5 simple questions for CIT,or anyone who can answer them,regarding the NOC theory.

5 simple questions regarding your NOC theory and please do not give me your babble that "us truthers don't need to speculate on the why or logic behind the 9/11 perp's" you know that is a pitiful attempt at avoiding the real problems with your theory at least explain your theory.

If the people that went to the great lengths that they went to to pull off this magic trick. To make everyone think that flight 77 crashed into the NOC side while really it was a drone...and it flew over the pre planned explosion.

At this exact moment the pentagon police closed off the highways and planted the light pole evidence (McGraw, Loyd, poles, destroyed Lincoln, and debris. While also having the C130 and E4B up doing there part in this magic trick as you say they were "covers".

Answering these simple questions will help not only me but I'm sure anyone else who may be on the fence and having these same questions.

Q1. What was the operational value of swapping the plane out for a drone?

Q2. What happened to the crew and passengers of f77?

Q3. Why not make the pre planned explosion match the NOC approach damage?

Q4. You obviously believe that they planted the downed poles b/c of the SOC damage that would be later discovered. What was the operational value of planting the poles as opposed to flying the drone on the SOC approach?

Q5. Why not crash f77 into the NOC if this is what they wanted everyone to think anyways?

See I have always paid attention to your posts especially with the arrival of the pentagon police NOC wits and the others that claim what they claim.

The more I read through your theories they require someone to basically suspend certain realities, to believe in another reality but they never coincide and not even closely. To believe that they planted the LP's b/c they knew their planned explosion damage would match a SOC approach you have to suspend the reality that they could of just sent the drone on the SOC approach to match the damage.

Until you can answer these questions or give some sort of rational theory as to why they took something so simple ie crashing a jet into a building and turned it into something that suddenly required the "confusion" of the E4b and C130;s crew, the people required to plant the poles, the light pole in the Lincoln windshield witnesses (most importantly Loyd). The people involved in planting the explosives. I would also add the people involved with swapping the planes out and getting rid of f77 after the swap, especially if you might happen to believe it was shot down over the Atlantic or something requiring at least someone to fire the shot.

Spreston, Tezza, and any of the other CIT members please feel free to chime in with the answers to these five questions. For the life of me I cannot rationalize it with a cohesive NOC theory that makes even some sense. And your old , tired, lame excuse that you guys do not need to speculate on this or that ...well you do..b/c its not making any sense. IMHO of course!

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Spreston, Tezza, and any of the other CIT members please feel free to chime in with the answers to these five questions.

Be extremely careful that you do not claim that I am associated with CIT. I'm not. Making such a claim can be a breach of the terms and conditions of this website.

While I admire what CIT do, I am not affiliated with them. I am sure that Craig would also agree that he would not want anyone to be falsely associated with CIT.

I don't see the point of this thread. If ANYONE knew the answers, then the conspiracy would be solved, wouldn't it?

Who knows why people do what they do? All that we can do is examine the evidence that's available. 13 people place the alleged plane North of Citgo, which directly contradicts the official story of a South of Citgo approach. From there, it's anyone's guess...

[edit on 18-12-2008 by tezzajw]

reply to post by Stillresearchn911


You, like most of the 'de-bunkers', are demanding hard evidence of every excruciating detail when circumstantial evidence of the relevant points is in abundance.

Circumstantial evidence, a collection of facts considered together to infer a conclusion, is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. You should try it sometime...

People get convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence all the time. You just have to learn to recognise what is evidence and what is just hearsay.

Just because no one can tell you where the passengers went, or how much explosives were used (wtc), it doesn't make the known physical evidence of a cover-up inconsequential. It's not a worthy argument.

Why don't you go to Washington and interview, oh I don't know say about 13 local witnesses who were there, then come back with your research... See if you can get any of them to contradict what they've already attested to. Then maybe you'll have some credibility....

posted by Stillresearchn911
Spreston, Tezza, and any of the other CIT members please feel free to chime in with the answers to these five questions.

I am not a member of Citizens Investigation Team. Your questions are nonsensical, and you are confused and ignorant because you have not bothered to do any research, nor even read what CIT has researched so far. It took me years of hard work to learn what I have thus far, and I have only learned of and supported CIT for the past two years or so.

I will not play your silly pseudoskeptic game.

Sorry to rain on your guys parade. As I suspected though not a single person wants to take on even one question.

You guys always want to brag how "the Debunkers won't even touch this thread" but here you guys go doing the same thing.

For the record I am very far from being a so called "Debunker" just b/c I happen to have some questions about the NOC theory doesn't make me your enemy. Yet all three of you seem to think I am, I am not.

If someone asked me why I believe the hijackers were known or that there was some official knowledge possibly certain Generals and military participation I would be happy to explain why, but my theory doesn't involve wild speculation of things that happened right in front of everyone but yet no one reports it.

See in the Flight 93 crash there are plenty of real witnesses who saw a very low level fast moving rear engined jet immediately after the crash. In the WTC incident there are plenty of guys here that will with out problem try to explain what they think might of happened at the trade centers. As I said before, there are not only a large number of people reporting explosions but in the INS/ FF pay phone video we actually have a large explosion recorded on tape.

The NOC theory on the other hand has 13 people who say the plane flew on the NOC and crashed into the pentagon. That's it. But instead of just saying that flight 77 was on the NOC path and did crash into the building the NOC theory involves swapping f77 for a drone and not even crashing it and planting 5 light poles.... Why all that , which you can't even defend against, which seems totally wrong..not logical. Take away the question about what happened to the passengers I understand this cannot be answered easily without looking even crazier than one already looks while trying to explain the NOC theory to someone who knows little about 9/11(for example). Still the other questions relate directly to the NOC theory they should not be that difficult.

I won't beat a dead horse though so Ill leave it at this if no reply is returned.

BTW As far as my credibility is concerned, I lived right down the road from the pentagon and worked right down the road from Dulles. I watched the massive response from all of the agencies and dealt with the phones being knocked out for hours. I had multiple friends that watched the smoke rise. I also witnessed with my own eyes the damage to the building the following day. Ive also read at least ten books on 9/11 actually purchased the commission report at Dulles when it came out which was when I began to question what the heck really happened that day. I was flying back and forth to the west coast always out of Dulles at the time(around 9/11). I also had the pleasure of witnessing Dulles (and the New Orleans airport) looking like military bases, soldiers with m4's and German Shepard's posted at every corner my first following flight in Oct after 9/11. I have wasted countless hours on the net since 04 reading all of the non official research and official research and watched about every video I can think of (even the far far out ones like the octopussy comp doc regarding holograms. There is truly 100's maybe 1000's of hours worth of work out there on both sides.

My point is I have entertained it all even your work CIT every movie and thread and I agree that your wits especially the Pentagon Police are interesting to say the least but with no other wits or proof I can only surmise that they must be wrong at this point. If what they say is true then you are missing something and based on what my personal knowledge is it isn't the drone and planted light poles and flyover.

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Sorry to rain on your guys parade. As I suspected though not a single person wants to take on even one question.

And didn't you read why? They're not questions we need to 'take on'. Sorry but you're not raining on anyones parade, in fact I'd say we're in a drought mate.

When are you going to take on the task of explaining what NIST has yet to do, and that's how did three buildings globally collapse? If you've ever read the NIST report you would know they failed to explain anything beyond what they claim initiated the collapses.

Or how about where the Boeing at the pentagoon went to?

Sorry but before we even worry about where the passengers went to, you need to understand that there are massive holes in the physics of the collapses that haven't been explained by NISTs' hypothesis (read whitewash).

Sorry but you are not going to get anywhere with this argument. No one is bothering to 'touch it' because it's pointless and just a waste of time. You're lucky anyone replied.

Why are you so concerned with the NOC theory? You think by asking your questions it puts the eye witness testimony of 13 people in doubt?

If you have a problem with the NOC theory, then go research the NOC theory. Trying to discredit legitimate research with your methodology is not going to impress anyone. Do the shoe work, bring us some facts instead of hearsay, and then you might have some credibility.

[edit on 12/19/2008 by ANOK]

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911

Q1. What was the operational value of swapping the plane out for a drone?

Insurance. The manouvers as they happened couldn't have been done by hijackers on a hijacked plane. Everything had to happen just so. I think Flt. 93 was one incident where things got out of control and some Air National Guard pilots barged into the scenario in an unexpected way.

The Flt. 93 anomaly is connected to the WTC 7 anomaly and illustrates how loose ends lead to far reaching consequences.

Hijackings and real people involved introduce an unacceptable level of chance into a process meant to justify a pre-planned invasion. Everything was done to eliminate the unforseen by removing the human element wherever possible.

Even the jackasses at the top like Silverstein and Rumsfeld couldn't stick to the script when they opened their big mouths.

Q2. What happened to the crew and passengers of f77?

They were disposed of in the blizzard of false radar blips connected with the plethora of wargames going on that morning. The planes could have been landed at military airfields but it is more likely that they were remotely controlled out over the Atlantic and ditched there. Google the QSR-11 gyrochip.

Q3. Why not make the pre planned explosion match the NOC approach damage?

Good question. I've asked it myself. I think the answer may be that the damage was done by a missile (a "missile, (inaudible)" as Rummy said, to be precise) rather than preplanted explosives, although a combination of the two could have been used.

Q4. You obviously believe that they planted the downed poles b/c of the SOC damage that would be later discovered. What was the operational value of planting the poles as opposed to flying the drone on the SOC approach?

This ties in with the use of a missile. The poles had to be downed in a line with the damage that a missile would create, but the plane and the missile couldn't follow the same flight path. Traffic jam.

Q5. Why not crash f77 into the NOC if this is what they wanted everyone to think anyways?

There is a real mystery here as to why the damage happened in just the way it did. What we see with the WTC towers is multitasking at work. In other words, other objectives were thrown into the mix as desirable collateral achievements beyond the main operational goal, create a pretext for war. The skirting of the necessity to deal with the asbestos in the towers for example.

At the Pentagon you see a very deep penetration of the building when simply crashing something, anything, on the front lawn would have been plenty for the main goal. Did the damage done have something to do with the audit going on, hunting for the missing 2.1 trillion defense budget dollars? Was there something else, or someone else they wanted to eliminate as a collateral benefit? Probably, but what or who is unknown at this time.



[edit on 19-12-2008 by ipsedixit]

I just wanted to add something by way of putting things into a larger perspective.

You can look at 9/11 and broadly divide it into two main areas of endeavour.

The first is to technically achieve the performance as choreographed. Having looked at a lot of the material presented by 9/11 truthers in many forums and presentations, I have no doubt that they have shown that the ballet as witnessed was doable as what the former German cabinet minister, Andreas Von Bulow, called a "steered operation."

The second area of endeavour was to prevent people who were not in on the plot from interfering with it, so as to disrupt it's flow and cast doubt upon it's "authenticity" as an attack by foreign terrorists. In this respect there were two very revealing failures.

One was the downing of Flt.93 by Air National Guard pilots because it led to the inexplicable collapse of WTC7.

The second was the unforseen efficiency of the FDNY which led to the premature detonation of the South Tower of the WTC.

These are the equivalents of Nureyev and Fontaine falling on their butts at center stage. It has the effect of destroying the "willing supension of disbelief" so necessary to the reception of any work of art.

The situation at the Pentagon, similarly, reeks of theatre.