Originally posted by GenRadek
This CIT's idea that the C-130 is what helped do the flyover illusion has been bothering me since day one when this nonsense first came out. I do
not understand how they can twist a C-130 which was shadowing the 757 from a much higher altitude into it was the actual "fly-over" illusion
aircraft. It actually hurts my head trying to understand this line of illogical thinking.
What you are doing is racking your brain to create YOUR OWN "illogical" scenario that has absolutely nothing to do
with what we have
That is what true skeptics and critical thinkers call a "straw man argument".
Faulty logic does not refute evidence.
So what exactly are CIT saying? That the 757 never existed and the C-130 is what did the approach and magic flyover AND at the exact same time manage
to climb to a very high altitude and come around again to make it appear it was shadowing the "757", or are they saying the C-130 flying at the much
higher altitude as it was "shadowing" the "757", is what was suppose to trick the people into thinking it crashed into the Pentagon?
For someone who has been allegedly thinking about this since "day one" to the point of hurting his head you sure don't even have the slightest
indication of what we have said.
I wonder why. We have been quite clear in our articles
on this issue for years now.
That's a lot of time to study our words.
Perhaps you didn't really pay attention to what we have said at all which is why you are asking "jthomas" to clarify my position instead of me.
Let me give you a hint: your above description isn't even close.
We KNOW the C-130 was real.
We KNOW the C-130 was at a much higher altitude.
We KNOW the C-130 was not in the airspace until about 3 minutes after the attack
as confirmed by
, several eyewitnesses, and the C-130 pilot himself.
That's right, Pilots for 9/11 Truth had a DIRECT DIALOG with Lt Col Steve O'Brien via email where he CONFIRMED that he was so far away at the time
of the explosion that he could not even tell it was coming from the Pentagon!
When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a
position to give to ATC.
-C-130 Pilot Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien
The Pentagon is massive compared to a 757. If he could not see the Pentagon he would not be able to see the plane, alleged impact, or flyaway.
Since eyewitnesses and video
confirm he didn't make it to the airspace above
the Pentagon until about 3 minutes after
the attack we know that he DID NOT "shadow" anything.
It was this proven FALSE shadowing claim made primarily by Keith Wheelhouse and perpetuated by the IMPLIED notion in subsequent media reports that
would go on to serve as cover for the flyover.
The initial reports of this "2nd plane" were left ambiguous as to what kind of plane it was and created the false impression
that it was
approaching the Pentagon with "Flt 77".
These reports of an ambiguous "2nd plane" after the fact
blended with the very specific yet proven false "shadowing C-130" claim of Keith
Wheelhouse, and of course combined with legitimate accounts of the C-130 (with specific details of timing of the approach left out) were used to sow
confusion and create an excuse for people who actually saw the
plane flying away from the scene at the same time
as the explosion.
In the first weeks and months after the attack nobody knew anything about Lt Col Steve O'Brien and barely anyone knew anything about a "C-130" at
all. In the immediate post 9/11 hysteria people were not looking at things analytically or critically from a position of years of research as we are
right now. Talk of ANY plane at all flying away at the same time of the attack would help placate whomever may have been concerned about the plane
Does that help?
After all these years of reading our articles and actually hurting your head trying to figure out what the words mean (and utterly failing) are you
finally starting to understand?
[edit on 6-9-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]