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: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MR1159
As far as the aircraft noise you were derisively explaining in your post; it's really not an adequate refutation of the fly-by hypothesis. If there was a fly-by and landing at Ronald Reagan, the aircraft would have required an aggressive pull-up and throttle-back to make the landing (if it is at all possible - I am not familiar with the exact approach). In doing so, the aircraft would have been very quiet in the fly-by as it passed the Pentagon, because wind noise drops off as the square of airspeed reduction, and the engines at idle emit very little sound.



Good point MR1159...

Unfortunately, self-proclaimed "critical thnkers" arent aware of the fact that thrust (and therefore the noise made by such thrust), is variable on an aircraft by the use of - drum roll - thrust levers. Not to mention the fact that if there were an aircraft as witnessed on the NoC approach, "critical thinkers" fail to think critically of the type aircraft or any hush kits that may be employed.

Many "critical thinkers" may now be thinking a "hush kit" is some type of super secret military or alien technology, but is not. Its in every day use for noise abatement procedures.




posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

What is stopping me is common sense Craig. I would not waste my time and money trying to prove something that I already know as factual.


Ahhhh!

Very revealing statement.

Thank you for acknowledging that you are willing to dismiss evidence on nothing but pure faith.

I have spelled out exactly how my claims are falsifiable yet you have proclaimed that yours are not.

This reveals how there is nothing that would convince you otherwise and therefore no reason for us to discuss the issue any further.

I am a true skeptic.

My claims are evidence based and falsifiable.

You are a zealot on a crusade who has no regard for skepticism or critical thinking principles.

This is how we are different and why further discussion between us is pointless.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Imagine a court of law, where the prosecution team presents a group of witnesses to a
crime committed.

A member of the prosecution outlines to the court what the witnesses have seen.

In a normal court of law, these witnesses would be called, swear an oath, and then be
subjected to questions by the defence team.

In our imagined court of law, this doesn't take place. Instead the defence team, or the
councel for the defandant, ignores the witnesses completely and embark on a sustained
attack on the member of the prosecution who presented the witness-statements.
This sustained attack is done with abandon scorn, ridicule, derision, mockery, sneer,
pride and unimaginable arrogance.

This goes on for a considerable length of time, without any objections from the
presiding judge, who even gives no concern whatsoever to the members of the jury, or
to the public present in the courtroom.

The strangest thing is that the presiding judge seems totally oblivious to the fact that
only a thoroughly corrupt person (in every sense of the word), could let proceedings
take place in such an obviously false, unjust, dishonest, rotten, unscrupulous and
depraved fashion, putting aside any decency any sense of justice any honour and any
proper unprejudiced behavior of any kind.

Such a judge is bad enough, but worst of all, what beats everything, is a "councel for
the defendant" who has stooped so low as to be even more corrupted than the poor
judge; yes indeed, a "defence team" who has lost all ability to distinguish between what
is right or wrong, good or bad, just or unjust.

These kind of people are forever trolling the threads of ATS, completely unaware that
one day they will have to face the 'jury' they so spitefully chose to ignore the
presence of, when it mattered the most!

These people are at present exposing themselves in this thread. It actually hurts to
witness their feeble and infantile attempts to impress those many of us who can see them for who they really are.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



You may be too new at this to not realize that CIT has yet to refute the massive evidence that AA77 the Pentagon. But you are entitled to believe fairy tales if you wish.


No one lives in a fairy tail here but if you think we all do, then why don’t you PROVE IT! (Oh that’s right, you cant.)
In case, you have not notices CIT have already proven a number of facts that proves the government has lied to us. Furthermore, your rude, and obnoxious, behaviors, is not attracting any believers, on your side. It is you, who always does the insults READ your own threads one insult after another


Just don't insult real skeptics who demonstrate factually that CIT cannot demonstrate its claims.


Insults, me! LOL you are joking right! I have yet to see you, prove anything in any of these 911 threads, but to show how good you are at ridiculing, and insulting only people who punch holes threw the OS. Why does it make you so mad? Truth hurts doesn’t it!



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"!!


Do you have proof that these witnesses are liars? If you do, please show by posting your sources, and please spear us your obnoxious opinions.

It is so odd, that you want everyone to believe in your witness, who to say they are not lying.



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

(download mp3 interview here)



jthomas, where is your proof that these people are lying. The OP has demonstrated, that other people saw and heard other things instead, what you were told by a lying media.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Ahhhh!
Very revealing statement.
Thank you for acknowledging that you are willing to dismiss evidence on nothing but pure faith.



No, Craig. I have looked at a large amount of evidence. A VERY large amount. I, along with the VAST majority of the population of the world know the facts sir. It is only in the minds of the paranoid and delusional that want there to be, and in some cases HAS to be a conspiracy. It is an extremely unhealthy way to live your life.

You have ignored / hand waved any evidence that you know will squash your dream. As I posted before:

You dismiss witnesses
You dismiss DNA evidence
You dismiss plane debris
You dismiss personal belongings

The Cracker-Jack style of your "investigation team" is just that.

I never asked for a discussion with you. I am just pointing out the ridiculousness of your fantasy. It is your prerogative to respond to the facts I present.










[edit on 21-1-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 

This thread is not about all of those other things, there are already mountains of threads discussing those topics. This thread is about a very specific piece of new evidence of there being flyover witnesses. Your other "evidence" does not refute this witnesses statements of people seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon, which is what this topic is about. Does this thread say anything about there being no physical evidence? Evidence is not proof, but 13 eye witness corroborating what the witnesses from this interview allegedly saw is about as close to proof as we can get with the evidence we are allowed to view.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MR1159
reply to post by 654321
 


I too wonder where the passengers are, and I don't have the answer.

But does this mean nobody can question events that occurred?


But when it comes to real skeptics questionning CIT about its versions of events, well, that's taboo, don't you know?


Do you think people want to be digging around for the sake of it? I happen not to think so.


Digging around? You should step back and question why CIT's version of "digging around" does not include vetting inconvenient evidence.


The reason so many people are questioning events surrounding the 11th of September 2001, is because the events are questionable. Nothing is as yet conclusive.


That is simply an unsupported opinion. If you want to "question" events, fine. But that does NOT absolve you of refuting the existing evidence nor ignoring the answers you don't like. But that's what CIT does and it amounts to intellectual dishonesty. I can't imagine any Truther sitting and accepting what CIT claims, it's evasions, it's methodology if CIT were the "government" responding, do you? Then why would any rational person give CIT a free pass as you are doing?


Read some of the statements by experienced pilots who said that the flightpath and speeds on the way to the Pentagon are virtually impossible for even the most highly experienced and capable pilots, let alone a barely qualified light aircraft "pilot". This is very strange - I don't know what the answer is, but I find it very strange.


Does that mean you refuse to accept those far greater number of experienced pilots and aeronautical engineers who demonstrate that AA77's flight into the Pentagon was perfectly within the pilot's and aircraft's capability? Does that mean, like CIT, you will ignore evidence that you find inconvenient? Does that mean you will accept CIT's claim that has been repeatedly shown to be aerodynamically impossible?


As far as the aircraft noise you were derisively explaining in your post; it's really not an adequate refutation of the fly-by hypothesis.


You forget that CIT has the burden of proof to demonstrate a flyover hypothesis. WE can raise questions concerning CIT's claims and those questions must be satisfied for anyone to rationally accept CIT's hypothesis. Clearly, a low-flying, fast moving jet flying over the Pentagon has implications and consequences that CIT has failed to explain, including demonstrating why there are absolutely no eyewitnesses or any media reports of a LOUD, low flying jet flying over the Pentagon at the time an explosion took place in a geographic area including hundreds of people who were in a position to SEE and HEAR such an event, people stuck in traffic on the freeways, and bridges, people in the Pentagon parking lots, in surrounding buildings, etc.

You do not have the luxury of claiming there was any flyover whatsoever when you cannot satisfy the explanation for NO eyewitnesses. The burden of proof is on CIT to answer that question and provide a rational explanation for the lack of eyewitnesses.


Another questionable point; I cannot for the life of me see a large commercial airliner in the security video. Wouldn't it stand out like dogs b@lls?


As you should know by now, NO one needs to have a video to KNOW by ALL of the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. But you are apparently willing to dismiss ALL of the physical evidence--which is exactly what CIT depends on.

According to CIT's claim a flyover plane should have appeared in the video as my avatar illustrates.


These are just examples of how a bit of thought can be used to highlight the plausibility of what is being said. I don't agree/disagree with what is being said, but I DO find the event questionable. And I haven't heard any conclusive explanations by either side of the argument.


Then do some research and find out why CIT's claims have always been unsupported hokkum.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO

This thread is not about all of those other things, there are already mountains of threads discussing those topics.


I am responding to post from Mr. CIT. I agree though. Too many threads dealing with the same stuff.




This thread is about a very specific piece of new evidence of there being flyover witnesses.


I will have to disagree with you. There are no flyover witnesses. This was a statement by a man who states what he said some others were saying.



Your other "evidence" does not refute this witnesses statements of people seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon, which is what this topic is about.


I beg to differ. First of all it is not "my" evidence. Craig, Jthomas, and the rest of us are all using the same files that were posted by ATS member John Farmer. Craig cherry picked a statement made by one guy. I am clearly posting first hand information. The statements I posted show what the witnesses actually saw... NOT what they heard other people saying.

If you read through some of the interviews, you will find there were people that claimed that the plane hit the metro station and killed hundreds of people. Some thought it was a truck bomb. Some thought it was a missile at the time. People were told to expect a second plane. It goes on and on.





Does this thread say anything about there being no physical evidence? Evidence is not proof, but 13 eye witness corroborating what the witnesses from this interview allegedly saw is about as close to proof as we can get with the evidence we are allowed to view.


We are allowed to view an abundance of evidence PpL... you have to look outside ATS and Conspiracy sites to get it.

Start here:

aal77.com...

It will take you hours to read through these interviews. (or listen)

Then do through the evidence from the trial for Zacarias Moussaoui

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gonenuts
reply to post by jthomas
 



You may be too new at this to not realize that CIT has yet to refute the massive evidence that AA77 the Pentagon. But you are entitled to believe fairy tales if you wish.


No one lives in a fairy tail here but if you think we all do, then why don’t you PROVE IT! (Oh that’s right, you cant.)


I and others have for over two years. CIT cannot support its claims.


In case, you have not notices CIT have already proven a number of facts that proves the government has lied to us.


Absolutely not, and I and others have repeatedly shown why. No matter how you want reality to be otherwise, the burden of proof remains on CIT shoulders to support its claims and be able to address the flaws, contradictions, and outright contrary-to-fact claims of CIT's "theory." And CIT has to refute all of the massive evidence against it.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Start here:

aal77.com...

It will take you hours to read through these interviews. (or listen)

Then do through the evidence from the trial for Zacarias Moussaoui

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...


It will take days to go through the CMH interviews. I should also note that regardless of what Craig likes to assert, he knows that I have spoken personally with many of these eyewitnesses and to the CMH staff who originally interviewed them. But he has me in a bit of a box because I respect the redactions and only identify those who are already in the public domain (such as Boger or Gallop). CIT has already verified with the ANC witnesses that the CMH has made NO effort to doctor or alter the interviews and they represent the observations of the witnesses themselves.

Among all of these, there is not one hint of a "flyover". Craig started this thread to promote a hearsay account, but while he was at the ANC, NOT ONE of the witnesses even suggested such a thing. Quite frankly, most were very clear that they either saw the plane hit the Pentagon or they themselves were hitting the ground. Now we have two (one already on the public record) who had a view of the sky over the Courtyard. Guess what? They saw NO plane pass over the Courtyard at the time of impact.

Also at AAL77.COM, I have posted the dispatch audio for Arlington County Police, and no mention of a plane flying past the Pentagon. On my last trip to Arlington, I listened to the ACFD audios as well along with other EMS recordings. Guess what? No mention of a fly-over. I talked to the dispatchers who worked that day. Again, no hint of a fly-over was noted by anyone.

I also have posted hand-written accounts by the controllers at Dulles International, who watched the plane in real-time as it approached and then disappeared at the Pentagon (no fly-by guys). I have the audio recordings for the controllers at Dulles and Reagan. Again, there is no hint of a plane flying over and no emergency transmission from other planes indicating having to evade such a plane.

Then of course there is the radar data from 4 ASR's in the area, DCA, IAD, ADW and BWI. Again, no fly-over seen. Yet in the face in all of this rock-hard evidence that the plane went down at the Pentagon, we get this thread about something that someone said someone else said. CIT has accused me of posting rumor because the Paik brothers insist that the antenna on top of the VSP tower was bent. At least I am investigating first-hand accounts (what they claim they saw) and not "I heard someone say" rumors.

And yet we have all of these witnesses on the east side of the Pentagon who told CNN reporters as they arrived on the scene about a helicopter that flew around the Pentagon just before the impact, yet not one of them mention a huge plane flying over the building. After two years of listening to the CIT nonsense, not one eyewitness to a fly-over. I am actually shocked that there has not been at least one, even if there was no fly-over.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

This thread is about a very specific piece of new evidence of there being flyover witnesses.

I will have to disagree with you. There are no flyover witnesses. This was a statement by a man who states what he said some others were saying.

And yet, this is the only kind of evidence you guys seem to accept. Why is it that you guys have this laundry list of 2nd and 3rd hand quotes from the media that you say prove the plane hit, but when presented with peoples actual live recorded testemony that contradicts what the media reported and the official story says, you plug your ears and call it cherry picked? At least this guy is recorded, all the impact "witnesses" you guys keep falling back on are just words written by media that are proven again and again to be lies by real the real witness interviews.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
This to me is at the very least evidence of media coverup. Where is this guys statements in the papers? How about to people he mentions that saw the plane keep flying, where are their media interviews? Why is that the media was okay with printing statements from people who weren't even there as though they saw everything happen, but someone who was there and saw something different were dismissed? It's pretty clear that any statements about a flyover were left out of the papers so that flyover witnesses could not be tracked down.
If only CIT could find out who this guy is, maybe he could give clues that would lead to the discovery of flyover witnesses.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
Yet in the face in all of this rock-hard evidence that the plane went down at the Pentagon.


"Rock-Hard Evidence" in which 911Files admits was manipulated.

911Files. You claimed you had to go through "back doors" to get the RADES data and that the FAA initially refused your FOIA requests for Radar data. Why do you now claim such data as "Rock-Hard Evidence"?

Are you familiar with the term "Positive Identification"?

If not, try emailing P4T to speak with some real experts on the matter. Then again, you have already claimed aviation experts you disagree with dont know what they're talking about. So i guess its a moot point for you.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO

And yet, this is the only kind of evidence you guys seem to accept. Why is it that you guys have this laundry list of 2nd and 3rd hand quotes from the media that you say prove the plane hit, but when presented with peoples actual live recorded testemony that contradicts what the media reported and the official story says, you plug your ears and call it cherry picked? At least this guy is recorded, all the impact "witnesses" you guys keep falling back on are just words written by media that are proven again and again to be lies by real the real witness interviews.


What? Dude, come on now. Look at my posts. I am linking you to transcripts and or the actual recordings of the interviews. Craig in his OP posted a hearsay account. The man interviewed was saying what someone else told him.

Can I do that? Because if it's okay, then how about this:


There was some speculation as to what it was and Joe said it was an American Airlines 757. And I didn't believe him and said "No,no way" He say's "Yeah, I saw it on the tail. It says American Airlines right on the side of the plane. I watched it go into the building."


aal77.com...

You see Ppl. I am using the same tactic Craig did in his OP. Neither of us are lying. What we are both showing is hearsay. NOW...the difference between the two?

The witness I just posted used the man's name and ask that the interviewer follow up with him. Craig's OP interview does not allow for a follow up. "Some people" is the statement given.

The electrical estimator at the Pentagon used a specific person and his account can be verified. His last name is given in the interview.

I hope that clears it up a bit.



[edit on 21-1-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

There was some speculation as to what it was and Joe said it was an American Airlines 757. And I didn't believe him and said "No,no way" He say's "Yeah, I saw it on the tail. It says American Airlines right on the side of the plane. I watched it go into the building."


aal77.com...


Above quote from external source extended for intellectual honesty.




- "Your initial feeling was that is wasn't American Airlines?"

- "My initial feeing was that is was probably a missile, a bomb."

page 8 of the above source


What do detractors usually say about memory over time?



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Is it likely that the second hand witness in the above post was able to read American Airlines 757 on the tail of an aircraft moving at 460+ mph barely above the ground? Sounds like another witness to a slow moving air craft, perhaps we should get a recorded interview with the witness that could read the plane type on the tail of the air craft and ask him which side of the gas station it was on when it zipped passed at almost 500mph?



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Is it likely that the second hand witness in the above post was able to read American Airlines 757........


Ppl ~

The post was not to commence a discussion regarding the validity of "Joe's" statement to the man being interviewed. I was only showing you that his statement was hearsay to the interview. If there was in fact an addition interview with "Joe", then that would be considered first hand.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockHound757
Above quote from external source extended for intellectual honesty.


Just to follow up with this last post from Rockhound

Here are the parts that YOU left out.


From Rockhound:

- "Your initial feeling was that is wasn't American Airlines?"

- "My initial feeing was that is was probably a missile, a bomb."

page 8 of the above source

What do detractors usually say about memory over time?



Now, go to page 6:



- So, you heard the impact?

- felt it, it came up through the floor and knocked me out of my chair. Yeah, we heard it.



I encourage you all to read it in it's entirety. It is in PDF format and I really don't feel like typing all of it. Let me just add a little more that Rockhound left out in the paragraph he posted.



-"Your initial feeling was that is wasn't American Airlines?"

-My initial feeing was that is was probably a missile, a bomb.I knew that we were under some sort of attack but I couldn't imagine them commandeering another airliner. Who could imagine that? Now? Yeah, anybody can imagine that, but then that was just to far out there.








[edit on 21-1-2009 by CameronFox]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join