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.

 

Heliport ATC Sean Boger: ultimate validation of northern approach

page: 8
13
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Can't remember seeing this video before, so will just put it in here to show for the record

that here is another simulated clip which completely support CIT's NOC and ONA flight
path.

Watch the plane fly over the annex at 0.11 into the clip!



www.youtube.com...




posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy

Can't remember seeing this video before, so will just put it in here to show for the record

that here is another simulated clip which completely support CIT's NOC and ONA flight
path.

Watch the plane fly over the annex at 0.11 into the clip!
www.youtube.com...


I agree.... which was another reason i posted/found that link.

and i'm still not understanding the anti-CIT logic/argument regarding how the P4T analysis is fallacious and not based on the facts.

Is there any anti-CIT/P4T argument showing EXACTLY HOW AND WHERE line by line the P4T video doc analysis is wrong? Did I miss something?

I see a well structured logical and reasonable argument with supporting evidence being presented that I see unchallenged except for ad homs and CLAIMS its wrong.

So where's the similar counter-argument?



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy

Can't remember seeing this video before, so will just put it in here to show for the record

that here is another simulated clip which completely support CIT's NOC and ONA flight
path.

Watch the plane fly over the annex at 0.11 into the clip!
www.youtube.com...


I agree.... which was another reason i posted/found that link.

and i'm still not understanding the anti-CIT logic/argument regarding how the P4T analysis is fallacious and not based on the facts.

Is there any anti-CIT/P4T argument showing EXACTLY HOW AND WHERE line by line the P4T video doc analysis is wrong? Did I miss something?

I see a well structured logical and reasonable argument with supporting evidence being presented that I see unchallenged except for ad homs and CLAIMS its wrong.

So where's the similar counter-argument?



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
MODS...

i have no idea how the duplicate post got there... weird... i only hit the post button once.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Yeah guys that animation is from National Geographic's historical piece on the Pentagon attack, "Seconds From Disaster".

It was released long before the fraudulent government data was released depicting the fake west of the river/southern approach loop.

So that means the only source National Geographic could have for this information at the time would have been eyewitnesses.

They depict all 3 fatal aspects of the flight path that we have reported based on all the witnesses we spoke with.

1. East of the Potomac (EoP):


2. Over the Navy Annex (ONA):


3. North of the citgo (NoC):


The notion that National Geographic simply "guessed" and reported the flight path virtually exact to what the witnesses would go on to tell us is rather silly.

But the fact remains, this flight path fatally contradicts all official data, reports, and the physical damage proving the plane did not hit the building.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Thanks Craig, for filling us in with the background info. Very interesting indeed!

And deep apologies to you matrixNIN11, for completely forgetting to mention you
as the source of the video.

I must have been too eager to get it out there, perhaps!!



new topics

top topics
 
13
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join