Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

LaBTop : BTW, Roosevelt Roberts never saw the "impact", he was inside on the phone, when he heard and felt an explosion sound, and then ran outside to see a commercial jet plane fly low over the South parking, "back" in a South-easterly direction.

Jthomas :
That myth has been dealt with long ago. Roberts interview with the September 11, 2001, Documentary Project completely blows CIT's claim out of the water. This has been know for years.

memory.loc.gov.../afc911bib:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28afc911000155%29%29

Roberts was inside watching TV of the events in NYC. His boss telephoned him and as Roberts was talking saw UA175, the second plane, hit WTC 2 on the TV. He got off the phone and ran outside to the South loading dock and then saw AA77 approaching. He was looking over the south parking lot to AA77 from his vantage point. He then saw "dust" flying and heard people screaming and he ran back inside the Pentagon.

CIT blew it on Robert's too.

Au contraire, you blew it on Roberts.

I will keep it civil, so I will only advice you to DAMN carefully listen to your own audio link.

Roberts CLEARLY says already in the first part of the tape, that he heard the plane hit the building, and THEN he ran outside.

"As I hang up the phone, the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV, it was as if.... So as I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and looked up, and I saw another plane flying around the South parking lot, spot like 9:11, 9:12 in the morning. And then there was dust coming from the ceiling, so, what I did, I turn around and I drew up my weapon, I didn't know what was going on, I thought we was being invaded, I didn't know what was happening. So I ran back in the South loading and I saw forcing people out of the building.

etc.

That remarkably precise recollection about that too early time which does not fit the Official Story (hit at 09:38) is the most amazing in my books..

And there he saw a plane, a commercial jet-plane flying low over the south parking.
So no C-130 with turbo-propellers, which has no jet motors at all, which came 3 minutes later and far, far higher and always far in front of the west wall, leaving in a sharp turn to the Northwest. We have video and photo's of that already years ago!


Sir, you spread very bad disinformation, especially when you spread it so viciously, and the sad thing about it is, that you seem to believe it yourself, while a short pause to listen to your own link would let you see the error of your misguided convictions.

I'll help you, jthomas, and everyone else out with the right audio link :

Roosevelt Roberts interview just after 911


[edit on 22/3/10 by LaBTop]

reply to post by LaBTop


Thanks for looking in to the claims made by JT. I will check it out now.

Second line

"I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot, it was around 9:12-9:11"?

This was after the plane hit the building. How can this be?

More questions.

Most people seem to think that wings are as strong or stronger than the body of the plane and will remain intact and slice into the building on each side...

They folded, heck they are mostly hollow anyhow, just folded in on itself I don't see that being hard to understand.

Course trying to argue that is like trying to convince Billy Graham he was wrong all along... that just won't happen.

Cito. Typical derailing of an ongoing debate with a totally different subject.

Did you ever delve into the physics of plane building?

Those wing roots are the most sturdy parts of a plane, remember, those 4.5 ton jet motors must hang on them too, on both sides.
Folding back of those parts? Ridiculous.

There should have been an immense gap with two huge holes slightly lower in the facade for the smashed-in jet-motors.

Not a two windows wide SQUARE hole at the second floor (In the US they call that the first floor!). Which looked suspiciously identical to the same square two-windows hole in the Belgrade villa of then president Milosevitch (now dead, "suicided" in his The Hague International Court prison cell?) when hit by a NATO cruise missile during the Serbian war. I posted a photo from that strange square hole here.


Did anybody who now accepts the theory of military deceptions at the Pentagon and thus also at the WTC and Shanksville (flight 93 disappearing in a hole in the ground) ever think of comparing the gliders from the Normandy invasion on D-Day in WWII, to the situation and anomalies of 911?

Many people do not believe that planes entered those two Towers like butter,
and like butter in Shanksville, and like butter into the Pentagon.
A lot of likely butter-planes that day.

So, did they use cheap camouflaged gliders? With much lighter decoy jet engines.
So they would look like 757's or 767's, painted alike.
Or specially build or rebuild very light aluminum air-framed decoy planes, which would smash to 1000 pieces when hit by a steel or brick wall.
And playing a tape with loud jet engine sounds via a build in amplifier system. (Like in the Vietnam-War Gun Ship Huey's, anyone remember that?)
And then the real main job done by explosives.....

And what about secondary explosions at the Pentagon?

Multiple explosions at the Pentagon on 9/11 :
www.youtube.com...


Remember also the earlier than in this YouTube video, very loud detonation and subsequently photographed white hot spot inside the already burning "entrance hole" in the west wall. The first photo from one of the first photographers who jumped out from his car on Route 27 and ran back 200 yards to the fresh "entrance" hole (Washington Boulevard, in front of the Pentagon west wall). And then a second explosion was caught on film by him. Search and thou shall find.


I have found a very interesting non-fiction 911 online book for those who are still searching for extreme out of line explanations for the 911 aftermath, especially of no punishment for not one military person responsible who was involved at highest levels.

Read the last 3 Chapters first, it is only a few minutes of your time.
Then you understand the quintessence of the proposed storyline for 911 from this author.
Then you will want to read the other short 1 to 13 Chapters.
This free online book is based on quite a lot of verifiable political and military options around 911.

September 11 - The Big Reveal (Last Chapters 13-15) :
members.fortunecity.com...

The Big Update, all the other Chapter links :
members.fortunecity.com...

Flight 93: The Improbable Truth, Intro page.
members.fortunecity.com...

This is great stuff for out-of-the-box thinkers!
Since the date it was posted, there are quite a lot of new facts evolved on the Net. When we combine these with what is proposed in this book, we could come to some shattering possible conclusions.

Have a shot at it, interesting reading ahead.
To show you that the book is based on very possible around-911 science :

March 25, 2003 CBS News.
U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV.
First "Known" Use Of Experimental Weapon :
www.cbsnews.com...

(CBS) The U.S. Air Force has hit Iraqi TV with an experimental electro-magnetic pulse device called the "E-Bomb" in an attempt to knock it off the air and shut down Saddam Hussein's propaganda machine, CBS News Correspondent David Martin reports. The highly classified bomb creates a brief pulse of microwaves powerful enough to fry computers, blind radar, silence radios, trigger crippling power outages and disable the electronic ignitions in vehicles and aircraft. Iraqi satellite TV, which broadcasts 24 hours a day outside Iraq, went off the air around 4:30 a.m. local time

[edit on 23/3/10 by LaBTop]

Originally posted by LaBTop

Roberts CLEARLY says already in the first part of the tape, that he heard the plane hit the building, and THEN he ran outside.

No, he never said he "heard the plane hit the plane hit the building." The first time he refers to anyone hearing anything is when he heard people screaming and ran back inside. the Pentagon.

"As I hang up the phone, the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV, it was as if.... So as I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and looked up, and I saw another plane flying around the South parking lot, spot like 9:11, 9:12 in the morning. And then there was dust coming from the ceiling, so, what I did, I turn around and I drew up my weapon, I didn't know what was going on, I thought we was being invaded, I didn't know what was happening. So I ran back in the South loading and I saw forcing people out of the building.

See, nothing about "hearing" the plane hit the building. And if it was at 9:11 or 9:12 that he saw a plane, then it could neither be AA77 or the C-130.

That remarkably precise recollection about that too early time which does not fit the Official Story (hit at 09:38) is the most amazing in my books..

Fine, then we can eliminate Roosevelt Roberts as a witness to anything pertinent.

That was easy.

Originally posted by LaBTop

Of course no sane person believes that the damage is consistent with CIT's fantasy NOC flight path

It seems as if you should carefully reconsider your words.

I don't need to.

It's not CIT's fantasy, it's the only conclusion you can come to as a neutral OR even biased bystander, that the words of the witnesses, combined with their gestures and eventual drawings, can only lead to one conclusion :

They all conclusively describe a part of a distinct North of CITGO flightpath for that plane they saw and heard on 911 on its descend to the Pentagon.

Therefore, there would be positive evidence of a jet "flying over and away from the Pentagon." There would be eyewitness reports from all around the Pentagon of a "flyover." You have no positive evidence of any kind demonstrating any so-called "flyover."

I've been waiting for three years for one of you to provide that evidence. No such evidence has ever been presented.

When do you propose to do so, LaBTop? Why keep us waiting any longer?

reply to post by LaBTop


I am truly amazed that CIT proffer a witness like Sean Boger in support of their flyover theory.

The plane crashed into the Pentagon only yards from his position in the heliport tower and might easily have killed him. He said this in 2001 :- " I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building. It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building. "

CIT's reasoning is that Sean is deluded about the impact because he told them in a telephone conversation, years after the event, that he thought the plane approached from the right ( by his perception ) of the Citgo gas station. Is it more likely that a witness is right about the precise placement of a plane flying at high speed towards him or the fact that it crashed yards away ? He said " I could actually hear the metal going through the building ", is it remotely possible that he could be utterly deceived about a plane crash that nearly killed him ?

In case anyone has got the idea that CIT's witnesses are all good mates and supportive of CIT, perhaps I should point out as a matter of fact that none of them wants anything further to do with CIT. Here are some interesting posts from CIT's own forum from a poster who actually contacted Sean Boger :-

z3.invisionfree.com...

Really an interesting theory !

[edit on 23-3-2010 by S.O.66]

jthomas,

I have meticulously typed out by now the whole plane-relevant part from the start of the Roberts interview, which you yourself by the way, offered as conclusive evidence for your theory that Mr Roberts in your opinion saw the plane come flying in on its last part of its flightpath towards the Pentagon.

Please explain to us then, how that plane, incoming from the SOUTH-WEST, over the high on the hill situated Navy Annex, aiming with his nose cone at the Pentagon West wall, could miraculously have been seen by Mr Roberts flying very low around the South Parking Lot, Lane One area? On a SOUTH-EASTERN course back over Route 27!
Thus with its NOSE cone aiming back, to the South-West.
The opposite direction of what everyone else saw and told the Media!
Listen to the CIT Roberts phone interview, some years later, for Mr Roberts his more extensive memory recollection.

Explain how in your opinion, the plane thus was flying THERE, in the opposite direction, BEFORE it impacted.
That's impossible.

And his recollection of the time can be easily countered by using all officially given time stamps for all events he describes in the following typed out by me, first part of his interview, he could even use it as a military man and Pentagon Police officer as some sort of military direction, describing the soft turn southeast-wards along the South Parking Lot perimeter. Look at a watch set on 09:12. The two hands look like a very slow arc.
Thus I'll try one more time, and do take special note of the bolded text : ANOTHER plane. Which you missed to address in my first typed out text above by the way.

Roosevelt Roberts LibraryOfCongress 911 Interview

His interview, typed out by me from the start of his statements :

OK, we gonna get back to September 11 (crackling audio). My own ...?... , Unit one five six, we was scheduled at the Heliport at 10:45 for a departing flight.
So eh, I was doing my release and making my way to that, eh, coming towards that side of the building, and I stopped at the South Loading Dock and I relieved one of (loud Click...?....soft Click: here was a loud click, and a strange loss of audio, then a soft click, and then he talks about something totally different suddenly, when the audio comes back: )

As I was sitting at the TV that's right there, and eh, all of a sudden a newsflash came across the TV and said the World Trade Center has been bombed, and eh first thing came to my mind is New York City, because I am from New York and I start thinking about my parents.
So after I thought about it, I looked again and they said there was another plane coming, on the television, and then my Sarge, sergeant Wooldridge, Woody, he called and he said, Heh, Rob, listen, we gonna break up ...?... (inaudible for me, that last fast word).

As I hang up the phone, ...( here again such a strange loss of audio, then he says: ) .The plane hit the building.
It all came at the same time, watching the TV and, it was eh almost, timed, for preciseness.

So, as I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up, and I saw ANOTHER plane flying around the South parking lot, at a spot like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning.
And then there was dust, and stuff coming from the ceiling, and you could hear people scream.
So, what I did was, I turned around and I drew up my weapon, I didn't knew what was going on, I thought we was being invaded, I didn't know what was happening.
So I ran back in the South loading, and I start forcing people out of the building.

(continued, but no plane mentioned anymore than the F-16 fighter jets he heard much, much later when he returned from a few times in and out of the Pentagon, and he looked over the South parking Lot again, just before he heard a message on the radio that they had another plane coming in and the whole area had to be cleared to under the overpass.)

Of course you know that CIT did interview Mr Roberts per telephone years later, and we have several threads here and numerous posts with links to that phone conversation with Mr Roberts.

And it is in that interview that he decisively made it clear he was not talking about a plane that hit the WTC building, but indeed one that hit the Pentagon.
And after that hit, that shook the whole building, he hung up the phone and ran outside just a few yards and saw a passenger jet plane flying low over the South parking, above the Lane One area, just above the light poles there.
And then it left the scene flying in a southern direction, crossing Route 27 while doing so.

If you do keep denying that Mr Roberts felt a plane hit the Pentagon and keep using that as any form of proof in this forum, I have the feeling that you will meet the wrath of a rejuvenated forum moderator from now on.
Because in anyones books that is spreading misinformation of the worst kind after being offered your own "linked proof" as proof of the opposite of what your interpretation in your first post was.

In other words, he felt an explosive event like CIT and others think, which shook the building, but interpreted that at the time of the first interview already as the official plane that hit the Pentagon (as he heard all over the news for the further 6 months before his first interview for the Library of Congress), and then ran outside which cost him a few seconds time, to then see ANOTHER plane flying around very low above Lane One of the South Parking Lot, which flew away over Route 27 to the South somewhere.
And it was a commercial jet plane as he explained in his conversation with CIT.

Alfie1,

And here is a damn interesting thread at the Loose Change Board :

Title : CIT response to youtube video "The CIT Deception", by anonymous forum troll "broken sticks"
z3.invisionfree.com...

I had years ago already an extensive civil discussion in this forum and proved that a switch from a North of CITGO position, back to line-up with the official South of CITGO flightpath, and leveling off again to be able to cut the 5 poles as officially boosted in a level approach 30 feet max above ground, is totally impossible for a 757.

The overall consensus since then in this forum has always been that we don't have to spent more time on such a ludicrous theory.

But, lately this theory is thrown back in the ring again, just to keep us busy.
Normally one should not even respond to such idiocy, but to show the idiocy to all the new supporters of the fast growing global conviction that something is very foul with the official US explanations for all four flights of 911, we need again spent our precious time which could be used for real true historical research, to once and for all set the record straight:

It is impossible for a 757 on a NoC path to return to the official SoC path on a leveled flightpath.

So, cut the crab, instead of some silly light poles, and see this excellent CIT and Pilots for Truth rebuttal of this ludicrous claim:

Here is his originally asserted "possible" path that was analyzed.

A complete professional analysis of his original hypothetical path, as well as a hypothetical transition from north to south based off the witness illustrations, has been authored by certified pilot Rob Balsamo while being reviewed and approved by USAF Accident investigation Board President Captain Jeff Latas and Commander Ralph Kolstad who has flown commercial B757/767's for 13 years mostly as an international Captain with American Airlines. The technical analysis complete with animations and all relevant calculations is linked below.


NORTH APPROACH IMPACT ANALYSIS

Conclusion - It is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft to cause the directional physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and the Pentagon leading to the C-ring hole approaching from directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station. The flight paths illustrated by the witnesses would require G forces beyond the physical limitations of any aircraft for it to transition to an approach that lines up with the physical damage. Additionally, a hypothetical least challenging scenario at low speed would require bank angles that are irreconcilable with the physical damage, as well as the witness statements, and require an instantaneously performed roll that is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft.

*note how even the above impossible flight path asserted by "broken sticks" has the plane entirely north of Edward Paik and Terry Morin unlike what either witness describes.

These experts who unlike "broken sticks" are willing to put their names to their claims demonstrate unequivocally how it is impossible for a plane as observed by the witnesses to cause the physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, as well as the Pentagon itself from either the witness illustrations OR from the irrelevant hypothetical path illustrated by "broken sticks".

Since "broken sticks" accepts the notion that this is where the plane was located he has no choice but to accept the notion that the plane did not hit and continued on as reported by witness Roosevelt Roberts.

The account of Roosevelt Roberts :

Google Video Link

has been twisted by "broken sticks" beyond recognition with careful selective editing and fraudulent assumptions. He ignores that Roosevelt specifically describes seeing the plane immediately AFTER the explosion, not before. He also ignores the fact that he described it banking around "as if it missed it's target, missed the landing zone." He also ignores the fact that in the Library of Congress interview Roosevelt specifically called it "another plane" meaning not the one that he was deceived into believing caused the explosion "ten seconds tops" before he saw the plane "flying around south parking". When listening to both of Roosevelt's entire interviews in context it is 100% clear that he was describing a plane "just above the light poles" that did not hit the building and that he was inside his booth at the Pentagon only "7 steps" away from the edge of the loading dock during the explosion and so did not see the approach of the plane at all.

The other attacks in this piece merely amount to more spin and irrelevant baseless arguments that will be ignored for now since he completely failed in demonstrating his primary claim that it is possible for a north side plane to cause the damage. However a more thorough point-by-point breakdown of some of the deceptive claims made by "broken sticks" will be forthcoming.

The insinuation that we are doing this for money is also false as we have always provided all presentations for free while encouraging people to download and burn their own DVD's for their Operation Accountability efforts. We have not even come close to recouping the many thousands of dollars of our own money that we have spent to obtain this data throughout the course of our investigation and merely offer DVD's for those who prefer not to do the manufacturing themselves and wish to support our efforts by helping us offset our significant costs.

As it stands his claim that the witnesses are correct about the north side approach, and pull-up over the highway, but that the plane still hit the light poles, generator trailer, and caused the low and level damage to the building is a patently ridiculous argument that has been proven false by the laws of physics as already understood and agreed by all other skeptics, researchers, scholars, and experts who have looked closely at this information.

Take note of the Video.Google piece, where Mr Roberts explains more in-dept, when he saw the "other plane".
And when did he saw it? After the "impact".

And realize that the above proposed impossible NoC-switch to-SoC flightpath does not even come close to the official NTSB data and FAA animations of the official path of flight 77, and that this official path was for the last few miles a straight line downhill along the south side of the Navy Annex if we must believe the officials.

Which we don't anymore.
Many millions worldwide! And many more become aware every new day.

If you listen carefully to the CIT phone interview with Roosevelt Roberts who was (driving?) in his car, which you can find to start from 51:00 minutes into the above linked Video.Google by CIT,
I have a nagging question left.

You can see the impossibility of even a very thin S-turn maneuver over that distance shown in the other above streaming GIF from Pilots for Truth.

A 757 plane weaving from NoC to SoC, is impossible for many reasons (one of them the need for an instant 180° total flip-over of its body and wings between the CITGO and the West wall), so do not believe that what is depicted there as a thought exercise is at all possible in real life situations.


So how could that SAME plane overfly the Pentagon roofs, turn fully around extremely fast to come back flying low over (according to Mr Roberts) Lane One of the South Parking Lot (that's at the furthest southwest perimeter of that Lot, nearly in line with the West wall) with its body and nose-cone pointing to the southwest in a slight bank? And subsequently cross BACK AGAIN over Route 27, aka Washington Boulevard?

ALL in that very small time span it took Mr Roberts to cover a distance of only 7 steps from the phone boot he was hanging the phone up on, to the outside edge of the southeast loading dock where he spotted that plane flying fast and extremely low over the Lane One area, then crossing Route 27 and continuing in a straight southwestern line flying away from the Pentagon West wall and Route 27, and passing the Navy Annex again on its south side, over or along I-395.
So exactly on a return course parallel to its former incoming course towards the Pentagon West wall.

Please, anybody out there, link me to any already typed out forum discussion or posted video or posted diagram explaining this seemingly impossible maneuver in those few seconds, no more than 10 secs maximum said Mr Roberts.

Or explain it to me in this thread.

Or do we have to wait for a new government-independent investigation, where Mr Roberts and many 911 witnesses can be (under guaranteed save conditions for them) subpoenaed, thus allowing us to hear what exactly Mr Roberts saw and when and where he saw it.
Because his words while riding in a car were not really clear as could be.
But the quintessence of his words do enforce his first recollection in his Library Of Congress audio interview.
In both interviews it struck me however as very strange that a fly-over plane should be able to exercise such a tight turn back southwards, to be seen only a few seconds later by Mr Roberts on its way back Southwest.

Edit: this is the link to the Pilots for Truth page with the technical rebuttal of the NoC position switch to the official SoC last partial flightpath, leveled off and up to the official angle of impact. They proved such an idea utterly wrong :
pilotsfor911truth.org...

[edit on 24/3/10 by LaBTop]

reply to post by LaBTop


I think Roosevelt Roberts' testimony, as with any witness, is interesting but there are ambiguities, confusion and some things plain wrong. In the latter category I would put his timing of 0911/0912 which doesn't agree with anything.

RR's words have been boosted in importance out of all proportion because CIT put him forward as their one and only flyover witness. He is nothing of the kind of course because he has never claimed to see an aircraft flying over the Pentagon but that's how desperate CIT is.

Anyway, having carefully considered what RR said on his Library of Congress tape, which is particularly important because of its closeness to the event, and what he said in his telephone conversation with CIT years later, I think this is the most likely scenario.

Around 9.30 am on 9/11 RR, in the course of his normal duties, found himself at the south loading dock. His attention was caught by the tv in the office and he watched a replay of the North Tower being hit at about 9.03 am. He particularly noted that the tv news report spoke of " another plane " out there. As he watched the plane explode into the North Tower, his sergeant rang to say something about .....(inaudible) con delta. Sounds to me like some sort of alert status, anybody know ? So, RR has seen a plane crash into the North Tower, he has heard on the news of another plane out there and now his sergeant has given him what appears to be some sort of warning.

Given that, it is not at all surprising that he went outside to look at the sky. If, at that stage, he had heard an explosion coming from the west wall area of the Pentagon why would he go in a completely different direction and look at the sky ?

He looks from the south loading dock and says he sees an aircraft over the lane 1 area of the south parking lot. Now, as you can see from this :-

www.whs.mil...

the south parking lot is adjacent to the cloverleaf road configuration and lane 1 is at the extreme western end, i.e. right next to the cloverleaf. The physical damage at the Pentagon indicates that AA77 pretty much bisected the cloverleaf. It therefore seems entirely reasonable to me that given RR's vantage point about halfway down south parking and the difficulties of translating something in the air to the ground, that what he saw was AA 77 over the cloverleaf.

RR does not refer in his Library of Congress tape to dust coming from the ceiling or screams until after he has seen the plane.

Now, years later, in a brief telephone conversation with CIT, RR apparently said the plane was heading south-west away from the Pentagon.Well, if that is right, it does not support the scenario I have just outlined but it is death to the flyover theory. CIT's proposition is that AA77 overflew the Pentagon while an explosion was set off that fooled everyone. However, RR says he was outside within seconds and saw the plane over the extreme western end of the south parking lot. Anybody like to give me a calculation for the g forces implied by a jet flying over the west facade at about 500 mph and appearing over lane 1 of the south parking lot ( i.e. a U turn ) within 10 seconds.

A final observation, if RR saw AA 77 flying away after the supposed impact why did nobody else on a day when, as usual, highways were clogged and traffic at a standstill in close proximity to the Pentagon ?

Alfie1,

I was editing nearly 30% of my above last post, in the time you posted your explanation.

As you can see, I do agree for most of it with you, except that he several times kept saying that he saw the plane leave in a southwesterly direction in a straight line he could clearly follow.

If he had spotted the incoming plane on the official flightpath, he would have seen that plane flying at its official end speed, thus only very brief, and would have surely described its tragic end hitting the wall with a huge explosion-cloud and -sound. Even if he could only hear and see that from over the wall in his back, since he could not see the official impact spot at all.

He did not describe that at all, he keeps saying that he saw the plane flying in a straight line to the southwest.
And he clearly said FIRST that THE plane hit the building (he was in?), describes even the strange tightness of events he saw and heard on TV and then that HIT. And then he said he ran outside.

Edited, to change the last above line for preciseness.

[edit on 24/3/10 by LaBTop]

reply to post by LaBTop


I have only just seen your latest post which apparently went on when I was composing mine.

Is it the extraordinary case then that you agree that CIT's theory that AA 77 overflew the west facade of the Pentagon but was able to doubleback and be over lane 1 of the south parking lot within seconds was impossible ?

Originally posted by LaBTop
Alfie1,

I was editing nearly 30% of my above last post, in the time you posted your explanation.

As you can see, I do agree for most of it with you, except that he several times kept saying that he saw the plane leave in a southwesterly direction in a straight line he could clearly follow.

If he had spotted the incoming plane on the official flightpath, he would have seen that plane flying at its official end speed, thus only very brief, and would have surely described its tragic end hitting the wall with a huge explosion-cloud and -sound. Even if he could only hear and see that from over the wall in his back, since he could not see the official impact spot at all.

He did not describe that at all, he keeps saying that he saw the plane flying in a straight line to the southwest.
And he clearly said FIRST that THE plane hit the building (he was in?), describes even the strange tightness of events he saw and heard on TV and then that HIT. And then he said he ran outside.

Edited, to change the last above line for preciseness.

[edit on 24/3/10 by LaBTop]

Sorry, I have overposted you again which is not helping clarity.

I think RR's reference to a plane hitting the building is entirely ambiguous given that he was watching the WTC being struck on the tv.

I cannot account for his description to CIT of the plane heading away south-west. It doesn't make any sense to me and obviously it was not what CIT wanted to hear.

I am pleased that you do not consider RR a liar as so many are quick to grab for. I regard all witnesses as truthful, unless proved to the contrary, but subject to human fallibility.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by LaBTop

 

I have only just seen your latest post which apparently went on when I was composing mine.

Is it the extraordinary case then that you agree that CIT's theory that AA 77 overflew the west facade of the Pentagon but was able to doubleback and be over lane 1 of the south parking lot within seconds was impossible ?

To be honest, I have difficulties with the fly-over theory, out of logical discrepancies I see and hear from the witnesses.

But just as logical, but with a very low chance to be true, there could have been a second decoy plane coming in from the opposite side, from over the Potomac or leaving from Reagan National Airport, just a mile away. But as you said already, there is not one other witness who saw the flight path described by Mr Roberts.
So yes, that returning flightpath is very anti-logical.

I told Craigh Ranke from CIT already in PM's months ago, that I have little faith in Mr Roberts precise recollection of the events he witnessed. And that I even had the feeling he was a plant to get them all excited over it.
But Craigh convinced me that Mr Roberts is no plant and just very cautious on the moment and not willing to discuss anything from his remembrance of 911 anymore, he's plain scared for the possible repercussions.
Just as all the other CIT interviewed witnesses, they are scared like for hell, now they realize that they are the main proof for a terrible 911 Pentagon Deception.

We must never forget that it is quite clear, according to the witnessed NoC path, that we are confronting a huge, military and politically funded, false flag operation, still working in top gear to keep the psychological damage as small as can be contained by their operatives, online and on the streets.

And that getting subpoenaed witnesses to be cross-examined by genuine historical researchers, will be only possible after a very impossible removal of all involved politicians and top military brass, complacent with the clear official conspiracy.

To conclude, I STRONGLY subscribe to CIT's NoC witnesses research and applaud them from the bottom of my heart for their courageous deeds, but I advise them to still be on the lookout for other "impact" or "fly-over" end of story theories, since I do not see strong evidence for a fly-over.

As I said before, look also into other, former and possible, military deception techniques, like using one or even four copies of 757's or 767's, painted alike, but made from ultra light material. Such aircraft would obliterate in a head-on wall or ground collision, with little left from their air-frames.
Or a precise-timed blow up of a real 757 just before it hit the West wall.
So it would not hit that newly improved and hardened wall as a solid body, but as a stream of particles.
And perhaps those ultralight fake 757's were powered by a few Rocket Aided Take-off rockets, which would give them enough boost on their last few miles flight path part to fly like a normal 757 and not as a glider, and sound like a fast flying commercial airliner. (Amplifiers would do the sound trick too)
Combined with a series of perfectly timed (incoming plane-distance-sending triggered) inside and outside explosive charges. Which could explain the strong evidence for multiple explosions at the Pentagon. Caused by other explosives, needed to collapse that stubborn Pentagon west wall wing part which did not collapse at impact.

And whatever other possible explanation for a NoC incoming plane and SoC flightpath-connected internal damage and 5 staged, downed light poles.

One thing is sure, the last word about what happened with that plane in the last 100 meter before the West wall are not written yet.

[edit on 24/3/10 by LaBTop]

reply to post by LaBTop


Thank you for a civilised debate about this. A refreshing change on 9/11 matters.

I don't believe RR is a plant. I think he is just an individual caught up in a horrendous event where every word he said is picked over. Glad that hasn't happened to me.

So far as your speculations about alternatives go I am inclined to go with the simplest. The perps had control of AA 77 so why not use AA 77 to crash into the Pentagon ?

The simplest in this case is not the obvious anymore, surely not after the famous NoC CIT interview of Sergeant Lagasse from the Pentagon Police Force.
Especially when you, like me, read his posts in other forums which he posted far before that CIT interview. Where he essentially said the same, but none of us took attention to that at that time.

And we have him and his Police patrol car on video in the CITGO FOIA released FBI video.
First you see him arrive, later on he walks to a SUV parked in front of the cashiers office and then returns to his car and the pump.
He is then clearly standing between his car and the pump, looking in the northerly direction, with his back to the car, because he was watching the pump counter adding up his petrol costs.
Then we see a flash on the CITGO's white painted ceiling, and you see Mr Lagasse reaction on that, he bends inside his open car window and radios in that the Pentagon got hit, then walks around to the drivers seat and jumps in his car and immediately drives out the station's compound and turns right on the road.
And a second later than the flash is recorded on the ceiling, we see all the people inside the cashiers office on another monitor turn their heads and run to the entrance to look all towards the Pentagon.

Do you want anymore conclusive aiding evidence that Mr. Lagasse definitely saw the plane passing to the North side of the CITGO gas station?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8c5efc6f05c7.jpg[/atsimg]

If you are interested in more from that CITGO flash moment, go and have a look at my Pictures Gallery, and click those 12 pics in my ATS picture album:

"CITCO Video Flash" album


Well, having that out of the way, and seeing that beauty of a Pilots for Truth GIF animation I linked to above, we have to realize now, that Flight 77 or whatever other decoy plane they used, could certainly have hit the Pentagon West wall.
But certainly not as low above ground coming NoC as the official preachers want us to believe.
Because there was no damage at all to any other than the 5 downed at the SoC proposed path light poles, or traffic signs, or two trees in front of the Heliport pad, in any possible NoC flight path into the West wall.

And the NoC path is so off-course from the official touted SoC entrance angle of about 53°, that we have to conclude that logically the plain could have hit the wall, but in that case, much higher and at a totally different angle of about 90°, if it hit at all, coming from NoC.

But, if you see some credential in my idea of an ultra light, fake plane, or a blown-up just before impact plane, yes, then it still is possible that any kind of plane or decoy could have been near that West wall, but was destroyed just in time to hit the wall as a particle stream and not as a solid object.
And a particle stream has a totally different impact behavior on a hardened object than a huge solid plane.

The interview ON the day of 911 with Penny Elgas will give you an idea how a witness to such a scenario would describe it from fresh memory, and from a boost of adrenaline.
Your recollections during boosts of adrenaline are much longer lasting and better detailed than any other sort of memory.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dd3de9b617a5.jpg[/atsimg]

Click for full picture:
files.abovetopsecret.com...

She was sitting in her car near the "two Trees in front of the Heliport pad" , btw an excellent aiming point for any real or virtual pilot, and saw the plane passing just in front of her and IMPACTING.
Her description of that impact is so vividly described, better than that can't be found. Read my links in my linked thread above somewhere, and read also the testimony of a woman just 3 cars in front of her in the same lane.
"" Rings of smoke running around the fuselage at the point where it entered the Pentagon, etcetera.""

I have an extensive posting behavior in a thread in this forum about Christine Peterson and Penny Elgas statements, see all my 40 diagrams and photo's in my ATS photo album here :

My Photo's" Gallery

(Edited to make my Gallery links into clickable text.)

[edit on 24/3/10 by LaBTop]

reply to post by LaBTop


I think Sgt Lagasse, like Sean Boger, is a very unlikely CIT witness. He is emphatically an impact witness as here :-

www.911-strike.com...

When CIT spoke to him, years after the event, he could not remember where he was at the Citgo station when the plane struck.

The problem I have with CIT's witnesses is this ; CIT insists that their perceptions of the flightpath of the aircraft is sacrosanct but their observations of the plane hitting the Pentagon is a delusion. This is true not of 10% of their witnesses, not of 50%, but of 100%.

As an analogy, it is a bit like this, I say that x years ago a guy in a track suit and blue baseball cap barged into my house and stabbed my wife to death. CIT say, yeah, you are quite right about the blue baseball cap but totally wrong about your wife being stabbed to death !