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: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler


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.



Farmer dug in deep and continues to...he found the facts.... Ranke scrapes the surface and picks what fits.

Look at the CIT history... he does not care about anything besides winning a debate with skeptics.




posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo


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.


It was assumed that the plane was damaged by one of the light poles.


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.


Did you know that April was knocked unconscious? He infant was crying when she woke? Do you know she passed out again once she got out of the Pentagon?

Do you really think April was looking for plane parts or would remember seeing them?




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".


Dude..this is so 2003. Where have you been? The press conference was not "peculiar" as you claim. I had been mentioned several times prior to 911 and post 911.


In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information.

www.defenselink.mil...

From March of 2000:


Pentagon's finances in disarray

By JOHN M. DONNELLY The Associated Press 03/03/00 5:44 PM Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's money managers last year made almost $7 trillion in adjustments to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, the Pentagon's inspector general said in a report released Friday.

The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments.

Each adjustment represents a Defense Department accountant's attempt to correct a discrepancy. The military has hundreds of computer systems to run accounts as diverse as health care, payroll and inventory. But they are not integrated, don't produce numbers up to accounting standards and fail to keep running totals of what's coming in and what's going out, Pentagon and congressional officials said.




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.


Do you have info on all these records being destroyed? And, wouldn't it be easier to rent a paper shredder?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Please provide me the witness interviews he has conducted that refute the north side evidence.

In fact please provide ANY witness interviews that he has conducted at all.

Hint: Shinki Paik is not a witness.

Farmer has not provided a single shred of independent verifiable evidence.

He is nothing but a conduit for government data.

I wrote a letter to Bush asking him if 9/11 was an inside job.

He wrote back saying no.

Case closed!



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Please provide me the witness interviews he has conducted that refute the north side evidence.

In fact please provide ANY witness interviews that he has conducted at all.

Hint: Shinki Paik is not a witness.

Farmer has not provided a single shred of independent verifiable evidence.

Why do you obsess on him so much?
You have started thread after thread about him and you go on and on about every chance you get.
Why do you do this?


He is nothing but a conduit for government data.

You intervied several government employees and used data supplied by government sources yet when others do it you label them as "government loyalists" and other similar attacks.
Why do you do this?

I wrote a letter to Bush asking him if 9/11 was an inside job.

He wrote back saying no.

Case closed!

What is with the sarcasim?
I thought you were a serious independent journalist
You stil have avoided my attempt at getting you to state your qualifications to be an, "independent journalist".

[edit on 26-1-2009 by 654321]

[edit on 26-1-2009 by 654321]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
OK. Let´s ask a few simple questions that make this conspiracy illogical.

1.- If we are going to say that AA77 crashed against the Pentagon killing the crew, passengers, and more than a hundred people in the building, but we are actually going to have a “flyover”, what must we do?
a.- We have to arrange the evidence.
b.- We must dispose of the bodies of those on the plane. (Crew and passengers. Hijackers not needed.)
c.- We have to take care of the FDR. (Flight data recorder.)

1.- If there is a “flyover” by the supposedly hijacked airliner, we will make sure we have lots of witnesses that will say, the plane crashed into the building, right? OK.
2.- If we are going to say that people in that plane died there, we have to kill those people somewhere, they have to be kidnapped and executed, right? Not easy but let´s say it can be done.
3.- If we are going to have the FDR appear in the "wreckage", we must decide one of two options:
3a.- The FDR is “unreadable” or destroyed. In this case, we are much better off, because there will be NO DATA to check. (Ideal solution.)
3b.- The FDR is OK. In this case, we must make sure, the data matches the official version of events. So the data will show the plane going in exactly where it is supposed to, at the exact speed it is supposed to, at the precise altitude it is supposed to. We would not under any circumstance allow data that provides proof of the flyover to reach the public. RIGHT???


[edit on 26-1-2009 by rush969]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Don't forget the light poles that were faked.
Also you have to pay off all those reporters that the PFT/CIT say were either in on it or paid off.
Aldo says a frozen cadaver was wheeled into the Pentagon.
How did they insure that the cadaver would thaw in time?
Wouldn't that be embarrassing if one of the first responders found a frozen body?


[edit on 26-1-2009 by 654321]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by 654321
 


It´s all quite simple really.
When something doesn´t agree with my theory. We´ve been lied to. They are moles. Government paid liars. Confused people, disoriented, etc.
If something agrees with my theory, it´s fact, it´s proof, it´s evidence. Doesn´t matter if I have only one guy against a hundred witnesses, scientists and experts that say different.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
OK. Let´s ask a few simple questions that make this conspiracy illogical.

1.- If we are going to say that AA77 crashed against the Pentagon killing the crew, passengers, and more than a hundred people in the building, but we are actually going to have a “flyover”, what must we do?
a.- We have to arrange the evidence.
b.- We must dispose of the bodies of those on the plane. (Crew and passengers. Hijackers not needed.)
c.- We have to take care of the FDR. (Flight data recorder.)

1.- If there is a “flyover” by the supposedly hijacked airliner, we will make sure we have lots of witnesses that will say, the plane crashed into the building, right? OK.
2.- If we are going to say that people in that plane died there, we have to kill those people somewhere, they have to be kidnapped and executed, right? Not easy but let´s say it can be done.
3.- If we are going to have the FDR appear in the "wreckage", we must decide one of two options:
3a.- The FDR is “unreadable” or destroyed. In this case, we are much better off, because there will be NO DATA to check. (Ideal solution.)
3b.- The FDR is OK. In this case, we must make sure, the data matches the official version of events. So the data will show the plane going in exactly where it is supposed to, at the exact speed it is supposed to, at the precise altitude it is supposed to. We would not under any circumstance allow data that provides proof of the flyover to reach the public. RIGHT???


[edit on 26-1-2009 by rush969]


One word, plane swap via Operation Northwoods. That is why it was important to have the plane disappear from site and radar for the amount of time that it took.

1. You don't have to have "lots of witnesses" to anything. Assumptions, deductions, and perceptual blindness took care of that. There are so many "witness" accounts that turn out to be not witness accounts to show that logical deduction replaced the actual viewing of the impact.

2. Ok, I disagree that its "not easy", especially in a swap scenario. The Op Northwoods called for fake passenger lists, etc.

3a. I agree with you on this, a destroyed FDR would have been much better like the alleged destroyed black boxes at the WTC complex. However those were reported to have been found by two firefighters and turned over to authorities. The collapse of 3 buildings can be blamed for that. A collapased wall can't justify that of course.
Humans are not immune to error. Keep in mind it was one number, the altitude, that triggered a huge controversy. Not only that, whoever was responsible for the FDR may have assumed that the last reading of the FDR was prior to the impact in time that deduction occurs even with the FDR. "Well sure the altitude of FDR shows the plane as being too high but we don't have several seconds at the end so we assumed it crash."
It would be nice if any Federal Agency would provide an explanation for the FDR and its contradictions. But all agencies involved, FBI, NTSB, etc. ignore! The NTSB passed the buck to the FDR. Perhaps a whistleblower left the information in. Who knows. But we don't have any explanation from the agencies that should be providing it.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon Uh......did you even actually look at the link? youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ

Tried to. Malinformed video id so it didnt' show up. I expected it was another low altitude fly by of a 747 that would be relevant to the discussion.


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.

I can't determine that with a dead link. See above.


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.

See above. I have seen and heard numerous impact videos at the WTC where the audio tracks do not match or were edited so if that is the video it is hard to tell. Don' t forget the re-verb effect from the towering buildings as well. That is why I used a more open environment like the 'gon.


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.

Are you suggesting the explosion took place prior to impact? No one has ever suggested that. Your avoiding the very real perceptual blindness issue that many suffered that day. Rossevelt Roberts Jr.did not suffer that because he was not in a position to see the impact, but he did see a plane fly over.


Are you actually suggesting that the plane that hit the Pentagon was going closer to the speed of your link?
No. I'm suggesting the speed of the plane was not what was reported in the 9/11 Commission Report based upon the eyewitness testimonies. I can't determine what the speeds were in the fly by videos. Hence the request.


Because we know that selected non-expert eyewitnesses are to be believed more readily than expert witnesses, the FDR and radar tracking?
Sir, welcome to the fly over club. The altimeter from the FDR has the plane flying too high to hit the light poles and the Pentagon. That's the point! And when asked to clarify or provide explanation, the NTSB passed the buck to the FBI. And no answers have been provided to this day.

So....what? This is relevant because why?
See my earlier post on perceptual/situational blindness and how it costs lives.


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.
Not at all. This is exactly why verifiable independent corroboration of eyewitness accounts on the record has to take place. In a court of law, how would anonymous accounts be viewed? Inadmissible? There are numerous accounts already of alleged impact witnesses who have since clarified that they didn't see impact

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. I don't say.

The message is on the homepage of CIT. Feel free to examine it.

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

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



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

It was assumed that the plane was damaged by one of the light poles.





So that's why the wings didn't damage the pentacon eh? They got knocked off, right? I guess the engines did as well? Or the logical conclusion is the pentalawn was impervious to any damage and they were all funneled into that incredibly unlikely cone of damage..

I always have a chuckle at the almost disproportionate amount of most likely paid debunkers that attack CIT evidence. For me it is a big can of fluro spraypaint exploding in a whitewear store - CIT is obviously onto something, something big that the govt does not want out.

Keep at it CIT.. I love seeing the worms struggling on the end of the hook.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by GhostR1der
 


So I suppose the fact that the engines were found inside the Pentagon means nothing to you?



Or the fact that the wing imprints were found on the side of Pentagon? Or did CIT forget to mention these little facts? They shouldn't be witholding information should they?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is a pic from another thread on the Pentagon Damage:



so you can see easier:


And another pic:


Gee, CIT couldnt find this evidence itself?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
So I suppose the fact that the engines were found inside the Pentagon means nothing to you?

Can you supply serialised part numbers for the alleged 'engines' or are they just more pictures of junk, scrap metal, GenRadek?



Or the fact that the wing imprints were found on the side of Pentagon?

Well, you would think that if they found alleged wing imprints, they would have also been able to find the WINGS?!? You can't have 'imprints' without the wings that caused them, right?

Care to provide evidence of serialised part numbers for the two alleged wings that were allegedly on the alleged plane?

[edit on 28-1-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 06:37 AM
link   
The one thing I have noticed about all of CIT's threads is the re-occurrance of several members who seem hell-bent on disproving CIT's theories. One might even see it as some sort of 'gang-mentality' - they feed off each others enthusiasm to disprove CIT.

Now I consider myself to be a logical, intelligent person and I have to admit I see merit in the CIT investigation. It seems to me that these certain 'over-enthused' members overlook some of the more convincing evidence and try to nail down their argument by consistently hounding CIT and any other person who DARES to entertain the thought that perhaps CIT is right with the little tid-bits that they have successfully managed to disprove.

Sorry for the rant, just thought that needed to be said. Keep up the good work CIT



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Oh please. Your arguments are so old and debunked long ago and have NOTHING to do with the topic.

That is not an "engine" it is merely a relatively small part from one.

But there is no photographer credit and we have no idea when or where that image was taken. It could have been taken in Rumsfeld's tool shed for all we know. Accepting that un-sourced image as valid evidence is the same as simply taking Bush for his word.

As far as your "wing damage" images go......you are looking at pictures POST collapse and even POST recovery days later when the clean up efforts had started! You can even see the shoring already up.

Let's take a look at the same spot PRE-COLLAPSE and immediately after collapse:


No alleged "wing damage".



See the shoring from your images?

That is not damage from a wing. If it was there would have been damage to the facade in this area pre-collapse. This is merely damage as a result of the collapse.

Here is a wider pre-collapse shot showing how there is no continuity to this alleged "wing damage" at all.


This is actually physical evidence that a plane did NOT hit.

Using images of damage from days later and attributing it to a plane is straight up deceptive and this is the nature of the disinformation that catherder's harmful thread has been spreading for years.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


Thanks so much Kryties!

That's why I stick with it.

Because I know that the readers are mostly people like you who can see right through their nonsense and understand common sense, logic, honesty, and independent verifiable evidence.

Cheers!



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I think it's terribly ironic and sort of sad that truthers put this much stock and research and effort into ONE single witness. Yet, they can dismiss dozens of others witnesses out of hand who said they saw the jet strike the Pentagon.

Why don't you put as much effort into proving all those who said they saw the jet hit wrong instead? Oh wait.. I guess you guys did that. They interviewed less than half, and decided that was enough I guess.

Nothing like unbiased research and investigation, I always say!



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

posted by fleabit
I think it's terribly ironic and sort of sad that truthers put this much stock and research and effort into ONE single witness. Yet, they can dismiss dozens of others witnesses out of hand who said they saw the jet strike the Pentagon.

Why don't you put as much effort into proving all those who said they saw the jet hit wrong instead? Oh wait.. I guess you guys did that. They interviewed less than half, and decided that was enough I guess.



Which ONE single witness were you referring to? Didn't you mean the 13+ reinterviewed eyewitnesses placing the aircraft Over the Naval Annex? Or perhaps you meant the 20+ eyewitnesses placing the aircraft Over the Naval Anex, most of whom were originally interviewed way back in 2001? According to the OP, there are certainly more than just one witness alleging a flyover and an aircraft which just kept going.

What is wrong with YOU finding and reinterviewing the alleged eywitnesses who supposedly saw the aircraft on the OFFICIAL STORY flight path south of the Naval Annex and south of Columbia Pike, and allegedly reporting an impact? Perhaps it is because YOU instinctively know they are unfindable as in do not exist or never existed?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


I love how folks enjoy calling others liars when they have no clue. It is a tried and often successful CIT technique in order to prompt someone to reveal information they otherwise would not reveal (goading). I have often fallen for the tactic myself; until I learned that I was doing exactly what they wanted.

No, unlike Craig who posts information and interviews that he has gained "off-the-record", I keep confidences. So the kindergarten "liar, liar, pants on fire" stuff just don't bother me anymore. But sorry to break it to you guys, there are too many folks who post here that have been either copied on the emails, or privy to the original recordings, so it won't wash.

CIT rode on Russell Pickering's coattails to the Citgo in 2006 and found some interesting eyewitnesses. Then they followed my coat-tails since 2007 and found more interesting eyewitnesses. Russell and I are glad we could help, but you guys really should try to be original and not just simply deluded.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


You do a lot of mouth running while presenting zero evidence to back up your claims.

Sorry but that doesn't work in the real world particularly given the fact that you have been proven to lie about evidence in the past to fraudulently promote a 2-plane disinfo conspiracy theory exactly like we predicted you would.

Yes there are A LOT of parallels between you and Pickering but it sure has nothing to do with us riding your "coattails".

You were both proven wrong by the evidence, both spiraled out of emotional control and publicly "quit" the truth movement, and you both went so far as to delete your websites.

The only difference is that Pickering disappeared and you became a full-fledged character on jref fighting day and night of your retired life to defend the official story and attack us behind a monkey avatar.

So here you are fulfilling your personal agenda against us on ATS while ignoring the topic AGAIN.

To say we road your coattails is a joke. You didn't even exist until you appeared out of nowhere simultaneously attacking and trying to infiltrate CIT and P4T around the same time The PentaCon was first released. You only exist because of your efforts to attack us and the state of your website reveals the fruit of your efforts:

www.911files.com



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Thanks for the laugh Craig. Stop by AAL77.COM and after spending a month or so with the evidence (and actually understand it), then come back and tell me how I have "no evidence".



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join