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.

 

New Pentagon Video Detailing Actual Flight Path Over Naval Annex

page: 14
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Also, the graphic that says the nose of the plane created the hole in the C-ring hole. I beleive that is incorrect. We were told on site that the engine block of the plane is what created that hole as parts of the engine were found in that area. The nose would have been obliterated at impact as its metal not as dense as the engine.


The graphic does not say that the nose of the plane created the C-ring hole, but rather just points out that the specific path required to hit all five light poles also happens to put the nose, or more importantly the center of the fuselage, in line with the C-ring hole.

As you say the nose would have been destroyed on impact, and even the ASCE says this in their report.

You raise a valid point though about the engine. As a matter of fact the ASCE does IMPLY that the engine caused the damage to the C-ring hole, but do not outright explicitly state it.

What they DO state on p. 35 of their report however is that "The site data indicate that the aircraft fuselage impacted the building at column line 14 at an angle of approximately 42 degrees to the normal to the face of the building."

On another page, they get more specific, saying: "The orientations of the distorted columns and the columns that were severed all indicated a common direction for the loads that caused the damage. The direction of column distortion consistently formed an angle of approximately 42 degrees with the normal to the west exterior wall of the Pentagon."

They say "approximately 42". 42 is a very specific number. It's not 40 or 41 or 43 or 44 or 45. This implies a margin of error of less than one degree.



This 42 degree approach angle (with the nose hitting at CL 14) has the right engine lining up pretty close to the C-ring hole. But the thing is, not only is this approach from south of the gas station, but it is actually even MORE south than the image I posted above... so far in fact that it would miss three of the light poles that were down.

The ASCE is telling you there that the plane HAD to approach from a very specific trajectory which is well south of the gas station in order to cause the damage that they observed.

Please take a moment to read my post here to see more relevant images and analysis.

z3.invisionfree.com...

Also, as you can see even a plane approaching from the closest possible hypothetical north of Citgo approach would still not have its engine line up with the C ring hole anyway, and it would be even more drastically off if it approached from a trajectory that is consistent with the witness statements/drawings. In fact, in both cases the ENTIRE plane would miss the C-ring hole.



[edit on 30-6-2009 by Ligon]




posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Ligon
 


Yes, Ligon. I get it now, as BigSarge seems to agree with you.

But, hey! At least it shows that Craig isn't always wrong!



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge


By "way" I mean asking leading questions that get an answer from me that matches your theory. Certainly did not mean you have been disrespectful in any way.


My questions have not been leading at all.

I wanted to interview you before you saw this info but you refused.

That's ok but in order to continue the discussion I have no choice but to show you the evidence.

I am relaying the facts when comparing your acknowledged vantage in relation to the required official flight path.

This has nothing to do with a "theory" and is strictly concerning what you and all the witnesses in the area unanimously reported.



Thanks for the overlay. If you look at the north side projections, while it is not exactly over ANC, if you were standing in that section and had a large passenger jet come overhead as where it is labelled "Witness drawings" I would need to look up in order to see it. From my vantage point, the plane was close to if not just above my eyeshot. I did not need to rotate my neck and head and eyes upward very much at all to see the plane. It was not within range that if I threw a baseball that i could have hit it. Hopefully this makes sense to you.


Yes it does and it makes sense with the variety of flight paths as drawn by ALL the witnesses from different vantage points/perspectives.

Some have it closer to the citgo, some have it closer to ANC but ALL of them have it on the north side of the gas station.

This proves the plane did not hit.

Are you sure you watched the presentation?

Did you see what the witnesses at the gas station reported?

Obviously they are in an infinitely better position to tell where the plane was in relation to the gas station than you were.

Clearly this makes sense with where you place the plane and is the ONLY way you would have seen the plane at all as you admit here:




But I do agree with you in that, if it were flying the "official path" in relation to the annex, most likely I would not have been able to see it at all, just based on the lay of the ground I was on. My best guess is that it was located somewhere between the "official path" and flying directly over the Citgo. But, that's just a guestimate based on how far the plane appeared to be away from my location. It was also coming in at a slightly downturned angle, not straight in 50 feet off the ground so to speak.



Thanks again for being candid.

There is zero room for error in the official flight path due to the downed light poles, generator damage, and all damage to the building.

Therefore, if you saw the plane as you claim, it proves Roosevelt Roberts Jr correct about seeing the plane fly away "about 50 feet" altitude immediately after the explosion.

Did you watch that part of the presentation?

People saw the plane flying away BigSarge.




I don't have any information about light poles, so really don't feel the need to speculate.


You don't have to speculate.

We provide photographic proof of their location and they are EXCLUSIVELY in alignment with the official flight path that you just admitted would not allow you to see the plane at all.

If you saw the plane as you claim it did not hit the light poles or the building.




Same with a C-130. I did not see one at any point that I remember, but doesn't mean it wasn't there. Just that I did not see it.



It was there 3 minutes later as confirmed by video, photographs, and numerous eyewitnesses.

If you watch the interview with Keith Wheelhouse you will be amazed.

He says he saw "AA77" and the C-130 flying together for 60 seconds from the exact same section of ANC where you were located!!!!

Think about that.




You say that it is impossible for the plane to have hit, but just as I said before, maybe take my advice in never saying never or impossible. Anything is possible, but maybe from your investigation you feel it is unlikely. If the plane were as I THINK it was, the damage inside is/was entirely possible, even scientifically. And you still don't answer my question. Saying "they" have "advanced weaponry" is just guessing on your part. I'd like to hear of something tangible that explains how anything other than a plane could have caused the actual damage and debris inside the Pentagon.




I do not claim to know exactly how they caused the damage or to have evidence for this so, like you, I prefer not to speculate. But I know for certain that it is 100% impossible to be caused by a plane on the north side of the gas station.

This is a scientific fact that is not up for debate BigSarge.

That's why all these posters who hate me and latch on to every word I say are going so crazy trying to discredit all the witnesses that report this, just as they would try to discredit you.

What you saw proves the plane did not hit because as you ADMIT, you would not be able to see it on the official south side approach that has zero room for error.

Please read this article:
Why does it matter which side of the gas station the plane flew on? Couldn’t the plane have flown on the north side of the gas station and still hit the light poles and building?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Ligon
 


Also, most of the damage inside the structure, and I am talking damage to walls, cubicles, basically easy stuff to damage was the left of the blast hole. When we were cleaning out the debris, we walked in and out of that hole many times, particularly before they shored up the supports to where we could clean out the section that collapsed. I have no idea what that means or what the implications might be, but it seemed the majority of the fire and damage inside were to the left of where the section of the bulding collapsed. On the other side of the collapsed section, the damage was not that extensive at all, especially on the higher floors. Most seemed to be from smoke and or from the concussion of the blast.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge


Weedwhacker, not to defend Craig as I do not wish to take sides in this, I think he was inferring that Keith Wheelhouse was a fraud.

If he says he was in that section of ANC, I'd really like to know how and why he was there. He certainly was not a member of the Honor Guard or ANC staff. He was not a family member of the funeral that was taking place as it was an African-American family. If he were a tourist, he would have been ushered away from that section prior to the funeral as they are considered private events and tourists are moved away. the only possible option that he would have been allowed to be in that section/area is if he where visiting an actual gravesite. So he should be able to tell you who he was visiting and why. Pretty easy to debunk if he doesn;t have that info.





He claims he was there for a funeral for his brother-in-law.

The fact that the funeral you were attending was for an African-American family is very important information, thank you.

Yes Keith Wheelhouse is DEFINITELY debunked but the fact that the Daily Press featured his account so heavily in the first few weeks after the event is very telling.

They implied the C-130 was in the airspace at the time of the event when we know for a fact he was not there until 3 minutes later.

This served as perfect cover for the flyover and explains why people like Roosevelt Roberts wrote it off to being "another plane".

Watch our interview with Wheelhouse, you will be amazed.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


I watched the presentation, and saw no one who was inside the Pentagon courtyard that saw the plane fly over.

Also, I did not state that I would not be able to see it unless it was north of the Citgo. Based on the fact that it was not THAT CLOSE to me, I feel it was either directly over the Citgo, or just south of the Citgo. What also matters is the altitude at that point. If it were 1,000 feet off the ground I could have seen it from over I-395, even south of the "official" report.

Yes, I know it wasn't that high, but just making the point that its altitude at the point it passed over the annex area/direction makes a difference in what anyone from ANC would have seen.

IMO, every time I read your statments that say something is not debatable and is absolute fact it somewhat discredits your work here. It says you have decided and are closed minded on what actually happened. no one truly knows every detail as it happens except for God himself. You are making assumptions based on witnesses which if you look at ALL of the witness accounts as a whole and not just the ones that fit your theory, vary WIDELY.

Personally, I tend to believe my own eyes and experience over that of someone else trying to tell me what I did or did not see. I encourage you to continue speculating, but would love to see you take some of your considerable investigation skills and apply them to finding out how and why this plane was not stopped before hitting the Pentagon rather than arguing over its flight path 50 feet left or right. Even if you believe your own theory, that the plane did not crash, but flew over. Have you put any research into finding out where the plane went? And how many people would need to be involved to make such a mission possible? Quite a few great Soldiers were killed in that attack. And I don't know of ANYONE, much less 100's of government people that would assit in covering up and/or perpetrating such an event. AND still be able to keep it quiet 8 years later.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by BigSarge]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge

Has anyone every been interviewed who was located in the courtyard that saw or heard a large passenger jet flyover? I can tell you, it was very loud as it passed with engines running high. Someone there would have seen or at least heard the very loud jets just overhead flying away from them. Even with the explosion.



Roosevelt Roberts Jr saw it as did others as reported by Erik Dihle.

As described by the ANC maitenance workers who unlike you, had a clear view of the approach, it was in a significant bank.

It was barely over the building and the bank continued over the south parking lot which means it may have missed the courtyard for the most part.

Maybe some people in the courtyard did see it but if they did they are afraid to talk, with good reason.

The only reason Roosevelt Roberts talked is because he was deceived into thinking it was a "another plane" and did not understand the implications.

But we know for a fact that there was no second "commercial airliner" at 50 feet altitude flying away immediately after the explosion as if it "missed its target, missed the landing zone".

The fact that military people in the courtyard aren't talking does not disprove the fact that you saw the plane proving the officially required flight path false.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

He is the ONLY person who talks of the C-130 as a "shadow" right alongside"AA77".


You're doing it again. See that bold word in your paraphrased quote of Keith Wheelhouse. It's not in his original statements and the gestures with his hands in no way indicated the C-130 was alongside AA 77.

Of course, he used the the wrong word to describe what he was illustrating with his hands. His hands can not stretch for the 5 or so miles which is where the C-130 was behind AA 77. But, it's to your advantage to interpret the word "shadow" literally, so that you can disqualify him as he says things you don't want to hear. If what he said were interpreted figuratively as opposed to literally, he described perfectly the relationship of the C-130 to AA 77.

BTW, I don't see any of the rational opposition to your FRAUD attempting to influence BigSarge's view. He is being cautioned that if you don't like what he say you will smear him all over the locations you post on the Internet and that is a legitimate concern as you have done it in the past and there is valid concern that you will continue doing it. However, you and your minions are obviously desperately deluging him with graphics and words to influence his opinion. Some "truth seeker" you are.....NOT.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge
Also, most of the damage inside the structure, and I am talking damage to walls, cubicles, basically easy stuff to damage was the left of the blast hole. When we were cleaning out the debris, we walked in and out of that hole many times, particularly before they shored up the supports to where we could clean out the section that collapsed.



it seemed the majority of the fire and damage inside were to the left of where the section of the bulding collapsed. On the other side of the collapsed section, the damage was not that extensive at all, especially on the higher floors. Most seemed to be from smoke and or from the concussion of the blast.


Thank you for relaying these details.

What you are saying (if I'm understanding you correctly, which I think I am) jives perfectly with what the ASCE documented.




I have no idea what that means or what the implications might be


This is the part that is very hard to swallow. The implications again are that the plane had to approach from a very specific flight path. This flight path is well south of the gas station, where all of the witnesses in the video (National Security Alert) -- all of whom were in various excellent positions to judge the plane's location in relation to that landmark -- insist it did not fly. It is also a fight path on which the plane would have been invisible to you, had it flown there, which your account and others prove that it did not.

As Pentagon Renovation Manager Lee Evey explains: "...this is the damage pattern that we see to the columns inside the building, and you can almost trace the path of the aircraft. This is why we believe it came in at an angle. The key here is, the red dots are where the columns are missing or cut completely."

This is why the ASCE was able to be so specific about the approach angle, and why they have multiple images depicting it like this one.



Again, this specific angle is not where the plane flew, proving that it did not hit the building. If it had hit the building from the flight path described by all of the those witnesses it would have caused a completely different damage path.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Ligon]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by BigSarge

Has anyone every been interviewed who was located in the courtyard that saw or heard a large passenger jet flyover? I can tell you, it was very loud as it passed with engines running high. Someone there would have seen or at least heard the very loud jets just overhead flying away from them. Even with the explosion.



Roosevelt Roberts Jr saw it as did others as reported by Erik Dihle.

As described by the ANC maitenance workers who unlike you, had a clear view of the approach, it was in a significant bank.

It was barely over the building and the bank continued over the south parking lot which means it may have missed the courtyard for the most part.

Maybe some people in the courtyard did see it but if they did they are afraid to talk, with good reason.

The only reason Roosevelt Roberts talked is because he was deceived into thinking it was a "another plane" and did not understand the implications.

But we know for a fact that there was no second "commercial airliner" at 50 feet altitude flying away immediately after the explosion as if it "missed its target, missed the landing zone".

The fact that military people in the courtyard aren't talking does not disprove the fact that you saw the plane proving the officially required flight path false.







Who are these "others"? Roosevelt Roberts alone, out of the hundreds of possible witnesses to a fly away is no where near enough to even consider that it actually did so. And based on the speed and trajectory I witnessed, there is no way the plane could have banked enough in any direction as to not fly over the courtyard. If the contention is that it banked over the south parking lot, then there should be even MORE witnesses. people in the parking lot, people in buildings in Crystal City which is just south of the Pentagon. there must be literally just as many if not MORE witnesses to a flyway than those who witnessed it flying towards the Pentagon. once there was an explosion, it gave everyone within earshot a reason to look that direction.

Honestly, ask yourself wouldn't there be 5 times as many witnesses to a fly away is there is to a fly to? There's no way it would NOT have passed over the highway leaving the scene. Where are all those witnesses? We should see 5 times as many videos of those folks. it just doesn't make viable sense that we do not.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Roosevelt Roberts Jr saw it as did others as reported by Erik Dihle.


I love how you stretch to find someone who can verify a "flyover". Both would be disqualified immediately in a formal setting. Roberts' doesn't make sense and Dihle doesn't even remember saying what you indicate he said.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
As described by the ANC maitenance workers who unlike you, had a clear view of the approach, it was in a significant bank.


You're doing it again. NO ONE said or illustrated a significant bank at all. They all described and illustrated a very shallow bank. If the aircraft was flying the flight path they/you say there would have been no mistake. They would have thought it was doing a airshow.

Is anyone keeping count of how many times he's twisted words just in this thread alone?

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Reheat]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge

I watched the presentation, and saw no one who was inside the Pentagon courtyard that saw the plane fly over.


How do you know? Have you talked to everyone who was in the courtyard? Don't you think if they DID see it that they would be reticent to talk about it?



Also, I did not state that I would not be able to see it unless it was north of the Citgo. Based on the fact that it was not THAT CLOSE to me, I feel it was either directly over the Citgo, or just south of the Citgo. What also matters is the altitude at that point. If it were 1,000 feet off the ground I could have seen it from over I-395, even south of the "official" report.

Yes, I know it wasn't that high, but just making the point that its altitude at the point it passed over the annex area/direction makes a difference in what anyone from ANC would have seen.


You admitted you would not have seen it on the official flight path.

The fact you are having trouble accepting is that it HAS to be on the official flight path to hit the light poles, generator trailer, and cause the directional damage to the building.

Obviously whatever you "feel" about it's exact location to the gas station (that you could not see from your location) means nothing when considering what all the witnesses at the gas station independently and unanimously report.

Do you really think they were all so drastically mistaken the same way?

There is NO WAY Sgt Lagasse would mistake a plane flying directly over him for one that was north of him and the station as EVERYONE else reported.




IMO, every time I read your statments that say something is not debatable and is absolute fact it somewhat discredits your work here. It says you have decided and are closed minded on what actually happened. no one truly knows every detail as it happens except for God himself. You are making assumptions based on witnesses which if you look at ALL of the witness accounts as a whole and not just the ones that fit your theory, vary WIDELY.



No...I am stating a simple fact about ONE claim.

The plane MUST be south of the citgo in order to hit the light poles, generator trailer, and damage to the building.

This is a proven fact as much as 2+2=4.

That's why none of these people who are here working so hard to discredit me and the witnesses are willing to accept that they could be right about this.



Personally, I tend to believe my own eyes and experience over that of someone else trying to tell me what I did or did not see. I encourage you to continue speculating, but would love to see you take some of your considerable investigation skills and apply them to finding out how and why this plane was not stopped before hitting the Pentagon rather than arguing over its flight path 50 feet left or right. Even if you believe your own theory, that the plane did not crash, but flew over. Have you put any research into finding out where the plane went? And how many people would need to be involved to make such a mission possible? Quite a few great Soldiers were killed in that attack. And I don't know of ANYONE, much less 100's of government people that would assit in covering up and/or perpetrating such an event. AND still be able to keep it quiet 8 years later.



You are asking me to speculate.

I will not do that.

I provide hard evidence.

Firsthand evidence.

The fact that your account matches all the witnesses in our presentation, and as you admit, CONTRADICTS the official flight path speaks volumes.

The plane can not hit from the north side and you would not have seen it on the south side.

Did you see the part about the cab driver? Did you see the location of his cab and the downed light pole south of the bridge? This beyond implausible story is ONLY reconcilable with a south side approach and as you admit you would not have been able to see the plane!





posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT





Hay, SPreston....

What you're seeing here is desperation personified. Take and look and learn the definition is this is the epitome.



Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



[Mod Edit - Trim excessive quote]

[edit on 30/6/2009 by Sauron]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge


Who are these "others"? Roosevelt Roberts alone, out of the hundreds of possible witnesses to a fly away is no where near enough to even consider that it actually did so. And based on the speed and trajectory I witnessed, there is no way the plane could have banked enough in any direction as to not fly over the courtyard. If the contention is that it banked over the south parking lot, then there should be even MORE witnesses. people in the parking lot, people in buildings in Crystal City which is just south of the Pentagon. there must be literally just as many if not MORE witnesses to a flyway than those who witnessed it flying towards the Pentagon. once there was an explosion, it gave everyone within earshot a reason to look that direction.



Now you are resorting to speculation.

Erik Dihle reported "more" flyover witnesses to the CMH only weeks after the event.

So we know there ARE more witnesses.

If they understand the implications they are afraid to talk. We have found some like this.

If they don't understand the implications, they are hard to find.

That doesn't mean they don't exist and it doesn't prove Roosevelt a liar or that he was hallucinating this plane.




Honestly, ask yourself wouldn't there be 5 times as many witnesses to a fly away is there is to a fly to? There's no way it would NOT have passed over the highway leaving the scene. Where are all those witnesses? We should see 5 times as many videos of those folks. it just doesn't make viable sense that we do not.


5 times?

You are making that up.

Why are you speculating?

Most people on the west side who saw the plane approach would NOT have been able to see it fly away and their attention would be diverted to the explosion.

People on the other side DID see it fly away.

I'm sorry to see that you are willing to blow off Roosevelt as a liar or some how having hallucinated the plane.

You will eventually have to come to terms with this: the plane HAD to be on the south side approach to hit the light poles, the generator trailer, and the building and as you already admitted you would not have been able to see it if this was the case.






[edit on 30-6-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Dihle doesn't even remember saying what you indicate he said.


What Craig indicates he said?

Here is an mp3 of Erik Dihle actually saying it to the Center for Military History (right click and "Save As")

www.thepentacon.com...

Are you misinformed or are you trying to misinform others?

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Ligon]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by BigSarge
 


Many thanks for taking the time to relate your experience to us, it's refreshing to get a new perspective on a part of this tragic business known as 9/11.

You're finding how desperately certain parties will cling to their personal conclusions, rightly or wrongly, in order to get their ideas into the spotlight. I just hope that it doesn't put you off at all.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

NO ONE said or illustrated a significant bank at all.


I'm not even going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and ask if you are misinformed. You are lying and you know it.







[edit on 30-6-2009 by Ligon]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Instead of turning this into an arguement that obviously neither side is going to admit being wrong about. Let's use Craig's assumption that the plane did not crash into the Pentagon.

Where did the plane and its passengers go and why would the government want these people kept alive? Why not crash them into the Pentagon and "destroy the evidence" of the conspiracy? Not only the innocent passengers, but also the terrorists who were seen boarding the flight at Dulles?

Since you seem to be convinced of the fly away, have you begun an investigation on this? Any evidence found?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by BigSarge
 


Certainly very good questions, Sarge. Been asked, repeatedly. Never a clear answer. Usually a deflection, and subject change.

I have seen/heard of responders finding a child's doll inside the Pentagon rubble. Conspiracy buffs/No plane buffs explain that as likely belonging to one of the Pentagon employees, completely glossing over the fact that there was a class of kids onboard, from a school in DC, on their first airplane ride, ever.

RealAudio link: audio.pbs.org:8080...

www.pbs.org...

KWAME HOLMAN: When American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon, taking the lives of all on board, it carried eight members of a National Geographic Society field trip, including students and teachers from Washington, D.C. Leading the trip were Geographic Society staffers Ann Judge, 49, and Joe Ferguson, 39. Lanny Proffer worked with them.




I've been flying for over 30 years, with just over 23 of them at a major airline, and because aviation can sometimes be a somewhat small community, I was casually acquainted with David Charlesbois, the F/O on AAL77. I was honored to attend his funeral, in DC, along with what looked like most of his co-workers from the American Airlines IAD crew base. I wore my uniform as respect...even though I stood out amongst all of the AAL uniforms. There were crewmembers with their luggage...they had either just gotten in from a trip to attend, or they werre about to leave for work immediately after the funeral.

I'd say it's a pretty big stretch of imagination to suggest that the friends and family of every victim, not just the ones on the airplane, have been fooled, or are complicit in some sort of "cover-up".





[edit on 6/30/0909 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 6/30/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge
Instead of turning this into an arguement that obviously neither side is going to admit being wrong about. Let's use Craig's assumption that the plane did not crash into the Pentagon.


BigSarge,

You said you were neutral, but you seem to clearly be on the "side" which believes that the plane hit the building.

You also seem not to be willing to face the fact that in order for that to have happened every eyewitness in the video (National Security Alert) has to have been wildly incorrect in the exact same way about where the plane flew from their various excellent vantage points and Roosevelt Robert's Jr. has to have hallucinated seeing a large commercial aircraft at about 50 feet altitude seconds after the alleged impact.

This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a physical impossibility for the plane on the north side to hit the light poles, generator trailer, or cause the directional damage to the building outlined in the ASCE report, and which you saw yourself.

Again, please see here:
citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Please don't shoot the messenger.


Where did the plane and its passengers go and why would the government want these people kept alive?


There's no indication that they are alive. If they are, you'll have to ask the planners of this event why. All CIT has done is provide evidence that their plane did not hit the Pentagon.

Also, this is addressed in the FAQ on CIT's site. It's the very first one actually. "If Flight 77 did not hit the building what happened to its passengers and crew?"

citizeninvestigationteam.com...


Why not crash them into the Pentagon and "destroy the evidence" of the conspiracy? Not only the innocent passengers, but also the terrorists who were seen boarding the flight at Dulles?


I can think of a number of good reasons based on the data, but it is best to address that question to the planners as only they know for sure.


Since you seem to be convinced of the fly away, have you begun an investigation on this? Any evidence found?


The north side approach is evidence of the flyaway. So is Roosevelt Robert's Jr.'s account. So is the fact that there are proven liars like Keith Wheelhouse pushing a bogus 2nd plane cover story that would convince people like Roosevelt who saw the plane immediatley after the explosion that it was a "second plane". And on and on.

It is not possible for an average citizen to know where the plane went after it disappeared from sight. Since we have no data to clue us in about it it would be a waste of time to speculate. We DO have conclusive evidence that it DID miss the building and DID fly away, so that evidence should be used to bring about indictments so that we can answer questions like this one and get justice for those who perished on 9/11.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Ligon]



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join