CIT Witness Account + Security Video Potentially Prove Aircraft Strikes Pentagon AND NoC Theory, page 4

This video is from the Double Tree across the highway from the Pentagon. I'm sure you've seen it.





I don't see a plane fly into or out of that video in any way inconsistent with the 9/11 report and there is no evidence of alterations (missing, misplaced pixels, bad coloration, etc).

reply to post by cogburn

---

I didn't say it discredited them... I said it makes them misleading, inaccurate and, with that response from the P4T'er, intellectually dishonest. If you find one misleading or inaccurate statement, one must ask how many more are there?

Wow! So if you find one misleading, inaccurate and with comment intellectually dishonest, from our Government about 911 then one must ask how many more?
Why don’t you go find out how many more there are.

Let me put it another way... Do you think piloting a plane makes you an expert at terrorism, accident analysis, accident reconstruction, or architectural engineering?

LOL, Let me put it another way... Do you think being a bloger makes you an expert at terrourism, accidents analysis, accident reconstruction, or architectural engineering?

They are trying to sell videos. They don't want to hear that one small easily correctable error in their information is misleading.

Wow! And you have proof of this? (don't want to hear that!)

As to your question, the only way to prove the Government wrong is to prove their facts incorrect or inconsistent or miscalculated. The only other thing you can do is provide an opposing theory that is equally likely to be born out by the facts.

I am not using any theories in my statements I am presenting “facts” the Government story *is* the Theory. I am ‘NOT’ looking at opposing new theories I am looking for bare FACTS!

You are not discussing my finding the PROOF! That I have presented!

Let's do it this way. What government distortions are you talking about?

I have already showed you and proved to you in my above post. Now look who is playing a game!

I've pointed this out before so I will point it out again. Nobody is interested in playing these dumb games with you where you deny all evidence presented. It's painfully obvious that you cannot be convinced by any theory, and so you must remain ambivalent. Oddly enough this is not how you behave though.

So, here's a direct question to you. You claim the government is lying, and that there was no plane crashed at The Pentagon, however you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. Can you show me anything that meets your standard of proof to show that a plane did not impact the Pentagon? I suspect any evidence you can provide would easily be countered by stronger "official" evidence. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Care to debate my facts findings, or are you going to deny all the real *true* evidences with “absolute” proof?






[edit on 11/21/2008 by cashlink]

reply to post by exponent

---

I have never posted an *opinion* and claimed it to be a facts!
However, I have proved the Government is lying about everything in “all” their reports.
As far as, CIT witness account& security video potentially prove aircraft strikes pentagon and the no C theory. I have proved it to be a *Lie*!
Please read my above post concerning the info regarding the four airplanes thank you.

If an argument is valid from a logical standpoint, the pieces of the argument may be re-evaluated from a different perspective and still hold true.

If all Government reports are a lie, then no Government reports are true.

However money is being made from the sale of videos analyzing government evidence, not solely to prove the evidence as not fitting the reality, but also to create an alternative narrative of events. The alternative narrative as has been cited by P4T/CIT has less factual evidence than the narrative that you stated was a lie.

If you believe that P4T/CIT has more factual basis than official government reports (which includes models that obey physical laws) then there is simply no argument that may dissuade you. *SNIP*

My point has been misunderstood repeatedly so let me state it one more time: the "evidence" offered by P4T/CIT is unsubstantiated by fact.

Why do I keep referring to "P4T/CIT"? More to come...

Mod edit: Insult removed.

Courtesy Is Mandatory: Read this link

[edit on 11/22/2008 by Hal9000]

reply to post by jthomas

---

I don't need to remind you that there is no "government story", do I? How often do we all have to remind you that there is only the evidence, massive, independent evidence, from thousands of different sources, none of it ever originating from the government.

no "government story

Really! Then what is the 911 commission report?
What is the FEMA reports ?
What is NORAD reports?
What are the FBI statements on the 911 Gov.org telling Americans what happened that day?
I can keep going!

evidence, from thousands of different sources, none of it ever originating from the government.

So far all the Official story evidence does come from the Government, prove me wrong?

Why is it that you insist on repeating your canard that is so obviously false?

Please show where I am making false statements “with” proof?

If you want to have any rational conversation on the actual evidence you are going to have to give up making the premiseyour argument as the conclusion you are trying to PROVE .

No I have proved my arguments and I have proved you opinions are false.

You cannot continue to go around in arguing in circles as you all have for the last seven years.

So TRY to refute the massive evidence.

That is something you need to do practice what you “preach”!

I am done playing your games, as of now, I am putting you on ignore! Have a nice day.

Originally posted by cogburn
This video is from the Double Tree across the highway from the Pentagon. I'm sure you've seen it.

YouTube Link

I don't see a plane fly into or out of that video in any way inconsistent with the 9/11 report and there is no evidence of alterations (missing, misplaced pixels, bad coloration, etc).

Just prior to the explosion, you see the 'white' plane heading toward the pentagon.
Look carefully, and it becomes quite clear it IS the 'white' plane in question.

The cars passing at that moment in the near vicinity, seems to be at the same level as
the roof-line of the pentagon.

The 'white' plane cannot possible be at this level a second prior to impact, and at the
same time be flying one or two feet over the lawn!

Increase the frame of the video by clicking on the right.
Look closely to the left of the explosion just before it happens.

The video clearly shows the fly-over.

Thanks cogburn.




[edit on 21-11-2008 by djeminy]

reply to post by djeminy

---

I completely disagree.

The video shows nothing and is invalid evidence anyway because it has been confiscated, sequestered, controlled, and provided for by the suspect.

But it really does not show anything at all because you can not see the Pentagon AT ALL nor can you see the official flight path, the north side flight path, or even any of the potential flyover flight paths AT ALL due to perspective in relation to topography and obstacles in the POV of the camera such as landscape, trees, and the highway.

There are trees blocking the flyover (that have since been removed) which are certainly an issue here but there is simply no decent line of sight from the camera location anyway.

Here is the view from the front of the hotel looking towards the 395 overpass and the Pentagon:


You see NOTHING!

The video had to have been shot from one of these two cameras:


We think it was probably this one:


For a full tour of this critical area of Crystal City check out actual live footage of us driving by the Doubletree at 6:55 of this 8 minute cruise:



As you can see from the bottom floor of the Doubletree where this video was taken there is merely a view of 3 highway overpasses:



The flyover would have been inconsequential for anyone in this area let alone this grainy government controlled and supplied video clip that shows NOTHING.

You are not a true official story skeptic cogburn.

Only a pseudo-skeptic would use such dubious government supplied evidence in a sad transparent attempt to psychologically manipulate people into doubting the north side evidence that proves a military deception.

I'm sorry but I find your behavior to be dishonorable to the core.




edit: to be clear my reply started in response to djeminy who is a true patriot and truth seeker but any anger in the post is directed towards proven pseudo-skeptic cogburn.











[edit on 21-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

[edit on 21-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

posted by cogburn
This video is from the Double Tree across the highway from the Pentagon. I'm sure you've seen it.

I don't see a plane fly into or out of that video in any way inconsistent with the 9/11 report and there is no evidence of alterations (missing, misplaced pixels, bad coloration, etc).

posted by djeminy
Just prior to the explosion, you see the 'white' plane heading toward the pentagon.
Look carefully, and it becomes quite clear it IS the 'white' plane in question.

The cars passing at that moment in the near vicinity, seems to be at the same level as the roof-line of the pentagon.

The 'white' plane cannot possible be at this level a second prior to impact, and at the same time be flying one or two feet over the lawn!

The video clearly shows the fly-over.

Thanks cogburn.

Good eye djeminy. I had really spent zero time looking at this video. If you look closely you can see what seems to be the aircraft moving past the explosion above the roof. I could not see it past the trees to the far right. It is easier to see on a larger 900 x 820 video size.

Of course as Craig points out, this could be deliberate disinformation and altered video evidence from the primary suspect intended to deceive and confuse their adversaries. So we really cannot trust any evidence held for a long period of time by the primary suspect can we? Anyway, this is what the video appears to show.

These screen captures from the Doubletree video are taken from set video sizes and not resized. Text only is added. A larger size image is available below each image. I provided a Google street view from the corner of Eads and Army Navy Dr. These screen captures speak for themselves along with djeminy's statement above. Watch the video again; in larger format if you can.

Larger view for above image



Larger view for above image



Larger view for above image



Larger view for above image



Larger view for above image






[edit on 11/21/08 by SPreston]

Within the context of an investigation into government involvement of 9/11, all evidence controlled and provided for by the suspect is not valid evidence in support of the suspect's story.


But if it can be shown to have been manipulated it becomes evidence that implicates guilt on a whole different level.

Evidence tampering implicates guilt and we have proof of it.



[edit on 21-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by djeminy

---

Logically, it's invalid evidence.

There is no way around this and I feel it is not valid to source it as proof of anything.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by djeminy

---

Logically, it's invalid evidence.

There is no way around this and I feel it is not valid to source it as proof of anything.

But you did see the white 'thing' that suddenly appears, and then disappears in the
direction of the pentagon, followed almost immediately by the explosion, Right?

The white 'thing' certainly doesn't appear to continue along the road as the visible cars
before and after obviously does!

What is your take on this white 'thing' then?? What is your explanation?

posted by djeminy

Yes Preston, good on you. You spotted it! Thanks a million!

Craig, look again, carefully, closely. You see the light 'thing' just to the left of the explosion, just ahead of the oncoming car, but of course a second or so before the explosion takes place.

I think they overlooked this, because you really have to take a good look to spot it!

Now that it's in the public domain for all to see, they have to swallow the camel. This cannot be undone.

It conclusively proves a fly-over, as far as I see it!

Ps!
Preston, for the sake of accuracy, I think the object you point to in the last (4th) still frame from the video as the 'plane', seem to me to be stationary, as I think this object is present before the explosion takes place!
Is it possible you could double-check this for me, with your better skills? Thanks!

No djeminy, whatever it is, it definitely travels across the roof past the explosion. At first I thought it was a vehicle, but it seems faster than the other vehicles. Maybe it is a vehicle; but at least the FBI apparently lied when they stated it did not show the explosion. That certainly does look like an explosion. I have posted this same Doubletree video from a different source in the two different video sizes here so any interested parties can see for themselves.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) a security camera recording taken from the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington, Virginia that shows the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. This new video evidence, obtained in relation to a Judicial Watch lawsuit against the FBI, seemingly contradicts a sworn FBI affidavit in a related case claiming that the Doubletree security recordings “did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.”

www.judicialwatch.org...

Craig is just being very cautious because this video was in the hands of the primary suspect for so long (released in December 2006 by FOIA). I too am being cautious, but also think this should be discussed and looked at. Craig is entirely correct that we cannot automatically trust evidence which has been held in the control of a primary suspect with a long record of lying and withholding evidence and manufacturing evidence and altering evidence. There is a good chance they have altered this video in order to create confusion. Or perhaps it somehow escaped their careful censorship; although that seems unlikely.

Here is a version with a CNN report.

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by jthomas

---

I don't need to remind you that there is no "government story", do I? How often do we all have to remind you that there is only the evidence, massive, independent evidence, from thousands of different sources, none of it ever originating from the government.

no "government story

Really! Then what is the 911 commission report?

A report. Now, tell us EXACTLY where the evidence for its report came from, cashlink? Do you even know? Do you even know the purpose of the 9/11 Commission?

evidence, from thousands of different sources, none of it ever originating from the government.

So far all the Official story evidence does come from the Government, prove me wrong?

Why don't you know where the evidence came from?

Why is it that you insist on repeating your canard that is so obviously false?

Please show where I am making false statements “with” proof?

It's simple.

Here is the introduction to the 9/11 Commission report. After you read it tell us the purpose of the 9/11 Commission and where its evidence came from.

We have come together with a unity of purpose because our nation demands it. September 11, 2001, was a day of unprecedented shock and suffering in the history of the United States. The nation was unprepared. How did this happen, and how can we avoid such tragedy again?

To answer these questions, the Congress and the President created the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Public Law 107-306, November 27, 2002).

Our mandate was sweeping. The law directed us to investigate "facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001," including those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy, immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation, and other areas determined relevant by the Commission.

In pursuing our mandate, we have reviewed more than 2.5 million pages of documents and interviewed more than 1,200 individuals in ten countries. This included nearly every senior official from the current and previous administrations who had responsibility for topics covered in our mandate.

govinfo.library.unt.edu...

After you report back, then report to us the purposes of the NIST, FEMA, and ASCE investigations and the source of the evidence for each of its reports.

If you are honest about it, you should see why your "official story" canard is just a strawman for the fact that the 9/11 Truth Movement doesn't want to have to deal with the actual evidence.




[edit on 22-11-2008 by jthomas]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by djeminy

---

I completely disagree.

The video shows nothing and is invalid evidence anyway because it has been confiscated, sequestered, controlled, and provided for by the suspect.

You are resorting to a question-begging fallacy again. Your entire effort is to demonstrate that the government is a suspect. You cannot use an unproven "conclusion" as the premise of an argument that the video is invalid evidence.

Unfortunately, CIT's entire history is one of using question-begging arguments like that.




[edit on 22-11-2008 by jthomas]

reply to post by jthomas

---

Most here already understand how you are completely disconnected from reality and unable to discuss information coherently or on topic and simply bulldoze your obsession against CIT without regard for intellectual honesty but I think that it should be fairly evident even to you what the name and context of this discussion forum is.

9/11 Conspiracies.

Yep that's right.

Read it again but real slow this time so it sinks in......


9/11 Conspiracies.

You know what that means?

Within the context of THIS discussion forum where you have been granted permission to post......the U.S. government is the working suspect as the perpetrator of 9/11.

So unless YOU can prove their official fairy tale correct YOU have agreed to the premise that they are the suspect simply by posting here.

So that means YOU are using dishonest faulty logic with your continuous pathetic attempts to derail the discussion and cast doubt on the definitive evidence we present proving a deception.



[edit on 22-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

US Consulate Whistleblower Says 9/11 Hijackers Passports were issued by the CIA
  Posted 18 days ago with 21 member flags

9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 13 days ago with 14 member flags

Hollywood Stars Seek to Make Feature Film Focused on WTC Demolitions
  Posted 19 days ago with 12 member flags

An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T\'s List of Demolition Signs
  Posted 15 days ago with 12 member flags

9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 6 days ago with 12 member flags

Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 17 days ago with 11 member flags

Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 13 days ago with 6 member flags

new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 7 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: