

In this frame clip when Robert Turcios, with the Pentagon to his back, states:


"...from this corner..."


he raises his arm to point to the South Side:




There is no doubt that it is easy to be confused by "north" and "south." There is no question that Robert Turcios knows which side of the Citgo Canopy he is talking about.

This revelation of CIT's confusion follows on the heals of today's earlier revelation that CIT's claimed "North Side Flight Path", as modeled by Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth in his newest video animation referenced above, contains a fatal flaw.

Yes, for a flyover of the Pentagon to be true, the famous Pentagon Security Camera Video released with much controversy several years ago must show AA77 starting to fly over the Pentagon. Yet, the video shows no aircraft whatsoever in the sky where AA77 should have been according to Rob Balsamo and Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

See this post for the devastating details once again completely blowing wide open the false CIT claims:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In the over two years that CIT has failed to provide any eyewitnesses or media reports of AA77 flying over and away from the Pentagon (and its repeated refusal out of fear to interview any of the over 1,000 people with direct access to the wreckage inside the Pentagon), it has placed itself in the position of debunking itself and Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

What excuse will CIT make for its additional debunking this time?

Stay tuned as it CIT engages in another round of really bad dissembling and denial.








[edit on 3-11-2008 by jthomas]

[edit on 3-11-2008 by jthomas]




posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
In another blow to CIT's North Side flight path claim, one of CIT's Citgo eyewitnesses actually points to the South Side flight path that we know AA77 flew in lining up to hit the Pentagon.




Claims and counterclaims concerning the pentagon are a waste of time.

Ask yourself, why would the FBI be actively confiscating vids around/near the pentagon? Why would the FBI refuse to release these vids? Why was a white line "painted" on the grounds of the pentagon before the attack that was the route followed by the aircraft? Why were the pre-9/11 grounds covered by a layer of soil after the attack? What did first responders remove from the pentagon under a tarp?

Keep in mind that this is the same FBI that stumbled into an CIA drug smuggling operation. Sibel Edmonds says that Bush 43's State Department told the FBI to back off their investigation -- which they promptly did. Sibel Edmonds also said that FBI wiretaps revealed that the number 3 man at the State Department ordered several men released from custody before they "spilled the beans" about 911.

The FBI is a not a law enforcement organization. The FBI is a *political* organization that sometimes engages in law enforcement. BTW, official FBI sources have said that Sibel Edmonds is credible.

Of course, you can always believe what you will.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 12:06 AM
link   


Ask yourself, why would the FBI be actively confiscating vids around/near the pentagon? Why would the FBI refuse to release these vids? Why was a white line "painted" on the grounds of the pentagon before the attack that was the route followed by the aircraft? Why were the pre-9/11 grounds covered by a layer of soil after the attack? What did first responders remove from the pentagon under a tarp?


wow, welcome to 2006, when all of this was ADDRESSED. What do you truther do? Live in the past, because the present, where all these claims have been debunked to high heaven is too scary for you?

FBI confiscated video, as would a normal investigation would do (as would any normal Criminal investigator would do). GATHER evidence so they can find out what really happened. They released all the VIDEOS back to their RIGHTFUL owners, of which contained nothing they were looking for,. Out of the 85 videos they recoved, only 3 were shown to have anything pertaining to the pentagon hit. ONLY 1, the security cam at the entrance to the parking garage to the Pentagon, shows the plane impacting the Pentagon.

Blue Tarp, wow, even kook sites like Dylan Avery's Loose Change, have conceded that it was just a TENT. Like the many that were SET UP during the investigation process.

www.911myths.com...

Again, welcome to 2006.



You can post what you will, but please join us in 2008, when all that you have claimed have shown to be false.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by anonymousATS

Originally posted by jthomas
In another blow to CIT's North Side flight path claim, one of CIT's Citgo eyewitnesses actually points to the South Side flight path that we know AA77 flew in lining up to hit the Pentagon.


Claims and counterclaims concerning the pentagon are a waste of time.


I just showed why.


Ask yourself, why would the FBI be actively confiscating vids around/near the pentagon?


I don't need to ask myself. We already know: to find out what they showed.


Why would the FBI refuse to release these vids?


Because they are private property and they showed nothing. See: flight77.info... to catch up.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas

So the FBI determined there was "nothing to see here" on all 85 video tapes confiscated from around the Pentagon. Not ONE showed a plane? Actually, you know theres probably truth to that claim. None showed a plane because there was no plane!

This is not to be confused with Cheney's claim there was "nothing to hear here" on the black boxes taken from the planes involved in 9/11. In this case Im sure there was plenty to hear..

Dont believe everything the government tells you. Rumour has it they tend to lie..



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
The tarped object was a tent that had been erected and was being moved.
The grounds were layered with gravel in order to keep the heavy lift vehicles that were moved in from sinking into the ground. Similar to a construction site.

Jacqueline Maguire

* She determined that the FBI had 85 videotaptes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
* Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
* Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
* The videotape taken from the Citgo gas station did not show the impact.
* No videotapes were located from the Sheraton Hotel, though she located a videotape from the Doubletree Hotel.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


JT... I had to watch that part a few times. He does point SOC. Interesting. Isn't he also another witness to the impact?

I was watching further along. (I typically don't watch PFT fantasy videos.) I noticed something interesting. Perhaps you can look into it.

It is possible one of CIT's other witnesses it pointing SOC as well.

I threw this together pretty quick... I apologize for the crude cut and paste job.


Watch and listen to what Ed was saying. And look where he is pointing.

One thing I noticed, he stated that the wings were over the road. Craig then stated repeated what Ed was saying but added "maybe" they wings were over the road.

Then watch PFT's computer simulation of what Ed was saying. It doesn't appear to line up.

(32.44 of the Google Video you linked is the start)

Then look here:







posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nonchalant
reply to post by jthomas

So the FBI determined there was "nothing to see here" on all 85 video tapes confiscated from around the Pentagon. Not ONE showed a plane?


That's pretty clear, isn't it. The only one that showed anything relevant was the security camera video that was released showing the aviation fuel explosion at the Pentagon.


Actually, you know theres probably truth to that claim. None showed a plane because there was no plane!


Ooops, you stuck your foot in the mouth. Why am I not surprised? You know, you really have to stop believing everything 9/11 Deniers tell you - like that 85 camera were pointed at the Pentagon where AA77 hit.

Better go to that link I provided, don't you think?

And guess what? Our friends at CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth say AA77 flew over the Pentagon, just as the explosion was taking place. And given their calculations, that means AA77 should have appeared on the security camera video, -- but didn't.

See: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You'd better ask them WHY, don't you think?



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by jthomas
 


JT... I had to watch that part a few times. He does point SOC. Interesting. Isn't he also another witness to the impact?

I was watching further along. (I typically don't watch PFT fantasy videos.) I noticed something interesting. Perhaps you can look into it.

It is possible one of CIT's other witnesses it pointing SOC as well.

I threw this together pretty quick... I apologize for the crude cut and paste job.


Watch and listen to what Ed was saying. And look where he is pointing.

One thing I noticed, he stated that the wings were over the road. Craig then stated repeated what Ed was saying but added "maybe" they wings were over the road.

Then watch PFT's computer simulation of what Ed was saying. It doesn't appear to line up.

(32.44 of the Google Video you linked is the start)



TY,

I looked at the video one time and picked up on a few things and intend to listen a second time and write down some specifics. What is interesting in the whole video are these things.

- Ranke never asks any witnesses directly: "Did you see the plane hit the Pentagon?" or, "Did you see the plane fly over the Pentagon?"

- At one point, in summary, the narrator (Balsamo or Marquis) says something to the effect like: "Although all of the witnesses believe the plane hit the Pentagon..."

- The animation consistently shows AA77 (on the North side flight track) approaching the Pentagon and just starting to pull up to go over it, then cuts to another scene. BUT, the narration never states (they don't want to) that the jet flew over the Pentagon. The animation from the cockpit does show it pulling up and starting to flyover the Pentagon.

Ranke, Marquis, and Balsamo have always tried to just "suggest" a flyover. They want the gullible truthers to conclude on their own that AA77 MUST have flown over the Pentagon.

I posted the same question over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth about why the security camera video did not record any plane flying over the Pentagon (see: www.abovetopsecret.com...), and, predictably, the invective is heavy and strong, but no one has touched it yet.

It's always funny that 9/11 truthers think everyone is as dumb as they are, isn't it? Then when you call them on their own screw-ups, they twist themselves into pretzels in abject denial.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   

posted by Nonchalant
reply to post by jthomas

So the FBI determined there was "nothing to see here" on all 85 video tapes confiscated from around the Pentagon. Not ONE showed a plane? Actually, you know theres probably truth to that claim. None showed a plane because there was no plane!

This is not to be confused with Cheney's claim there was "nothing to hear here" on the black boxes taken from the planes involved in 9/11. In this case Im sure there was plenty to hear..

Dont believe everything the government tells you. Rumour has it they tend to lie..

You are quite correct. Contrary to their normal procedures, FBI Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire told the truth. Technically, since the decoy aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo was not Flight 77, Agent Maguire did not lie when she said the 85 videos in FBI custody "did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001." So if the videos showed another aircraft flying near to or over the Pentagon or Over the Naval Annex, Agent Maguire could successfully cross her fingers and squeeze by the truth. Fortunately, now we all know that the aircraft witnessed Over the Naval Annex could not possibly have knocked down the light poles and impacted the Pentagon.

Yes, I realize the FBI is a political arm of the White House, but sometimes (rarely) they do tell the truth. I wonder if jthomas is FBI?



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

You are quite correct. Contrary to their normal procedures, FBI Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire told the truth. Technically, since the decoy aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo was not Flight 77, Agent Maguire did not lie when she said the 85 videos in FBI custody "did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001."


Correct. Now that you understand that the security video should have shown an aircraft, white, pink, purple, or with AA markings, flying over the Pentagon at the point over the explosion, as Craig Rank repeatedly claims and his eyewitness maps show (thepentacon.com...), it is vitally important for you to pretend all those videos you have desperately wanted from the FBI don't really have any meaning.

Another inconvenient fact strikes a blow against 9/11 Truth.


You see, we are smarter than you, SPreston. We knew you would now have to discredit the Pentagon security video when you accepted all along that it showed the explosion.

Now you have to disown the video because it doesn't show what your claims show would be necessary: the jet flying over the Pentagon.

9/11 Truthers can't see pass their Pinocchio noses! CIT is dead.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by SPreston

You are quite correct. Contrary to their normal procedures, FBI Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire told the truth. Technically, since the decoy aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo was not Flight 77, Agent Maguire did not lie when she said the 85 videos in FBI custody "did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001."

You see, we are smarter than you, SPreston. We knew you would now have to discredit the Pentagon security video when you accepted all along that it showed the explosion.

The parking lot security videos discredit themselves. You and the 9-11 perps you defend were screwed when an insider leaked those 5 frames and they were published all over the internet. Then the FOIA videos could not be further altered, and you people were stuck with them. They are garbage; very sloppy garbage and you know it.

Looks like they used the same fluorescent paint color of the cones to color in the side of the heliport away from the fake fireball. How come the 757 shrank to a baby plane?


Sloppy garbage



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   


[edit on 4-11-2008 by Domenick DiMaggio]



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   

posted by SPreston
You are quite correct. Contrary to their normal procedures, FBI Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire told the truth. Technically, since the decoy aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo was not Flight 77, Agent Maguire did not lie when she said the 85 videos in FBI custody "did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001."


posted by jthomas
it is vitally important for you to pretend all those videos you have desperately wanted from the FBI don't really have any meaning.

Who has to pretend? They don't have any meaning because they won't be released in a zillion years. The FBI doesn't have anybody capable of altering videos worth two cents. They can't even plant the right aircraft parts worth beans. The morons totally screwed up the light poles. Whistleblower FBI Agent Whitehurst described to us perfectly just how incompetent the FBI was. Are you FBI jthomas?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by SPreston

You are quite correct. Contrary to their normal procedures, FBI Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire told the truth. Technically, since the decoy aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo was not Flight 77, Agent Maguire did not lie when she said the 85 videos in FBI custody "did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001."

You see, we are smarter than you, SPreston. We knew you would now have to discredit the Pentagon security video when you accepted all along that it showed the explosion.

The parking lot security videos discredit themselves.


LOL. Your poor dissembling gives your fear away, SP.

You, CIT, and P4T have used the video consistently to show the explosion. And since CIT's eyewitnesses helped Craig draw maps which ALL showed the jet approach the Pentagon where Craig claims the bombs went off, and the jet flying over that spot at the Pentagon, you're completely stuck with the fact that a flyover would have been easily visible from all over the place. But you already knew that when I showed your ridiculous claim that a flyover would go unnoticed.

Gosh.

Just one more nail that CIT and P4T put into their own coffins. I'm sure there just delighted you brought them the hammer.




posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

posted by jthomas
You, CIT, and P4T have used the video consistently to show the explosion.

Awww gee willikers booboo. Let me fix that for you.




You, CIT, and P4T have used the 'doctored' still frames and video consistently to show the explosion.


There is that better? Need a hankie for those crocodile tears?


Do you need more practice 'doctoring' videos and pictures?
Here work some more on yours.

Maybe they won't fire you for incompetence after all.


jthomas777 'Doctoring' Incorporated




posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
JT....

Don't you find it interesting that not one no planers has questioned your op?

Oh..the doubletree video would have shown a flyover too.... O h wait.. THAT was doctored too!!! Shilly me. I mean SILLY me.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   

posted by ThroatYogurt
JT....

Don't you find it interesting that not one no planers has questioned your op?


It's another infamous jthomas 'strawman argument' and there is nothing to question.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Sure there is. The man is POINTING TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CANOPY.

Preston... Does this witness claim to have seen the impact?

Put 2 + 2 together.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Is this a joke?

Your desperation to cast doubt on this evidence has reached new heights.

I don't believe you are really this ignorant so it can only be deception.

It's so bad I am certain that nobody has remotely bought it, but I'll respond out of duty and well....because you make it so darn easy and all these incessant CIT threads only serve to accentuate the importance of this information.

The screen cap you took of Robert Turcios was towards the end of my interview with him after we walked over to the north side of the gas station. He was pointing to the north side of the canopy as he gestured with his hand even further north after stating that the left wing, right wing, and fuselage were all on the north side.



In fact he was simply re-iterating his absolute certainty of the north side approach after I had just confronted him about what the official story says!

The quote in the above gif was a response to this question by me:



Craig: The official story says that the plane came on the south side of the citgo, hit the light poles, and then went on to the Pentagon...Robert, how certain are you that the plane came on the north side of the citgo as opposed to the south side?

Robert: I am 100% sure that what I saw was the plane come out of this corner of the canopy.


How could this possibly be more clear?

He just got through describing how he thought the plane flew right over the tree right behind him, which is on the north side of the station, just as we were at that moment of the interview.

Plus he had already described the plane as being on north side many times earlier in the interview and even illustrated his estimated flight path for you.



Here he is pointing to the north side of the station where he saw the plane when I first started interviewing him on the south side of the station where he was when he saw the plane:


No honest person could possibly watch the interview with Robert Turcios and suggest that he EVER said the plane was on the south side!

For any first time readers who might end up at this silly thread it's in reference to our interview with citgo station employee Robert Turcios as presented in our first presentation....The PentaCon.


Google Video Link




[edit on 6-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]





new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join