There Was No Missile At the Pentagon - But the Plane Did Not Hit

Originally posted by pteridine

Please provide photographic proof of an aircraft flying inbound NoC...

So far you have provided zero evidence.

Surely you jest.

Why would you insist on photographic proof of the plane while dismissing what all the independent witnesses from all critical surrounding vantage points unanimously report?



No matter how much you deny it, first-hand eyewitness accounts are admissible evidence in every court in the land.

Yet you have provided zero independent verifiable evidence to back up your faith.

Why do you abandon true skepticism and critical thinking principles as a means to dismiss evidence based on nothing but pure faith in the government?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Craig why even responds to these trolls? No matter what you tell them, no matter how much or how compelling the evidence is, they will never sway from their cult like faith based religious belief in the official story....

They are lowly time wasters nothing more and don't deserve a second of our time...

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


I was making the point that the burden of proof is on you. You had a witness that said NoC but also said the plane hit. You liked the NoC but not the impact. How did you explain away the testimony you didn't like? Where are all the witnesses to the outbound flyaway?
Is there any record, other than heresay, of evidence being planted? Is there any evidence of large fuel containers, or their pieces being discovered? This is necessary for the fireball and subsequent fires. Please do not say "hollywood effects" because to make a big fireball, they still need the volumes of hydrocarbon to burn for the effect whether you believe it or not. This is the thing that can't be accounted for. Small charges may not be easily seen but large volumes of fuel are difficult to hide.
Is there any evidence at all for high explosives? You claimed that the bent columns were indicative of explosives. You even claimed that they were bent outwards. If that was due to explosives, then parts of the building should have been blown outwards and pieces would have been scattered on the lawn far from the walls. There were none.
Your theory has little basis because it is inconsistent with physical evidence. The entire NoC scenario is your predetermined conclusion and now you must force everything to fit.This lynchpin of your theory has required you to bend, twist, and ignore witnesses and testimony regardless of how tortuous and illogical the path. Secretly planted evidence in broad daylight, doctored videos, explosives, and hundreds of conspirators are now part of your theory -- even a moving cab requiring split-second impalement by a planted light post. Are you looking for truth or looking to support your conclusion regardless of evidence?

reply to post by pteridine


NoC is not a theory at all let alone my "pre-determined" conclusion.

It is evidence.

Scientifically validated evidence that amounts to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the official narrative is false.

It has nothing to do with CIT. We simply reported first-hand witness accounts.

We went to Arlington to ask people what they saw and planned on reporting what they said regardless of the results.

We had no idea they would all unanimously report that the plane was on the north side proving it did not hit the building.

And yes there are flyover witnesses.

We have discovered an officially documented account archived with the Library of Congress from Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. who saw the plane flying away immediately after the explosion. We confirmed his account with him direct.

Recordings of both interviews have been provided.

Not to mention on December 13th 2001, the Center for Military History recorded an interview with employee Eirk Dihle who did not see the plane but ran outside immediately after the explosion and said that the first thing people were reporting was that a bomb went off and that a jet "kept on going".

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

-Erik Dihle to the CMH 12/13/2001

download recording here

Meanwhile you have provided ZERO physical evidence that "AA77"/tail #N644AA or ANY plane for that matter hit the building.

Zero.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Selective witnesses will help your cause. Two think they saw the plane fly away. How many think the plane hit? Witnesses get confused, too. In your earler posts, you had abandoned NoC for a while and were going with over the Annex. We read of and saw witnesses who said "over the Annex."
What happened to their testimony? No good?
The biggest problem with your latest version is explaining the fuel fire. Did any of the witnesses see a tanker truck? A big fuel tank? Pieces of a fuel tank on the lawn? Pieces of the Pentagon scattered about from the explosives? Explosive residue? Parts of demolition devices? Demolitons attached to the building? Demolitions attached to fuel tanks?
Did any witness report people planting evidence? People trucking in engine parts and landing gear? People planting dead bodies? Reports of passengers getting off at area 51? Renumbering of planes? A cab driving around with a light pole through the winshield? Anything?

In fact, you have provided no real evidence of anything that supports your theory.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

Selective witnesses will help your cause. Two think they saw the plane fly away. How many think the plane hit? Witnesses get confused, too. In your earler posts, you had abandoned NoC for a while and were going with over the Annex. We read of and saw witnesses who said "over the Annex."
What happened to their testimony? No good?

You've once again revealed how little you know about the topic at hand with this post, pteridine.

CIT has never "abandoned NoC" to embrace over the Navy Annex (ONA). You imply that the two are mutually exclusive. They are not, as you would know if you had viewed ANY of their major releases (or even read Craig's responses to you in this very thread!)

CIT has reported that the plane flew both ONA and then NOC ever since their first release, The PentaCon (2006), because that's where four eyewitnesses with perfect vantage points told them it flew. They have not backed off EITHER of these claims, EVER, because every witness they have talked to since then who was in a position to tell has also placed the plane on this same flight path, corroborating it to the point of redundancy.



See the big building next to Vantage 1? That's the Navy Annex. See Vantage 4? That's the Citgo Station. See the flight paths the witnesses drew? They say the plane flew over the Navy Annex AND north of the Citgo Station, as CIT has reported since day one.

You need to stop arguing and go watch CIT's presentations so you can have a clue what you are talking about.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Ligon]

reply to post by Ligon


One of the witnesses had the plane flying over the Annex and SoC. As I remember, it was drawn in pen on the overhead photo and signed. I don't have the thread reference but may be able to dig it out. I didn't think it was worth keeping track as the story was changing rapidly at that time. One plane, two planes, flash-bangs, witnesses coming and going; it seemed to change with each post. I did press for a single, unchanging theory at the time to debate and I guess that this is it. I was pointing out the whimsical nature of the acceptance or rejection of witness testimony but it is your/CIT's scenario, so I will not argue the NoC pathway with you.

Using NoC and the timed wall-breaching explosions, explain the fuel fireball and subsequent fuel fires, internal and external to the building, and anything else that you can explain as referenced in my previous posts.

posted by pteridine
reply to post by Ligon

 

Using NoC and the timed wall-breaching explosions, explain the fuel fireball and subsequent fuel fires, internal and external to the building, and anything else that you can explain as referenced in my previous posts.

Simple. A Hollywood style Special Effects explosion for the easily deceived, and lots of smoke from burning vehicles filled with diesel and/or Jet-A fuel. In this video in the first 50 seconds, you can see a fire department tanker located near the helipad next to the Pentagon wall, and the generator over to the south, both burning and providing lots of wonderful black smoke for the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY script which was pretending that an aircraft actually impacted the Pentagon. Perhaps the tanker was filled with jet fuel instead of water. Later in the video as the fire trucks cross the lawn in front of the helipad, there are no fuselage pieces laying on the grass for them to run over. Yes folks it was all a fake. Everything was staged at the Pentagon with planted explosives going off inside and outside the wall, and staged prepared fires.

Never Aired PENTAGON Footage 9/11

Of course people with brains now know for a fact that the real decoy aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and North of the Cirgo gas station and above the light poles and overhead highway sign, and went nowhere near the staged downed light poles and taxicab and burning generator trailer. Nor did any air frame impact the Pentagon.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2e2118604cd5.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 3/10/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by pteridine

 

You have presented zero evidence.

Your opinion is not evidence.

I have presented scientifically validated independent verifiable evidence proving the plane did not hit.

If, indeed, what you present is scientific. How, exactly, did you test your hypothesis that a plane did not hit?

reply to post by adam_zapple


Sorry?

We have no hypothesis.

We provide scientifically validated evidence proving the official hypothesis false.

So yes, we tested their officially documented hypothesis with independent verifiable evidence and it has been proven false.

Originally posted by SPreston

Simple. A Hollywood style Special Effects explosion for the easily deceived, and lots of smoke from burning vehicles filled with diesel and/or Jet-A fuel. Everything was staged at the Pentagon with planted explosives going off inside and outside the wall, and staged prepared fires.
Of course people with brains now know for a fact that the real decoy aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and North of the Cirgo gas station and above the light poles and overhead highway sign, and went nowhere near the staged downed light poles and taxicab and burning generator trailer. Nor did any air frame impact the Pentagon.

[edit on 3/10/09 by SPreston]

Hollywood style special effects that look like thousands of gallons of fuel burning are thousands of gallons of fuel burning. I can see that technical stuff is not your forte, Preston. There also seems to be no evidence of explosives going off inside or outside the wall, not even selected witnesses that are led to that testimony. Inside the wall explosives would have scattered parts of the wall all over the lawn. None noted. How did the cab drive to the its staging position while impaled by a light post? Where are the remains of the exploding diesel tanks?
People with brains know a contrived story reaching for a predetermined conclusion, and missing, when they see it. You are not searching for any "truth" Preston, you are trying to validate a story that just won't fit any evidence.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by adam_zapple

 

Sorry?

We have no hypothesis.

Your hypothesis is that the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

Originally posted by adam_zapple


Your hypothesis is that the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

That is your statement, not mine.

One has to state a hypothesis for there to be a hypothesis.

Our claim is simple....we provide independent verifiable evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the official 9/11 hypothesis/narrative is false.

Period.

That should be of concern to any true skeptic, patriot, or any person at all who is against mass murder and state sponsored terror.

Particularly since you can not provide a single piece of independent verifiable evidence to the contrary.

Why is your faith in the government so strong that you are willing to dismiss scientifically validated independent evidence contradicting what they told you?



[edit on 10-3-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple


Your hypothesis is that the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

That is your statement, not mine.

"The Pentagon Flyover

How They Pulled It Off"

That is your statement, not mine.

Faced with 2 scenarios:

- The plane didn't hit the pentagon
- The eyewitnesses are wrong about NOC

You hypothesize that the plane didn't hit the pentagon.

How did you scientifically test this hypothesis in order to come to your conclusion?

[edit on 11-3-2009 by adam_zapple]

[edit on 11-3-2009 by adam_zapple]

reply to post by adam_zapple



Sorry that is not a hypothesis...that is the title of a documentary.

Of course I believe the plane flew over because that is the only logical conclusion since the evidence proves it was NoC.

But I have not presented it as a hypothesis and frankly I really don't care what hypothesis you choose to accept for what happened to the plane after it flew NoC.

Our claim is simple, concise, and to the point.

Here it is again....pay attention this time:

We provide independent verifiable evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the official 9/11 hypothesis/narrative is false.

Since you have zero evidence to the contrary I can only conclude that you must agree with us.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by adam_zapple

 

Sorry that is not a hypothesis...that is the title of a documentary.

No need for semantics games
It is also a hypothesis...your proposed explanation for "how they pulled it off".

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Of course I believe the plane flew over because that is the only logical conclusion since the evidence proves it was NoC.

A more logical conclusion would be that a few people were wrong about the plane being north of the citgo station.
How did you test to determine that conclusion was correct?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We provide independent verifiable evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the official 9/11 hypothesis/narrative is false.

What you provide is a few eyewitnesses who make some claims which contradict the rest of the available evidence.

How did you verify that the eyewitnesses in your video were correct about the plane being north of citgo, and incorrect about the plane impacting?

[edit on 11-3-2009 by adam_zapple]

Originally posted by adam_zapple

No need for semantics games
It is also a hypothesis...your proposed explanation for "how they pulled it off".

Wrong.

A hypothesis needs to be formally stated and we have done no such thing.

We don't need to since we have evidence proving the official hypothesis false. This is all that needs to be done in order to prove a deception and cover-up of a black operation of mass murder.

Knowing (or hypothesizing) exactly what DID happen is not necessary to prove the official hypothesis false.

We tested their hypothesis and it definitively failed.

In light of this fact, if you are more interested in musing about exactly what happened as opposed to trying to restore our republic I think you need to take a long hard look at your priorities.

A more logical conclusion would be that a few people were wrong about the plane being north of the citgo station.
How did you test to determine that conclusion was correct?

That is YOUR conclusion.

How did you test it?

What you provide is a few eyewitnesses who make some claims which contradict the rest of the available evidence.

Incorrect.

You have provided zero independent verifiable evidence that contradicts them because there is none.

That is how we know they are correct.

Their claim is independently unanimous and unchallenged.

How did you verify that the eyewitnesses in your video were correct about the plane being north of citgo, and incorrect about the plane impacting?

Quite simply......one claim is unanimous and unchallenged and the other is merely deduction. Most of these witnesses admit that they only deduced the alleged impact. Most were physically unable to see the alleged impact point or the Pentagon at all but had a perfect view of the plane as it passed them.

Deducing is not witnessing.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Craig,
CIT has not addressed the problem of the fuel fires and complete lack of evidence for any sort of explosives, internal or external to the building.
Please do not come up with the "Hollywood special effects" explanation without providing evidence for the large amounts of fuel required.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple

No need for semantics games
It is also a hypothesis...your proposed explanation for "how they pulled it off".

Wrong.

A hypothesis needs to be formally stated and we have done no such thing.

You claim that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon. That's your (unproven) hypothesis whether you call it by that name or not.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We don't need to since we have evidence proving the official hypothesis false. This is all that needs to be done in order to prove a deception and cover-up of a black operation of mass murder.

Firstly...the evidence you present doesn't "prove the official hypothesis false"...secondly you would need to do more than prove the "official hypothesis" false in order to prove this flyover theory.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We tested their hypothesis and it definitively failed.

How did you test it?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

A more logical conclusion would be that a few people were wrong about the plane being north of the citgo station.
How did you test to determine that conclusion was correct?

That is YOUR conclusion.

How did you test it?

I don't claim that I can prove that my conclusion is correct, I'm simply pointing out that it's more logical than yours.

Is it possible for the eyewitnesses to be wrong about the flight path? Yes (Do you agree?)
Which conclusion best fits *ALL* of the available evidence? Of the 2, mine.
If you can come up with another scenario that better matches the available evidence, go for it.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

What you provide is a few eyewitnesses who make some claims which contradict the rest of the available evidence.

Incorrect.

You have provided zero independent verifiable evidence that contradicts them because there is none.

No true scotsman fallacy. All of the physical evidence contradicts the flyover theory. The fact that you don't want to accept that evidence does not mean that it doesn't exist. Furthermore, since it is you who are claiming a flyover, the burden of proof falls on you.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
That is how we know they are correct.

Their claim is independently unanimous and unchallenged.

-They don't all make the same claim
-They all drew a different flight path
-The physical evidence corroborates impact, not NOC.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

How did you verify that the eyewitnesses in your video were correct about the plane being north of citgo, and incorrect about the plane impacting?

Quite simply......one claim is unanimous and unchallenged and the other is merely deduction.

What claim is unanimous? Morin didn't mention the Citgo, Paik didn't mention the Citgo, Lloyd England didn't mention the Citgo. But every single one of them was unanimous on one point...that the plane hit the Pentagon.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Most of these witnesses admit that they only deduced the alleged impact. Most were physically unable to see the alleged impact point or the Pentagon at all but had a perfect view of the plane as it passed them.

Which of the eyewitnesses deduced the impact?

They do make the same claim, adam_zapple.

The plane flew "on the north side". That is, north of the official flight path, taking it over the Navy Annex and North of Citgo.

I'd say "surely you know this" but based on this comment maybe you don't.

Which of the eyewitnesses deduced the impact?

If you really don't know the answer to this question then you haven't watched the interview (or else you didn't pay much attention). If that's the case then it's ridiculous for you to be arguing here. Go watch them and see for yourself.

If you do know the answer then get to the point, because I don't think you have (a valid) one.

Your point that they don't draw overlapping flight paths is vacuous on its face. No reasonable person would ever expect them to do so no matter what flight path the plane was on.