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

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
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.

See the rules about ad hominem attacks.

In fact, CIT was dismissed by the majority of the 9/11 Truth Movement a long time ago. There are only a few people left who agree with your theory and they are rapidly seeing that you cannot support it with factual evidence.

Simply demonstrating that you have not provided sufficient and necessary evidence to support your conspiracy theory, and asking you to provide that evidence, is perfectly legitimate.

It is puzzlingly and strange to think you should not want to provide that necessary evidence to support your conspiracy theory.

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.

According to ATS, this is a Conspiracy Theory Discussion Forum

In that context and in the declared purpose of the entire 9/11 Truth Movement, you are declaring your belief in a conspiracy theory that the U.S. Government either was behind 9/11 or knew about it.

So you are trying to prove a conspiracy actually took place. You haven't even been able to show the government is even a suspect.

I have shown why your theory is full of holes so far, showing you what evidence you need to provide and why. That you continue to make the same mistakes over and over and over and why you don't recognize what you have to do is a puzzle.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I simply refuse to speculate over invalid government supplied evidence.

CIT says any evidence from the "government" is invalid, a priori. So none needs to be examined.

So much for CIT claiming to be an "Investigation Team."

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

posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I simply refuse to speculate over invalid government supplied evidence.

Once we embrace it we set a precedent and fall into their trap and our entire scientific approach becomes breached.

We must stay vigilant in our refusal to use what they provide or treat it as valid in any way.

Even if some of it is valid.

We will never know for sure what is and what isn't and THAT is the point.

This can only be solved with independent verifiable evidence.

This is what we have always said and what we have always provided and what we will stick with until the end.

We have changed the entire landscape of the Pentagon discussion with this approach and we will continue to work vigilantly to get others to understand the extreme importance of this when investigating a complex deception of this nature.

Theorizing is out.

Evidence is in.

Government provided data is out.

Independent verifiable evidence is in.

We have no other choice or 9/11 truth will be relegated to conspiracy forums forever.

However since I am not a member of CIT, although I for years have carefully studied and agree with most of their research, then I am not under the same self-imposed restrictions. I do agree with Craig's reasoning here. So to a limited degree, I allow myself to freely theorize and speculate a bit, to generate interest to more recent naysayers to the official fantasy. This applies to my association with Pilots for 9/11 Truth also. They do not speculate nor theorize either.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by djeminy


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

I simply refuse to speculate over invalid government supplied evidence.

Once we embrace it we set a precedent and fall into their trap and our entire scientific approach becomes breached.

We must stay vigilant in our refusal to use what they provide or treat it as valid in any way.

Even if some of it is valid.

We will never know for sure what is and what isn't and THAT is the point.

This can only be solved with independent verifiable evidence.

This is what we have always said and what we have always provided and what we will stick with until the end.

We have changed the entire landscape of the Pentagon discussion with this approach and we will continue to work vigilantly to get others to understand the extreme importance of this when investigating a complex deception of this nature.

Theorizing is out.

Evidence is in.

Government provided data is out.

Independent verifiable evidence is in.

We have no other choice or 9/11 truth will be relegated to conspiracy forums forever.

Thanks for clarifying your position, which I can easily understand and fully respect,
seeing it from your and CIT's perspective.

But as Preston points out with his concerns, neither am I subjected to these same restrictions, and therefore, of course, can also in a more speculative way continue to,
and further investigate inconsistencies or anomalies that inevitably will show up now and again.

This particular video clip still fascinates me, so will pursue it a bit further and urge
other readers to take a very close look, then express their honest opinion, as
this requirement will naturally exclude jthomas and cronies!

My own gut-feeling still tells me they must have overlooked this particular little
segment in question. I think they mistook it for a car, and left it at that!

I don't think it makes any sense they would have left the 'white body' there on purpose,
as it actually indicates a fly-over much much more than anything else.

For my part it would have made exceedingly more sense, had they instead erased this
incriminating little glimpse of a white 'something' which clearly, and because of its
speed, quite easily can be identified as a flying object.

We see this white object suddenly appear, rising up from nowhere, lifting itself up over
the road now appearing larger than the cars in the vicinity, and then reducing in size
disappearing toward the pentagon, where a huge explosion a short moment later shows
itself on the screen, a little bit to the right from where the white object came from.

I think it's rather telling, but full-proof? No, not really...unfortunately, but certainly
pretty close, I would hasten to add!











[edit on 22-11-2008 by djeminy]

Originally posted by SPreston



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.

You're absolutely right Preston!

Just looked again, and there's definitely 'something' passing very fast away from the
fireball, and disappearing behind the trees on the right.

Thanks for pointing this out. You're the best, mate!






[edit on 22-11-2008 by djeminy]

Why is it so hard for people to understand?

The witnesses all definitively place the plane on the north side of the CITGO gas station, so that's where it definitely was. Wait, that makes it impossible for it to have caused the damage to the building? This is a mystery. The physical damage and the flight path completely contradict one another. The simple and reasonable answer to this mystery is that the airplane didn't actually hit the building. This is confirmed by Robert Turcios' account of seeing the plane 'pull up' before impact, as well as the accounts of an airplane flying away from the Pentagon after the explosion.

Further, many people inside the Pentagon all thought that it was a bomb blast. Two witnesses smelled high explosives in the area. Many witnesses reported a shockwave. Witnesses reported a bright flash. Also, the plane 'hit' in the only area that was being 'renovated'.

All of this seems to indicate that bombs went off...

So now all of the puzzle pieces fit together. The reason for all of these accounts in support of the idea that explosives were used is because explosives were planted in the building. There was a perfect opportunity for this (renovation). This fits in with why the witnesses said that the plane flew on the North Side and pull up, making it impossible to have caused the damage. This also fits in with the witnesses who saw a plane flying away afterwards.

The reasonable explanation is that the damage was caused by the detonation of strategically set explosives. These bomb explosions were timed with the overflight of an airplane flying on the north side of the CITGO gas station that pulled up, flew behind the smoke, and flew away.

Mystery solved. 9-11 Was An Inside Job.

posted by SPreston
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.

posted by djeminy
You're absolutely right Preston!

Just looked again, and there's definitely 'something' passing very fast away from the fireball, and disappearing behind the trees on the right.

Thanks for pointing this out. You're the best, mate!

After viewing the video again and again in small and large video sizes, and the input from other people, I have decided that bright object was a light colored car reflecting the sun, traveling faster than what appears to be a truck also reflecting the sun. Of course I could be quite mistaken, but an aircraft even at landing speeds coming at an angle to the camera from North of the Citgo should appear to travel across the screen much faster than that (at least 4 to 5 times faster than the truck).



Larger view for above image

As Craig points out, the video is practically valueless because it was held by the primary suspect for so long before release. Even the apparent explosion could easily have been photoshopped. Many investigators over the past 7 years suspect that this is not the confiscated video which the hotel employees were watching over and over in amazement before the FBI grabbed and censored it. The hotel employees have been silenced and apparently never interviewed. Doesn't that seem strange from a government is innocent of treason viewpoint?



We know for a fact now, that the decoy aircraft was flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, and the video COULD have shown the decoy aircraft flying above rooftop and past the explosion. Most likely the original video (and other confiscated and censored videos and photos) did show such a scene and this was released after years of careful alteration or manufacturing to coverup that fact. We know for a fact that the real aircraft could not possibly have taken down the 5 light poles and created the actual damage path through the Pentagon.






[edit on 11/23/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston

Note that Turcios demonstrates that the jet passed by pointing to the south side part of the canopy (the south side flight path AA77 took), and shows with his hand how it passed toward the Pentagon behind him.

Originally posted by LordCarpainter
Why is it so hard for people to understand?

The witnesses all definitively place the plane on the north side of the CITGO gas station, so that's where it definitely was.

And they all either saw it hit the Pentagon or believe it did. There are no eyewitnesses that ever claimed to have seen any jet fly over and away from the Pentagon.

Combined with all of the other independent eyewitnesses who were in different locations and saw the jet hit the Pentagon, and all of the other physical evidence, why is it so hard to understand that AA77 hit the Pentagon and why?

Originally posted by SPreston

Why does the explosion occur at 9:34:11?

Wasn't the official crash time 9:37:46?

The security gate cameras also have different time settings too...

Are there two clocks in the entire county that agree with each other within two seconds of accuracy?

Welcome to the USA, where they need a lesson from the Swiss in telling time.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by LordCarpainter
Why is it so hard for people to understand?

The witnesses all definitively place the plane on the north side of the CITGO gas station, so that's where it definitely was.

And they all either saw it hit the Pentagon or believe it did. There are no eyewitnesses that ever claimed to have seen any jet fly over and away from the Pentagon.

Combined with all of the other independent eyewitnesses who were in different locations and saw the jet hit the Pentagon, and all of the other physical evidence, why is it so hard to understand that AA77 hit the Pentagon and why?

If it flew on the North Side, as all of these witnesses confirm, then it could not have hit the building. They only believe it did because it was masked by the explosion. This sleight of hand could fool anyone. The flight path, however, is something that they could not have mistaken because they had more time to confirm it and it is a simple right-left decision.

Also, there were witnesses who saw a plane flying away.

Originally posted by LordCarpainter

If it flew on the North Side, as all of these witnesses confirm, then it could not have hit the building.

That's why I am asking for the eyewitnesses to a flyover.

Also, there were witnesses who saw a plane flying away.

Then please present those eyewitnesses, their names, and their verified evidence of a flyover.

That's what I've been asking for.

reply to post by jthomas


Physical evidence: no fly off
Radar track: no fly off
Photographic evidence: no fly off
100+ witnesses on all sides of the pentagon: ONLY ONE witness that may indicate a fly-off

They're right. We must be insane.

[edit on 23-11-2008 by cogburn]

reply to post by tezzajw


The clocks are off. The CITGO security cameras are off by hours instead of minutes.

Originally posted by cogburn


Physical evidence: no fly off

How can there be physical evidence of a flyover other than the fact that the physical evidence is irreconcilable with a 757 impact?

And it is.

Radar track: no fly off

Since the 2007 released 84 RADES data was controlled and provided for by the very suspect we are investigating no self respecting official story skeptic would use this as valid evidence.

To do so you are proclaiming complete trust in what you are told by the government.

Is that your position now?

Photographic evidence: no fly off
100+ witnesses on all sides of the pentagon: ONLY ONE witness that may indicate a fly-off

They're right. We must be insane.

There is no independent photographic evidence of the event as it happened so to suggest that because there are no photographs of the flyover is proof that there wasn't one is faulty logic of the highest order and indicative of intellectual dishonesty.

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

The plane was on the north side of the gas station as you already admitted in the title of this thread.

Did you change your mind?

NoC PROVES a flyover.

You are completely unable to demonstrate how a north of citgo approach is reconcilable with the physical damage and you have even gone so far as to admit that you aren't willing to even give it a try!



So do you still accept the north side approach or what?

Is this flight path even possible?

Looks kind of extreme if you ask me.






[edit on 23-11-2008 by CameronFox]

reply to post by CameronFox




You're off topic.

Click on the thread linked in my signature and see how hard core CIT skeptics "Reheat" and "exponent" both agree that NoC is "possible".

Back on topic.....do you agree that if a north side approach in general, as independently reported by 13 witnesses, is accurate that it proves a flyover?

Simple yes or no question.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
*snip*

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

*snip*

Ahh... to have my argument summed up in a sentence. Perfect.

You have inference of a fly-off... not evidence.

Proving the damage to the light poles was not caused by a 757 is not evidence of a fly-off.... it proves the light poles were damaged from a different source.

I've never seen or heard of a 757 crashing into a building w/ 12" steel-reinforced concrete walls and support structures, nor am I an expert in accident reconstruction, so I can't say that the damage is incorrect.

Waving around photographs and saying "LOOK! IT'S ALL WRONG!" is proof of ... photographs.

Am I surprised that the structurally weakest part of a 757 wasn't able to penetrate a 12" steel-reinforced concrete wall at an estimated 500mph? Not really. The force of the impact would have been spread along the length of the wing as each portion came in contact with the building. The fuselage would have acted like a nail through wood.

I don't understand how if physics says "Yes" how is it you can say "No"?

CIT/P4T should write a book about accident reconstruction and crash analysis. From what I've seen you could absolutely revolutionize the science.... that is... if your tale of the facts about Flight 77 are true.

All you need are eye witnesses and a list of things that couldn't have caused the damage.

[edit on 23-11-2008 by cogburn]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

Absence of evidence that any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon is not evidence of a flyover.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Back on topic.....do you agree that if a north side approach in general, as independently reported by 13 witnesses, is accurate that it proves a flyover?

Your witnesses either stated they saw a jet hit the Pentagon or believe one did. They are in agreement with all of the other people who witnessed AA77 fly into the Pentagon.

You have provided no positive, verifiable eyewitness or media reports or any evidence of any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon.

Knowing that you do not have that evidence, why do you pretend you do, Craig?