It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pentagon flyover witnesses reported by Center for Military History

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Given what we know about the north side approach (as well as the critical first flyover witness account of Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts) this officially recorded interview from 2001 only weeks after the attack is an absolutely groundbreaking revelation supporting the fact that the plane did not hit the Pentagon and actually kept on going.

The witness works for Arlington Cemetery and was inside one of the maintenance buildings when the explosion occurred so he was not a witness to the plane himself....BUT.....he talks about how the first thing he heard people say after running outside is that a "bomb" went off in the Pentagon and the plane "kept on going"!!



Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that the jet kept on going.

(download mp3 interview here)


The implications of this blatant flyover reference should be clear.

Because of the overwhelming evidence for the north side approach it would be intellectually dishonest to write this off as a simple anomaly, mistake, or a coincidence.

It's obviously no coincidence that everyone saw the plane on the north side proving this initial reaction from people in the area that the plane "kept on going" 100% correct.



The evidence is closing in on them.

We know that people saw the flyover.

This officially documented interview from 2001 reveals what people REALLY first reported before the propaganda set in.




*FOIA originator was John Farmer.









[edit on 20-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]




posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Given what we know about the north side approach (as well as the critical first flyover witness account of Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts) this officially recorded interview from 2001 only weeks after the attack is an absolutely groundbreaking revelation supporting the fact that the plane did not hit the Pentagon and actually kept on going.

The witness works for Arlington Cemetery and was inside one of the maintenance buildings when the explosion occurred so he was not a witness to the plane himself....BUT.....he talks about how the first thing he heard people say after running outside is that a "bomb" went off in the Pentagon and the plane "kept on going"!!



Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that the jet kept on going.


The implications of this blatant flyover reference should be clear.


I reminded you a long time ago that there were implications and those implications blew every claim of a flyover out of the water. The implications are clear: there would be scores of eyewitnesses who would have easily seen and heard a flyover.

But there are none and you can't find any, Craig.




posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

posted by Craig Ranke CIT



Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that the jet kept on going.

(download mp3 interview here)



posted by jthomas

denial denial denial bla bla bla


It is great to see that the 9-11 perp damage control artist is on the scene, doing his thing.



And then some days jthomas gets out of control; forgetting his role.



[edit on 1/20/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Oh geez, now you're really reaching. "Some people"? Seriously? Aren't you the guys who always claim unless it's "independently verified" then it's just a bunch of anonymous claims to be thrown out and discounted?

Funny how quick you will become hypocritical when you think it supports your view.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Typical spin on a dying theory. Didn't "some of the people" see the plane impact the Pentagon?

Oh, wait... they were duped.

Same old same old Craig.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Given what we know about the north side evidence it would be foolish, silly, and/or dishonest to dismiss this statement out of hand.

Particularly since this is a first-hand audio recorded account.

Since we can actually hear him speak obviously we know this is a real person who was really recorded recounting his experience for the Center for Military History. More importantly there is no motive whatsoever for him to lie regarding hearing people talk about a flyover immediately after the explosion.

Because of the obvious implications of the north side evidence it's clear that government provided information supporting their own story is not equal to ANY evidence that leaks out contradicting it.

Dr. David Ray Griffin made this point succinctly in his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking.



"One way to decide which of these conflicting accounts to believe is to use a common principle employed by historians in situations of this type, where some members of an organization or movement say things that support its official line, while other members say things that contradict it. All other things being equal, historians give greater credence to the latter."



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Given what we know about the north side evidence it would be foolish, silly, and/or dishonest to dismiss this statement out of hand.





Wow... where is that irony meter when you want one?? You just summed up your entire evidence collection process in one sentence. The dismissal of statements out of hand.

Great job Craig!



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Since Craig is busy cherry picking, lets post some more statements from the archives:

Keep in mind that these files were received by ATS member "911Files" aka John Farmer.

Thank you again John for your incredible efforts.



:
QDR Action Officer Signals Corps


(On road near Pentagon)

Driving past the Pentagon, she heard the noise of an aircraft engine then:-

".....I turned to look and all I saw was a white flash. But I saw the impact as it hit the side of the Pentagon, like right where I worked"

aal77.com...


:
Heliport ATC


Pentagon Heliport.

He sees traffic has stopped then sees aircraft approach:-

"I just see like the nose and wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us, and he didn't veer"

"And then you just heard the noise and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I am watching the plane go all the way into the building. So once the plane went into the building it exploded......"

aal77.com...


:

Facility Manager Arlington National Cemetery
NEIT 419

In his Office, 800 feet from Pentagon.

Sitting at his desk, hears a jet engine:-

"And I'm just watching and I'm just amazed that it, it happened pretty quick, too. And it hit the thing [Pentagon] and it was just the most God-awful loudest noise."

aal77.com...

More to come as I have time!



[edit on 20-1-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I reminded you a long time ago that there were implications and those implications blew every claim of a flyover out of the water. The implications are clear: there would be scores of eyewitnesses who would have easily seen and heard a flyover.

In this thread, jthomas states that he doesn't know how many people should have witnessed a flyover.

He was very specific to mention that no one has the 'magical power' to know how many witnesses should have or could have seen a flyover.

jthomas is now contradicting himself, by stating that there should have been 'scores' of witnesses to a flyover. Yet again, jthomas continues to debunk himself.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I just listened to an interesting interview.

Here is another eyewitness to the plane. Please pay attention to around the 6:55 mark;

"I didn't know it was a commercial plane, I knew it was a plane because I saw the tail end of ....

..and then after that other people were talking and said it was a big commercial plane."

aal77.com...

[edit on 20-1-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   




I appreciate your help in making my case that you have NO eyewitnesses to any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon.

Remember, January 31st is fast approaching, SPreston. Better get to work, don't you think?



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
I reminded you a long time ago that there were implications and those implications blew every claim of a flyover out of the water. The implications are clear: there would be scores of eyewitnesses who would have easily seen and heard a flyover.

In this thread, jthomas states that he doesn't know how many people should have witnessed a flyover.

He was very specific to mention that no one has the 'magical power' to know how many witnesses should have or could have seen a flyover.

jthomas is now contradicting himself, by stating that there should have been 'scores' of witnesses to a flyover. Yet again, jthomas continues to debunk himself.


It is amusing how the written word and simple logic completely flummoxes you silly Truthers. Tell us Tezz, what still confuses you that any flyover would have had scores of eyewitnesses had one occurred:


"Secondly, I have already addressed that we are talking about probabilities and I long ago provided the foundation for the probability that NO ONE witnessed a plane flying low and fast over and away from the Pentagon approaches ZERO."


Too bad you can't refute me or provide any eyewitnesses to CIT's imaginary flyover, isn't it?




posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Since Craig is busy cherry picking, lets post some more statements from the archives:


By cherry picking do you mean identifying eyewitnesses, locating them, contacting them, finding out their location 9/11, examing their POV and getting them to clairfy exactly what they saw or do you mean cherry picking as in staying anonymous under 3 different socks and harassing us by spamming the same unverified, unclarified, accounts of unidentified/published witnesses and blurbs that through the power of deduction show how they surmised an impact rather than actually saw one?


Keep in mind that these files were received by ATS member "911Files" aka John Farmer.

Thank you again John for your incredible efforts.


Yes the same John Farmer who busted on the scene trying to attack Robert Turcios using CITGO video proven to be manipulated all while he agrees the FDR was manipulated, while warming up to PFT and CIT, while at the same time, trying to get us to team with him, while attacking us, while stating their was a plane on the north side, while stating that the video flash is "physical evidence" of NoC flight path, while promoting a two plane conspiracy theory. To then opting to leave the truth movement and promote the official story of Flight 77 exclusively. That John Farmer? I've heard of people trying to blend in and infiltrate, to then try and attach themselves to you while trying to discredit work all while showing erratic, contradictory, illogical, subversive behavior...man...what are those people called again? hmmmm




:
QDR Action Officer Signals Corps


(On road near Pentagon)

Driving past the Pentagon, she heard the noise of an aircraft engine then:-

".....I turned to look and all I saw was a white flash. But I saw the impact as it hit the side of the Pentagon, like right where I worked"

aal77.com...


Oh wow. Did you speak with her? She heard the noise of an aircraft and all she saw was a white flash???? Hmmmm where is the part where you confirmed her identity and clarified her account about seeing the plane actually hit the building; actually enter the building?

Could she be deducing an aircraft noise and white flash(which is all she saw) as an impact? Yes or no? Yes or no, Cameron?

Could she be using the word "impact" a means of deduction, as a means to describe the event of hearing the noise of an aircraft and then seeing a bright flash, an event she was told happened after it allegedly happened? Yes or no? Yes or no, Cameron?



:
Heliport ATC


Pentagon Heliport.

He sees traffic has stopped then sees aircraft approach:-

"I just see like the nose and wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us, and he didn't veer"

"And then you just heard the noise and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I am watching the plane go all the way into the building. So once the plane went into the building it exploded......"

aal77.com...


Yeah uh. That was Sean Boger. Remember? He saw the plane approach on the north side of the Citgo, which negates an impact. Do you also remember how he claims it struck between the 2nd and 3rd floor (which according to the official story did not happen)? Do you remember how he disagreed with the low and level approach seen in the surveillance video?

Is it possible that he deduced the impact? Yes or no, Cameron? Can the plane approach from the north side of the Citgo in a bank and then "hit the building...go all the way into the building....went into the building it exploded."? Yes or no, Cameron?

Did you speak with Sean about this, Cameron? Why not?



:

Facility Manager Arlington National Cemetery
NEIT 419

In his Office, 800 feet from Pentagon.

Sitting at his desk, hears a jet engine:-

"And I'm just watching and I'm just amazed that it, it happened pretty quick, too. And it hit the thing [Pentagon] and it was just the most God-awful loudest noise."

aal77.com...

More to come as I have time!





George Aman. We interviewed him. Oops, I mean we "cherry picked" him. You know, where we get details like where he saw the plane, what he saw it do, and if he could see the Pentagon or the actual impact.

Here is another person deducing an impact. BECAUSE HE TOO SAW THE PLANE APPROACH IN A BANK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CITGO.

So let me get this straight, Mr Critical Thinker. So anyone who says the plane "hit" or "impacted" or use any form of those words is a genuine witness to an actual impact involving a plane striking the Pentagon and heading to the C ring hole?

Is that what you are saying? Even though we have proven that a lot of witnesses deduced an impact, including one of the very one you posted above?!?!?




[edit on 20-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

[edit on 20-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Craig I swear you are the ULTIMATE 911 truther. S & F. Your name and evidence should be plastered in every news paper in this country and the world!

Where do you dig up this stuff?

So how many total (reasonably reliable) do we have that said they witnessed a flyover? Because if there are 1 or 2, surely there are more. But those very people may not have clue as to the importance of what they saw, and therefore attach no meaning to it- without realizing that they witnessed crucial evidence. We got to dig up some more of these people. There's got to be more. That one guy in the Pentacon who saw that plane angle up at the last minute provides an important clue, but surely more people saw it from that certain angle that makes it tough to see otherwise.

I for one believe in the possibility of the flyover and quick landing at Reagan.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


By cherry picking do you mean identifying eyewitnesses, locating them, contacting them... words...word... rant....blah... blah.....


I was talking about the interviews Farmer posted. Try reading and try keeping up. I understand how upset you are Craig. Don't take it out on me.


rant about John Farmer
:


I don't care that you are mad at a former truther that has faced reality and showing you and PFT the error in your ways.



........

Could she be deducing an aircraft noise and white flash(which is all she saw) as an impact? Yes or no? Yes or no, Cameron?


What did she say Craig? Hmmmm what did she say?


But I saw the impact as it hit the side of the Pentagon, like right where I worked"


She said she saw the impact. There you go again...dismissing anything that fails to fit your puzzle. Why do you do that? A wee bit disingenuous huh?








Did you speak with Sean about this, Cameron? Why not?



Why would I travel to see him when his official statement was this:


I am watching the plane go all the way into the building.


Need I say more?








So let me get this straight, Mr Critical Thinker.


You don't have anything straight Mr. Ranke. Mr. Farmer has shown that these statements were given within a short amount of time after 911. Many are showing that there were in fact eyewitnesses to the impact.

This is clearly upsetting you. Understandably so.



[edit on 20-1-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Wow thank you so much TrueAmerican!

Currently Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts jr is the only confirmed witness on record who specifically saw the plane flying away immediately after the explosion. But he didn't see it land at Reagan and there is no evidence for this so we reject that hypothesis.

This new account of course is simply first-hand confirmation that a flyover is what other people in the critical place to witness the event immediately claimed happened.

So yes we are quite sure there are more.

This new account is no small detail particularly since we know that the 911 call tapes and all the surrounding video of the event has been confiscated and permanently sequestered in a blatant cover-up and particularly when considering the overwhelming evidence we already have for a north side approach.

Now ironically enough this new account leaked through an FOIA request by one of our hard-core detractors who regularly works as a conduit for fraudulent government data while furiously attacking us personally and the information we present.

So this means in general there is no reason to accept ANY of these government supplied anonymous witness accounts from the CMH that may appear to support the official story because clearly they are in a position to manipulate the data in their favor or plant lying witnesses or present partial accounts.

That's why first-hand confirmation is so important and we have shown time and time again that many people who seem to support the official story on paper really don't when the investigative questions and specific details of exactly where they saw the plane are revealed.

But we know the government would not manipulate or alter evidence in support of a flyover as this would run contradictory to all logic and reason which is why we can accept this government provided evidence that contradicts the official story and of course supports the massive amount of independent verifiable evidence we have uncovered proving the plane did not hit.

So....be wary of these anonymous CMH accounts as this "nugget" could very well have been leaked for the sole purpose to get us to accept ALL of the CMH accounts as valid even though many are fraudulent.

Disinfo is only effective if they include some valid info as well.

It's simply not logical for true skeptics/critical thinkers who are investigating government involvement into the 9/11 attacks to accept government controlled information that supports their story.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
This is clearly upsetting you. Understandably so.


You got that right, it should also be upsetting anyone who bought into this "flyover fantasy". To those people, you were told over and over again that this was not reality, hopefully now you see the light.

Another thing that makes me laugh about this information is if this elaborate "military deception" was actually accomplished, why in the world would they release any information that would confirm that?

They wouldn't.

People (witnesses in this case) make mistakes, it was a chaotic, tragic event with a lot of confusion. If 1 or 2 people may have thought a plane flew over in the confusion, versus the vast majority who say it didn't, which fits with the physical evidence, then guess who's mistaken?

It isn't the majority, that's for sure.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Is it even possible for a plane moving at that speed to land that fast at Reagan? Reagan is awfully close to the Pentagon. So close, I have to wonder if it could even be done. But assuming remote control, maybe so. Hell, they seemed to break all other known stress factors for planes and pilots with the attacks, so why not be able to land at Reagan? And if the flyover plane did not land at Reagan, then where did it?



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Sorry Cameron but only 2 out of the 3 witnesses you listed have been confirmed and interviewed direct with recordings provided and BOTH support the north side approach 100%.

The 3rd is nothing but unconfirmed government supplied data.

We have demonstrated how unconfirmed witness statements are erroneously used to support the official story all the time since it's clear how most of the people you have cited already confirmed the plane was on the north side anyway.



[edit on 20-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


The plane was going a lot slower than reported so it's probably possible.

But the one confirmed flyover witness we have specifically said that it did not do this and that it banked around and flew away.

Plus we have uncovered a significant amount of evidence for a very elaborate and deliberately planned 2nd plane cover story so we think this strongly supports the notion that the plane "veered off" and flew away as some dishonest witnesses tried to suggest a "2nd plane" did immediately after the explosion when there is no legitimate evidence for a "2nd plane" in this fashion.

We will likely never know where the final destination of the plane was after that as it's probably safe to assume that all evidence in this regard has been destroyed.





[edit on 20-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join