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: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Oh I don't know because we are up against a trillion dollar propaganda machine and any and all financial support is needed and welcome.

Oh I don't know because we spent our own money on all of this research and we feel we have the right to recoup costs.


You're absolutely right you do, and if people can't see that, they don't really deserve to view it. Even though you like Alex, let people copy at will, despite themselves, and to their own financial detriment in order to bring real truth into this world where the government, and media, have failed us. Truly admirable in my book. I wish I had it to contribute, Craig, because it would be yours without even thinking about it.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Conversely...why would anyone need to sell these on DVD when "every one of them can be watched for free?

Some people, like me, still use dial-up modem. It's easier to buy content on a CD, provided that the CD is priced within reason.

Besides, NO ONE is forced to buy anything if they don't want to. We're supposed to live in a free market economy, right?



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 

Swing D ~
If you look into the silly flyover & around fantasy, you would see that the flight path that they make work would require the plane to fly in front of and to the right of the impact point.
Again...not a soul was witness to this flight path.


Thank you for the logical fallacy display. The flyover and impact variables are exclusive of each other, not inclusive. You can't have both at the same time.

I'm sorry your point has been rejected and your attack of the character's content via the use of the term "fantasy" implies that you can't support your attacks of the argument with facts only labels. Please see the ATS membership agreement.

The North of Citgo flight path can be supported with facts, with eyewitness testimony, and with pure science.

As you well know the FDA has released an 'animation' supporting a flight path in contrast with the official flight path.

You also know that the official flight path can not be supported by facts based upon the necessary G forces involved.

You know now that the 'damage' cone of the alleged impact does not match with the eyewitness testimonies to the North of Citgo flight path.

You now know numerous eyewitness and the pilot of the C-130 himself prove the 84-Rades data is fraudulent. The C-130 was interpreted as a second plane and confused those who witnessed the fly over but did not suffer situational blindness and those who distributed the cover story.

You now know that the light poles supporting the flight path were never impacted by an object in the air. You can view their base and compare them to other light poles that have been impacted by a high speed object. They were cut prior to impact and placed there at some point in time. You also know that light poles along the road are not easily noticed or viewed.

You now know the light poles had they been struck would not have landed in a pristine condition without disruption to the surrounding environment.

You now know the video provided by the Pentagon was dated wrong with no explanation and has many anomalies that appear to be a result of manipulation.

You now know there are numerous videos that have not been released to the public without a clear explanation as to why the public can not have access to them.

You now know people openly lied and misrepresented their story. You now know many people who claimed to see an impact did not and could not.

You know now the mainstream media can and is used to manipulate public opinion which is exactly why independent verifiable interviews are necessary to get to the truth, anonymous sources are useless in a court of law and useless in an intelligently formed opinion.

You know now that people have suffered from situational/environmental blindness when they were focusing on the huge results of an explosion thereby being blind to the obvious and the familiar. The fly over was the gorilla in the room.

Now I have to ask you and all supporters of the official conspiracy theory:
1. Via the Air Force transparency order request as released by the Air Force Public Affairs Committee , are you a member of the Air Force and are you a member of the Emerging Technology Division engaging in the Web Posting Response Assessment version 2?

2. Why did the Air Force release Rades data that is false? What is the point?

3. Why does the FAA release a video years after the fact supporting new eyewitness testimony of a different fly path than the official one?

4. Why does the FDR not support an impact without explanation from the Federal officials responsible for it?

5. Why do you think southern flight path was used? I will tell you. To justify the kill cone's destructive path. The Pentagon was a mass murder that could not be allowed to fail with complete plausible denial for those involved.



[edit on 10/30/2007 by Swing Dangler]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
6. Why would a NCOIC recovery team member near the alleged impact hole write a letter in support of the Citizens Investigation Team?

7. Why do you think witnesses in the Pentagon experienced more than one explosion?

8. Why do you think a personal friend of mine employed by the United States Army as a explosive ordinance specialist with a focus on nuclear disarmament tell me he and members of his unit do not believe a plane hit the Pentagon?

You see, this fly over issue is not a mere fantasy as you suggest or a theory. This is reality. Many citizens know it and many members of the military know it.

If you are unaware of these revelations, you should be reading more.
Furthermore when the reactions of the alleged perpetrators can be PREDICTED based upon the public release of uncovered evidence, it becomes quite evident what the truth is.

If you care not to answer my questions, I understand. Your established view of the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about is a powerful mental and emotional block to established reality.



[edit on 10/30/2007 by Swing Dangler]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Two things. I don´t know why lots of people would buy those DVDs, I guess they are curious...they don´t or can´t download stuff...they have doubts...they want to have them...or collect them...
The fact remains you are selling those DVDs and making money. Having prooven NOTHING. They are just speculation and fantasy.
The second thing is I´m not a gov. loyalist.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   
I'm fairly astute, but I can't tell here which person is putting forward 'the truth has been hidden' view and who's saying the opposite.
I don't really have the time to wade through lots of slanging at each other to try and find good evidence on what really happened. I already know there's something really bad about 9-11, so my only aim is to find the true evidence.
If 'Above Top Secret' really is for revealing secrets and therefore the truth, WHY are people allowed to post here who are putting in the old 'there are no secrets' / 'the main media and governments are telling you the truth' line?
I thought the facts were established in 2001 and 2002:
The car park video shows a small military jet slamming into the Pentagon, but firing something like a Cruise missile a moment before impact. The small jet (F16, or similar) was probably remotely controlled.
That's the key isn't it?
And people reported other aircraft very close at the time.
-----------------------------
'PENTAGON VIDEO EVIDENCE SHOWS FRAUD OF WAR ON TERROR'
By David Bosankoe, B.Sc.
worldgathering.net...
"In the first CCTV image a white smoke trail is visible to the right following the plane. However, the problem with this is that jet contrails only happen at high altitudes when the water vapor from a jet's exhaust freezes into a trail of visible ice crystals. So the only explanation of this white smoke is that it is the rocket-engine emission from a small missile. This conclusion is supported by evidence in the second image, where the initial fireball appears vividly as the flash explosion consistent with a small missile warhead. On two counts of visual evidence, therefore, we see that a missile was launched at the Pentagon by the attacking plane."
-----------------------------



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Please take note the relative lack of time the plane is in sight and the relative quite engine noise after the initial pass and pull up.


Hey Swing,

How about comparing apples and apples? Since your link was with a relatively low-speed flyby, how about a comment on this video?




This is the sound of a jet at full throttle an awful lot further away than what you're saying the Pentagon witnesses could've overlooked. Doesn't seem to wash somehow.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   

posted by rush969
reply to post by SPreston
 


Two things. I don´t know why lots of people would buy those DVDs, I guess they are curious...they don´t or can´t download stuff...they have doubts...they want to have them...or collect them...
The fact remains you are selling those DVDs and making money. Having prooven NOTHING. They are just speculation and fantasy.
The second thing is I´m not a gov. loyalist.


Two things:

CIT and P4T are spending their own money traveling across country, finding witnesses and interviewing them, financing FOIAs, and producing videos and documents. CIT travels all the way from California and they work for a living just like any other ordinary American. It took a lot of work tracking down the Center for Military History Arlington National Cemetery eyewitnesses which had been ordered released by FOIA lawsuit with their names STILL redacted. Prooven nothing is simply your extremely biased opinion. Open-minded persons think CIT and P4T have prooven a lot; in fact they have prooven that the aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and that YOUR 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is totally impossible. CIT and P4T have every right to recoup their losses. I doubt that video sales do much more than that; since they are free to watch and most people are content to do just that.

Second; I am not selling any DVDs. The CIT and P4T and many other Truther DVDs I download and copy, I give away for free to family and friends and any other interested patriotic Americans.



[edit on 1/24/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Just answer me this:
Why do you or CIT or P4T not report on any witness testimony that doesn´t agree with your own bias?

It shows very clearly that CIT, P4T, you, and some others are living in denyal. You decided long ago to pursue this conspiracy, and you deny everything about the true accounts shown in media, the web and numerous other sources. You deny photographs, you deny plane parts, body parts, ATC recordings, FAA reports, NTSB documents, NIST works.
All the media, all the government, all the defense institutions, police, fire
departments, the airlines, the cell phone companies, all the experts at NIST, EVERYBODY IS IN ON IT!!!
THIS SIMPLY CANNOT BE, you have to accept it.
You put up videos with no sound, why? Is it because then we will be able to hear that there are no explosions? Just the rumble of the progresive collapse as explained by NIST?




posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston CIT and P4T have every right to recoup their losses.


"Losses" - no truer word has ever been posted on the Internet. Instead of traveling to DC to hand-wave and cherry-pick isolated phrases and gerrymander some convoluted make-believe pretend-story, it would have been cheaper and would have had a better return on investment if they simply went to Vegas and shot the wad on a single roulette wheel.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston



CIT and P4T are spending their own money traveling across country, finding witnesses and interviewing them, financing FOIAs, and producing videos and documents. CIT travels all the way from California and they work for a living just like any other ordinary American. It took a lot of work tracking down the Center for Military History Arlington National Cemetery eyewitnesses which had been ordered released by FOIA lawsuit with their names STILL redacted.


Craig and Aldo sure wasted a lot of money and their hard earned vacation time. John Farmer is the one that does all the REAL leg work. He was a real truther.... asked questions, funded many FOIA requests, went to the Pentagon... and found what he was looking for... the truth.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Aside from the sheer volume of eye witness accounts and the mysterious nature of the confiscation of all the security video tapes by the FBI that encircle "the most Secure building in the world", I'd like to have jthomas answer this:

Since when do Jets at or near ground level leave contrails? That trail of smoke is the "Smoking Gun" that the Pentagon was hit by a missile..... After a bomb went off in the building.

This assertion is the account of April Gallop, an officer who survived the blast with her baby in tow after returning to her Accounting Office position from Maternity leave.

She escaped through the 16ft in diameter hole the missile left, making her way down through the lower floors filled with debris. No Airplane, no luggage, no passengers.

BTW, what happened to the 2.3 Trillion the Pentagon (Rumsfeld in a very peculiar Monday morning Press Conference in 9/10/01) couldn't account for the day before the " attacks".

Gee, wasn't that as convenient as all the SEC records destroyed on Corporate Fraud, WorldCom and ENRON in WTC building #7... I guess Hans Gruber was working on "Die Hard" overtime! "What's to search for"?

Mr Thomas, you are either one naive denialist or working from your post in Langley.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Please take note the relative lack of time the plane is in sight and the relative quite engine noise after the initial pass and pull up.

Hey Swing,
How about comparing apples and apples? Since your link was with a relatively low-speed flyby, how about a comment on this video?

This is the sound of a jet at full throttle an awful lot further away than what you're saying the Pentagon witnesses could've overlooked. Doesn't seem to wash somehow.


Fitzgibbon-by the way I like your profile pic if that is you and I'm assuming it is. It looks like something out of a movie.

Can you answer this for me before I get to your post?
Via the Air Force transparency order request as released by the Air Force Public Affairs Committee , are you a member of the Air Force or Armed Forces and are you a member of the Emerging Technology Division or a related Division engaging in the Web Posting Response Assessment version 2?


Thanks for your response.

I've seen that video before of course. I choose that as not an example based upon the eyewitness accounts of the jet flying in slower than the official speed. Either way, both videos do not have daily city back ground noise nor the sound of a huge explosion, the fireball that was several stories high, and the detonation of additional explosion/s. The plane does disappear from site quite quickly in both videos doesn't it? Now place a huge fireball and smoke screen in front of it, take into account perceptual/situational blindness, and you have the world's largest magic trick.

1. Please determine the actual speed of both planes in the Youtube! videos in comparison to eyewitness accounts of speeds of the Pentagon attack jet.

2. We now know based upon the eyewitnesses, the plane was not traveling the estimated 500 mph or more that the 9/11 Commission states.

3. It is inconseqential as fly overs and jet traffic are a common part of the perceptal and audio environment. We do have reports of witnesses hearing the pilot gunning the engines prior to the alleged impact.

4. I think we both forget about the huge explosion and nosie accompanied with the apparent detonation of a device at the Pentagon and the audio effects that accompany it as well as additional explosion/s heard from within the building.
------------

6. Why would a NCOIC recovery team member near the alleged impact hole write a letter in support of the Citizens Investigation Team?

7. Why do you think witnesses in the Pentagon experienced more than one explosion?

8. Why do you think a personal friend of mine employed by the United States Army as a explosive ordinance specialist with a focus on nuclear disarmament tell me he and members of his unit do not believe a plane hit the Pentagon?

2. Why did the Air Force release Rades data that is false? What is the point?

3. Why does the FAA release a video years after the fact supporting new eyewitness testimony of a different fly path than the official one?

4. Why does the FDR not support an impact without explanation from the Federal officials responsible for it?

5. Why do you think southern flight path was used? I will tell you. To justify the kill zone's destructive path. There is no variables for that. You can't fudge a cone shaped path of destruction after the fact. Sure you can omitt or change details, but a flight path to serve as an excuse to that cone can and was falsified.
You can falsify flight data recorder or ignore glaring 'descrepencies" without explanation. You can falsify radar data as was done with 84Rades. You can construct a damage path to impact.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
CameronFox


Craig and Aldo sure wasted a lot of money and their hard earned vacation time. John Farmer is the one that does all the REAL leg work. He was a real truther.... asked questions, funded many FOIA requests, went to the Pentagon... and found what he was looking for... the truth.


ROFLMAO@ your post. Seriously? Farmer did a great job with the FOIA request. Kudos to him. But leg work behind a private investigation? You've ignored the entire body of CIT's work with your statement.

Thanks for the comedy.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
reply to post by SPreston
 


Just answer me this:
Why do you or CIT or P4T not report on any witness testimony that doesn´t agree with your own bias?

It shows very clearly that CIT, P4T, you, and some others are living in denyal. You decided long ago to pursue this conspiracy, and you deny everything about the true accounts shown in media, the web and numerous other sources. You deny photographs, you deny plane parts, body parts, ATC recordings, FAA reports, NTSB documents, NIST works.
All the media, all the government, all the defense institutions, police, fire
departments, the airlines, the cell phone companies, all the experts at NIST, EVERYBODY IS IN ON IT!!!
THIS SIMPLY CANNOT BE, you have to accept it.
You put up videos with no sound, why? Is it because then we will be able to hear that there are no explosions? Just the rumble of the progresive collapse as explained by NIST?

Alergy medicine anyone? So much straw here....

1. Accounts in the media are suspect until verfied. Investigators have shown this to be true over an over again.

2. The 'official evidence is precisely what has given rise to private
investigations!! Don't you get it?
For example, you must be forced to believe that the plane flew over the Pentagon and over the light poles because the Flight Data Recorder from the plane says it was too high to impact! Welcome to the fly over club as started by the flight data recorder itself.
Not everybody is in on it. Very few actually. But that is a straw man of course. How many were in on the Holocaust and kept their mouths shut? They got away with it for years didn't they? Area 51 anybody? How long before it became reality because the "government" said it was real? Stealth technology? How long was that in development? Project Trinity ring a bell?
That 'debunker' line of logic that because "everyone had to be in on it, it isn't true is tired, old, and has been debunked numerous times.

No explosive sounds? Now your calling firefighters, first responders, victims liars, those who first reported explosives going off were you guess it, the mainstream medai...CNN, FOX, etc, before the propaganda machine set in.
They were the first ones who reported it and now you want to play debunker historical revisionist by stating "conspiracy theorists" started this??

I'm begining to think some of you 'debunkers' aren't too well versed in the events of 9/11 as you lead us to believe. But certainly good at fallacies of omission and attacking the characters of those who questions the OCT.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
ATTN: You are all insane.
There is no "evil top secret organization" trying to stalk you down. You're just not that important. Stop trying to convince yourselves you are. No one cares about your psychotic ramblings. If anyone did, you'd already be gone, because by posting here, you give away your IP, therefore allowing any imaginary organization as powerful as the ones you all make up to find you, track you down, and arrest you.
You fail at life. Go get a job && a girlfriend.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Fitzgibbon-by the way I like your profile pic if that is you and I'm assuming it is. It looks like something out of a movie.


It isn't. Makes the next part of your post irrelevant.


Originally posted by Swing Dangler
I've seen that video before of course. I choose that as not an example based upon the eyewitness accounts of the jet flying in slower than the official speed. Either way, both videos do not have daily city back ground noise nor the sound of a huge explosion,


Uh......did you even actually look at the link?

youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ

Your linked video may not have the sound of a huge explosion but the one I linked to most assuredly does. That and the background racket of city noises should make it HARDER to discern the plane if it were flying anywhere near the speed your linked version is.



Originally posted by Swing Dangler
The plane does disappear from site quite quickly in both videos doesn't it?


Uh.....considering that the plane wasn't visible in my linked video, I'm at a loss to figure out where that comment came from. Certainly the sound levels are consistent with the Naudet Brothers footage (unless you're suggesting that that footage was faked or somesuch). And that is indicative of a plane going considerably faster than the one you linked.


Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Now place a huge fireball and smoke screen in front of it, take into account perceptual/situational blindness, and you have the world's largest magic trick.


Uh huh! A magic trick that fools people who didn't even see the magic plane fly over the Pentagon after the "huge fireball and smoke screen" it would've flown through? Interesting.


Originally posted by Swing Dangler
1. Please determine the actual speed of both planes in the Youtube! videos in comparison to eyewitness accounts of speeds of the Pentagon attack jet.


Are you actually suggesting that the plane that hit the Pentagon was going closer to the speed of your link?


Originally posted by Swing Dangler
2. We now know based upon the eyewitnesses, the plane was not traveling the estimated 500 mph or more that the 9/11 Commission states.


Because we know that selected non-expert eyewitnesses are to be believed more readily than expert witnesses, the FDR and radar tracking?


Originally posted by Swing Dangler
3. It is inconseqential as fly overs and jet traffic are a common part of the perceptal and audio environment. We do have reports of witnesses hearing the pilot gunning the engines prior to the alleged impact.


So....what? This is relevant because why?


Originally posted by Swing Dangler
4. I think we both forget about the huge explosion and nosie accompanied with the apparent detonation of a device at the Pentagon and the audio effects that accompany it as well as additional explosion/s heard from within the building.
------------


How do you forget the people who actually saw the plane crash into the building? Kind of inconvenient to your story, aren't they? You're saying all these people from every vantage point saw and heard an explosion and all their brains registered was that and not the airplane flying away that some would have undoubtedly seen? How do you address those whose view of actual explosion would've been blocked by the Pentagon yet don't report seeing a plane flying away. Unless the registration # was NCC-1701, there's just a teeny, tiny problem with that.


Originally posted by Swing Dangler
6. Why would a NCOIC recovery team member near the alleged impact hole write a letter in support of the Citizens Investigation Team?


You say. Colour me skeptical.


Originally posted by Swing Dangler
7. Why do you think witnesses in the Pentagon experienced more than one explosion?


Impact + fuel explosion? Just a wild stab at that one.


Originally posted by Swing Dangler
8. Why do you think a personal friend of mine employed by the United States Army as a explosive ordinance specialist with a focus on nuclear disarmament tell me he and members of his unit do not believe a plane hit the Pentagon?


I wouldn't know. I'm assuming this 'friend' is an actual person.


Originally posted by Swing Dangler
2. Why did the Air Force release Rades data that is false? What is the point?


Why, if this is such a well-organised and sophisticated 'magic act' would tripped-up by such a rookie kind of mistake? Why is it that 7 years + after the event, there's still a certain coterie of individuals clutching at semantic straws? Why are the same points being worried over again and again and again even though the 'smoking guns' have only served to have put holes in the footwear of 'Truthers'?

So many questions, so few answers.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Originally posted by Swing Dangler (SD)

(SD)"""The 'official evidence is precisely what has given rise to private
investigations!! Don't you get it?"""

And are you not able to grasp that the first OBVIOUS thing that all the people involved in this GIANT conspiracy would have to do is to make sure ALL THE EVIDENCE would perfectly MATCH THE OFFICIAL STORY???!!!

(SD)"""For example, you must be forced to believe that the plane flew over the Pentagon and over the light poles because the Flight Data Recorder from the plane says it was too high to impact! Welcome to the fly over club as started by the flight data recorder itself."""

Isn´t it OBVIOUS to you that IF there had been a flyover, the parties involved would NOT HAVE let this information be known???!!!
Would you be so dumb as to provide the information that shows you have lied and are guilty of multiple homicide and treason to your Country?

(SD)"""No explosive sounds? Now your calling firefighters, first responders, victims liars, those who first reported explosives going off were you guess it, the mainstream media...CNN, FOX, etc, before the propaganda machine set in."""
They were the first ones who reported it and now you want to play debunker historical revisionist by stating "conspiracy theorists" started this??

WASN´T MAINSTREAM MEDIA IN ON IT??? Make up your minds please.
Of course that phrase "before the propaganda machine set in" makes it all good doesn´t it. PLLEEAASE!!!



[edit on 26-1-2009 by rush969]

[edit on 26-1-2009 by rush969]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join