It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


CIT's own logical fallacy in their fly-over thesis.

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:04 PM
Read all the 5 pages of this thread on the CIT site's own forum, named :

Finally Another Theory!!! (For the Truthers side), Research may have really paid off!

from where I will use their own argumentation to comment on one very important logical fallacy they embraced as an indisputable truth but which is definitely not such a concrete truth, namely the C-ring "exit" hole, which hole they then however, very illogically use, already on page 1 several times, to prove that a NoC flying plane could never have impacted the West wall but must have overflown it, since the damage path inside and outside the Pentagon is commentated by the official explanation of the 911 Pentagon attack as a line extending from that C-ring exit hole, via a really broad damage path through columns and dry walls to the impact holes at the West wall's outer E-ring in Section 4, Wedge 1, and then extending through the 5 downed light poles into an FDR published flight path.

But such a North of CITGO gas station flying plane, impacting head-on at the Pentagon's West wall is however, without doubt, clearly possible, and I will show that in the rest of this post.

Thus, when you subtract the "exit"hole in the inner C-ring, and also the 5 light poles, from several of those published diagrams, and reject the FDR as another huge deception, you are left with a very different picture of solely internal damage.

Combined with the few published photographs of the pre-collapse entry/impact hole in the outer E-ring West wall, it is by far not such a clear and easy imprint of a SoC flight path, as even CIT started to believe.

See the many FDR (flight data recorder) related forum threads, here and at Pilots for Truth and the CIT forums. The latest consensus is, that the last extra 2 seconds of partial but extensive flight data recovered from that FDR raw data, by a very clever and civil debating Aussie engineer, shows the plane flying at least 100 feet too high to have been able to hit the official impact/entrance hole, and thus that officially handed over FDR is a fake.

Which we knew already when we were listening to all the NoC witnesses interviewed by the Citizens Investigation Team, and realized that nearly all SoC evidence thus was a huge, by top brass military covered, false flag deception.

IMHO, that first part of the damage in the E-ring fits a NoC flight path and subsequent nearly head-on collision with the West wall much better.
Especially when combined with the notion that the NoC damage in the outer E-ring of Sect.4, Wedge1 signifies a short entrance damage path not deeper than the first, E-ring facilities, and all the damage in the next, D- and C-rings were artificial, caused by planted explosives.

NOTE that the office space, hit in the Twin Towers, was essentially the same kind of nearly empty space, and that space had no internal columns at all, these were all in the core section. And still, both impacting planes were nearly totally caught inside that space and in the core space, only one jet engine came through and some wheels and a landing gear strut which ended on the streets or rooftops. Which proves that all three impacting planes were already nearly totally stopped by the impacted walls. There was not enough momentum left to exit the buildings.

And (part of) that Pentagon damage was perhaps caused by the second explosion, photographed by someone, who came running back from his just North of the Pentagon halted car, halted when he saw the impact. See his photo of a white hot explosion spitting out of the impact holes.

And the so-called C-ring "exit" hole was blown inwards by a wall breaching unit, from the maintenance road (the A-E Drive) between B- and C-ring walls, and perhaps recorded on the following video tape.
A detonation is clearly audible in the background at the end of a WTC item reported by a female in this linked video "Multiple explosions at the Pentagon on 9/11" at its 2:00 minute mark :

where the female reporter repeatedly said that everybody at the Pentagon heard another (third) explosion. She insists it's an explosion, even after her anchor man keeps trying to derail her by giving his own explanation that it was the impact area collapse. But that came after the explosion.

The CIT core team read most of my postings from all the years after 911, and also know that I found their witness interviews leading to the North of CITGO gas station flight path of a plane flying low there on its way to the Pentagon West wall SENSATIONAL new evidence, then and now, and clear proof of officially, military and politically endorsed DECEPTIONS conducted on the day of 911.

However, CIT, in casu Craig Ranke and colleagues do express on their own site in their CIT forum an important misconception in their recent rebuttals to individuals, who in fact admit them selfs to CIT's proved NoC flightpath, however express doubts, of some of CIT's other conclusions based on CIT's own NoC witness collections combined with some officially offered "evidence".

Especially CIT's conclusion that the followed flightpath to the North of the CITGO gas station, combined with the external and internal Pentagon E, D and C rings damage and damage path, including the circular "exit" hole in the furthest away, further undamaged C-ring wall (except some broken windows on the first floor, in Europe named the second floor), could only lead to one conclusion, a fly-over instead of an impact.

They based this on their false assumption, and too fast acceptation, that it really was/were one or more exiting plane parts that caused with their left over last momentum(s), that inner, third C-ring circular 2.5 meter wide "exit" hole.
They fell for that officially endorsed conclusion regarding the internal damage, combined with the 5 downed light poles outside on the roads, and especially the C-ring "exit" hole, leading to an official explanation of a South of CITGO gas station flying Flight 77 plane, which impacted the West wall under an angle of 60.25° True North, or i.o.w. 53° off the West wall, as proposed by all official institutions.

And that was a too fast, wrong conclusion by CIT, based on "proof" handed over by the suspects them selfs, of photos of that clearly fake "exit" hole.
If you subtract the "exit" hole and the 5 downed light poles (which do not fit at all in a now proved different, NoC approach), from the internal damage path offered by official institutes, you suddenly are left with a very different interpretation of the diagrams of that internal damage.

What we see to be left over then, is a fairly obvious head on collision path, combined with an artificial demolition path into the buildings D- and C-rings space. That part had to be artificial, since it definitely does not fit a NoC flight path.
Remember, all the space in the first 3 floors in the E-, D- and C-rings was unobstructed wide open space, filled only with dry board separation walls, and a few half-brick thick, brick-build office separation walls.
You could swing a baseball through 2 dry walls there. Its mostly gypsum plates with linen or paper covers in aluminum frames, to create offices.
The biggest and strongest obstacles were the strong, steel bar reinforced columns, which caught most of the heavy plane debris and slowed them down enough to keep them all in the, later collapsed Sect.4, Wedge 1's first-and most outward, E-ring part.
Which is shown as the dark gray areas in the next pictures below, where the green NoC flight path ends. The area which collapsed half an hour after impact. On top of all the NoC plane debris.

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:17 PM
The 12 or-so North of Citgo witnesses.

Where they all wrong, or lying?

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:28 PM
What I get out of this is a "new" theory, even more complicated than the previous ones, one that is required to get around that nasty little fact that CIT's "theory" always required that AA77 "fly over and away from the Pentagon," a nasty fact CIT never could demonstrate.

At the rate this is going, in a decade you all will have such a complicated theory that the entire Pentagon staff and half of Washington, DC will have had to be involved in the "conspiracy" just to make it work.

Why not stick to a far simpler conspiracy theory? Since 9/11 Truthers like to claim bin Laden was in the employ of the CIA, just claim that Bush and Cheney secretly hired bin Laden to employ sex-crazed Muslim radicals keen on 70 virgins in heaven to hijack the airplanes and crash them into the WTC towers and the Pentagon.

Then you would be able to argue a conspiracy theory far more difficult to refute than the facts and massive evidence that shows irrefutably that AA77 hit the Pentagon. You can use the actual events for your purposes rather than trying unsuccessfully to refute them.

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:49 PM
Pictures of NoC + SoC flight paths and internal damage diagrams.

My proposed NoC flight path is based on ALL of the CIT interviewed witnesses, starting with Edward Pike and the fly-over over his garage roof, then Terry Morin and his position in between wing 4 and 5 when he saw the body of the plane right above him, then one of the ANC guys who specifically described EXACTLY the Navy Annex Wing 8 roof antenna in the form of the letter "Y" in the center on top of that wing 8 roof where the plane flew exactly over that antenna, and Sean Boger's account who placed the plane also in the middle of the wing 8 roof coming at him. Then the very exact account of sergeant William Lagasse who said he could see the windows on the side of the plane, and that it was quite near to where he was tanking his car at the North isle of the CITGO gas station, and his police colleague Chadwick Brooks who was standing by his parked car at the other, West side of the road along the CITGO, on a parking that was bordered by a row of medium high trees, and he stated that the plane's jet-engines wake rattled the branches and leafs of those trees, and then Christine Peterson who is very precise explaining her being in her car at a standstill "in front of" the heli pad, and the body of the plane flying low over her car. And Penny Elgas who saw the plane a few car length in front of her passing very low over Route 27 when she saw the underside of its wing. And then Sean Boger again in the heli pad tower. The plane flew between that tower's (Sean: passed to my left) concrete of the heli pad (Christine: right over my car) and the diesel generator trailer.

Btw, this is my Penny Elgas and Christine Peterson ATS thread, and about others like Sean Boger who watched from inside the Heliport Tower the plane diving towards him, over that sharp turn east in Columbia Pike to the right of the CITGO gas station, thus situated North of it :

Prove or disprove a Pentagon fly-over. and next pages.

This is another Penny Elgas-mentioning in this ATS thread at page 13 :
*new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin, page 13

And this ATS thread :
Why attack the Pentagon itself from the inside?, page 1

Now some diagrams of a possible other than the official flight path, coming from North of the CITGO gas station, but south of the ANC compound.

Click for full NoC flightpath picture.

The forum fitting version :

Just before impact. The yellow path is impossible, cause there is no damage on the West wall there :

Click for full image.

Note the strong perspective distortion in this above overhead satellite photo, taken under quite an angle. Look at the lines of the corners in the space between the Pentagon rings. Then you understand that the real impact point was not on the roof, as is pictured for the SoC incoming plane, but at the first floor level. That means that the real NoC impact point lays more to the right of those two trees, and the left wing would not have hit that nearest tree. Of course the plane flew higher than that tree, to leave no damage to light poles and traffic signs (Why? Because there wasn't such damage).

Click for full image.

Have a look at one of the two above Penny and Christine pictures, than you see that there was enough clearance for a NoC incoming plane, but only when it flew high enough to clear all obstacles.

I do at last understand now, why CIT core members were and still are, so fundamental in their abhorrence of all other theories which try to explain what possibly happened in those last 2 miles towards the West wall.
Especially their denial of all impact theories, and their adherence to an, in their minds, unmistakable fly-over, instead of any kind of plane- or other object-impact.

Because they were trapped by that psychological adaptation trick, that heinous C-ring so called "exit" hole, endlessly repeated as such in all 911 forums and sites, and first of all by all media on the day of 911 and all the years after.

This is an officially released internal damage diagram in the Pentagon's Wedges 1 and 2.
NOTE that the famous exit hole in this diagram still was called a "Hole in wall".
NOTE also that the 120 ft marking is exactly how a plane coming from a NoC path, would have impacted the Pentagon, HEAD-ON. See this altered, by me, drawing first, with an inserted plane hitting the West wall head-on, under a nearly 90° angle :

Click for full image.

And only about two West wall columns at both sides were not damaged (the grey ones). That's the thinnest and lightest part of both wings which could have hit the wall there.
However, more probable will be that the wings were forced backwards beside both jet engines, when those two wings impacted the wall, thus shrinking the wingspan. Those two wingtip parts never touched the West wall at those two columns spaces at both sides of the damage entrance hole.

This is the official SoC angle of attack before and after impact :

Click for full image.

And this is the official NoC angle of attack before impact, a 757 superimposed over the SoC-plane, impacting head-on :

Click for full image.

And this is another officially released damage diagram of the Pentagon's Section 4/Wedge1 and Section 5/Wedge 2. Note that the West wall is now at the bottom of the drawing.!
Note that at a 90° angle of impact, head-on; several undamaged front wall columns and wall segments, protected the areas behind them. But there is very heavy damage inside there, which is physically impossible to explain for a NoC and head-on plane collision.

Entrance hole towards "Punch Out" hole (C-ring, blown-in hole by a wall breach kit ) and the damaged areas, Click for full diagram.

And the possible right wing damage on the West wall, shown in my down here linked picture, shows a very slight left bank. This could be the effect of a last left bank steering input after it crossed route 27, just 150 meters away from the Pentagon, and before that, the plane approached over the 8th wing of the Navy Annex building roof, with a long winded, slight right bank, as many eyewitnesses reported.
This spot could have been the right jet-engine impact point. But where is the debris then from that huge impact, on the ground in front of that heavily damaged, heavy brick wall, which was obviously not penetrated by the object that hit it.

CLICK for full photo.

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 07:28 PM
What follows now, is an explanation of the point where CIT fell victim to their own logical fallacy.

They them selfs (rightfully) first came to the solid conclusion that the Pentagon attack was a huge deception, since the plane flew in fact on the North side of the gas station.
Thus making the only officially accepted other theory, of a South of the gas station flying plane, an unprecedented in US history, huge deception.

The officials told us all that a SoC flying plane cut 5 light poles, impacted the West wall of the Pentagon between the bottom and first floor, under an angle of 60.25° True North, and the rain of parts of that now seriously shredded plane on their path to that famous "exit" hole, cut their way through re-bar enforced concrete columns and a lot of dry walls and a few thin, half-brick-thick separation walls with the left-over, ever more decreasing momentums, after each subsequent impact with every new obstacle .
And especially the 5 downed light poles plus the C-ring exit hole was from day one on, used to seemingly logically confirm and burn in, the notion, that the destructive path was on a line through that C-ring exit hole and the E-ring entry hole in the West wall, and when extrapolated backwards, perfectly fitted from wingtip to wingtip, those 5 cut away light poles.
But CIT must realize that all non-NoC fitting officially offered "evidence" is false, when CIT believes in their own NoC witnesses, and I know they do believe them totally, just as me and millions more.

And don't forget, the total re-enforcement of that part of the West wall was already completed and just one week away from being handed back over to the building's management.
The outer wall was reinforced with a lot of high grade steel H-beams, which held the window frames, and there was a super strong Kevlar net embedded in the whole structure, to catch and hold as long as possible, any flying shrapnel or building parts, in case of a bombing, explosion or missile attack.
You can find that finely woven white Kevlar netting under the reinforced windows, in the after-collapse photos.
There is quite a lot of them to be seen. The first two floors were fully pancaked on top of each other, and the other higher floors showed no damaged white Kevlar netting, they spanned the spaces between the outer columns undamaged. Thus, only substantial damage to the 2 lowest floors and their outside walls and columns.

And what seems so strange, we could expect to see that the Kevlar netting should have caught a lot of the mass of the plane's body, after that first part was compressed by the lime stone plates glued on the thick brick work of the outer wall.
When we take in account that the Kevlar was embedded between the steel beams and columns, and the thick brick outside wall, we would expect that the net would have sheared away a pretty big chunk of embedded steel beams and columns, on its way backwards, into the building. Kevlar is about 2x stronger as high grade steel, so after the brick wall was broken around the impacting round plane body, the entering mass of shredded aluminum plane body including the long fuselage spar beams, would have punched quite a deep vortex in the Kevlar net, which would have teared away a much bigger part of steel beams and columns than we in reality saw in the first photos after impact.
There was just a square hole to be seen, spanning the space between two columns and its two windows in between those columns. And a lot of collateral damage to the right and left of that entrance hole at soil level. Not a clear imprint of two jet engine axis on both sides of a plane's body imprint.
That's illogical for a fully loaded 757, it looks more like a hole punched in by a totally stripped and thus much lighter 757, or even a fake, even more lighter copy of a 757.

Click for full image.

That end of the impact path, the C-ring "exit" hole however, was another huge deception, it was in fact an entry hole, blown inwards into the C-ring offices, from outside that C-ring wall, in the maintenance road between the B- and C-ring.
Quite some time ago already, this video of a Rapid Wall Breaching Kit was circulated on the Internet.
However, there were no clear still-pictures to obtain from the entrance hole brick-rim damage in this grainy video :

For a more recent comparison of the "exit" hole and a military wall breaching unit, called "the Gate Crasher", watch this video:

Note the damage to be seen on the outside and the inside of that entry hole, at the 2:26 minute mark in that 5:15 minutes long video.
See the amazing likeliness of the next pictures, 4 of the "exit" hole in the Pentagon's C-ring wall, which was in fact an entry hole; and 1 of the above Gate Crasher demonstration of a military wall breach unit, specified as a fast entry ordnance for freeing captured hostages in life threatening situations.
Even the hanging loose, dry wall clip-on rails at the building's interior look the same.

Pictures of wall breaching units :

"Exit hole" first photo :

"Exit hole" second photo :

"Exit hole" third photo :

"Exit hole" detail photo :

"The Gate Crasher" wall breaching kit :

Click for full image.

The most stunning facts to observe are the chipped away bricks around the C-ring hole, looking exactly as the ones in the Gate Crasher video at the 2:26 minute point from the 5:15 min length of video, and the, hanging loose, pieces of electricity piping and rails from dry walls on the inside of both buildings.
If you still believe that C-ring "exit" hole was really such, instead of in reality an entrance hole, you sadly enough, live in a state of denial of grotesque proportions.

By using a water filled,shielding back-plate, the effect on the opposite wall, the wall from the B-ring, was negated. And nearly all of the explosive entrance breaching power was aimed at the C-ring wall and ricocheted/recoiled/reflected back from the back-plate.
That's why we did not see any broken windows in that part of the B-ring, opposite from the C-ring.
Only a few vague smoke marks at low positions. They probably also used a thick tarp, 1 meter from the B-ring wall, to catch any broken brickwork parts flying around, and to dampen the shock wave on that wall, by catching any air-shock wave in that loosely hung up tarp.

As you can see in the years old "Rapid Wall Breaching Kit" video at 0:45 to 0:50 seconds positions, the crushed bricks from the upper half of the entrance hole were deflected downwards, at a 60° angle, so the danger for the operatives is minimal, and they can enter the building quickly, positioned beside it, a few meters from the wall breaching kit explosion.

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 07:30 PM

Originally posted by ATH911
The 12 or-so North of Citgo witnesses.

Where they all wrong, or lying?

Yeah, not only that, but Roosevelt Robert Jr., who saw the plane after it had flown over. Sorry LaBtop, but I'm sticking with CIT on this. And you'll never convince me either that is evidence of the right wing impact- the angle is wrong from all witness accounts- it was definitely leaning to the right, not left- so if did impact, which I believe it did not, it would have left a right leaning mark.

Not to mention that is not that great looking evidence of an impact mark from a wing anyway. After all I have seen on the vast kinetic energy contained in the mass of fuel inside the wing, my opinion is that it would have done SUBSTANTIALLY more damage to the face of the building IF the plane had impacted. In fact, so much so that it was able to pierce the WTC in both cases, and go all the way inside- when it would seem that it should have been destroyed on impact at the towers.

So no, I will never be convinced that there was an impact from the plane that CIT's witnesses saw. Maybe from another plane, or a bomb, or a missile, but not from that particular plane. But I also allow for the possibility that it could have been another plane or something else. I don't know.

[edit on Wed Apr 14th 2010 by TrueAmerican]

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 07:37 PM
We need to clarify this text from the CIT Debate page.

"This section is reserved for intellectually honest people who have questions about our research and want to educate themselves as a means to better argue against detractors. Debate will be limited to personal invites of known CIT detractors."

LT : did you mean "infighters", instead of "invites"? If not, I do not understand how you communicate with those known CIT detractors, so they can give you the names of their personal invitees. And then these invites (invitees?) from those detractors must learn to better argue against the ones who invited them to go to your forum?
Or did you mean "-- our personal invitees who we know counter our detractors."
Or : "-- personal invites by us, of known anti CIT-detractors."
What about rephrasing your last incomprehensible sentence, which now contradicts your first comprehensible sentence, to a clear and logical explanation :

"This section is reserved for intellectually honest people, who have unanswered (by CIT ) questions about our NoC research, and want to educate themselves by getting acceptable or factual answers, as a means to better argue against CIT's detractors.
Detractors, who keep arguing against the scientifically acceptable and thus proved, by 13 witnesses corroborated, North of CITGO flight path of the plane which was observed on 09.11.2001 on a very low flight path by all of these witnesses (and some more found by others).
Debate will be limited to personal invitees chosen by CIT, already known by CIT for their online behavior of countering CIT's persistent North of CITGO flight path detractors.

Our subsequent and thought by us as unavoidable, Pentagon roofs fly-over theory of the NoC observed plane, will be defended by CIT in another sub-forum of this forum.

This defense of CIT's fly-over theory in another sub forum, forces the NoC-detractors to avoid their usual technique to first attack CIT's fly-over theory, and then "conclude": see, that is not fact but theory, so the rest, their NoC thesis, is also theory.
Which is blatantly wrong. The NoC thesis by CIT is sufficiently proved to be a fact.
And then these detractors usually go on about hundreds of SoC witnesses, which is a blatant lie, by now sufficiently proved in many threads in this 911 Conspiracy forum or General Conspiracy forum here on ATS. And also on many other 911 sites, especially the Pilots for Truth site and its CIT subforum.

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 07:49 PM
Let's concentrate on the audio and video taped ANC witness reports we have from CIT, which were first recorded shortly after 911, by the two Army History Units, where the names of the interviewed persons were changed in case numbers "to protect their privacy".
Those were all fresh memories of all those witnesses, contrary to what most OTT (Official Theory Trusters) always post, regarding CIT's evidence collection.
Then we found all the other fresh recorded audio reports from many other witnesses :

Link to the Library of Congress and the Army History Units website :

CIT found out by clever combining facts and places mentioned in those online interviews, that they had to go to the ANC ( Arlington National Cemetery ) maintenance buildings compound and interview some very interesting people.
CIT members have given proof, of which CIT interviewed witness, belonged to which Army History Unit number-classified interview.

Before that, they had already taped the two Pentagon Police officers at the CITGO station, and some three people at the Navy Annex or close by, and a few further West.
They all ( ANC, CITGO, Heliport Tower, Route 27 and Annex witnesses) clearly indicated a North of CITGO flightpath.
No misinterpretation possible anymore. How hard some still try, it's solid proof of a partial NoC flightpath.

If, for example, five eyewitnesses saw a NoC flightpath, there's a very high probability the next seven will have seen the same path too. That's called correlation—the degree to which one variable moves in line with another—and measuring it (in this case interviewing witnesses) is an important part of determining the probability of a certain event, in this case a NoC or SoC flightpath.
To my knowledge there are 2 (questionable) witnesses left from the about 100 suspected SoC official flight path witnesses, who in early radio or TV interviews and in their years later CIT interviews persist that the plane flew SoC.
Against about 20 corroborating witnesses who saw the plane on a NoC flightpath. Check the math yourself.

Full correlation = + 1
50% correlation = + 0.5
No correlation = - 1

NoC flightpath = + 0.9 = 90 % probability. (2 SoC against 20 NoC witnesses.)
Fly-over path = + 0.1% = 10 % probability. (2 Fly-over against 20 impact witnesses.)

No 757 in the world could ever return from that NoC spot to a spot on the officially released South of CITGO flightpath, at any speed possible. The laws of flight physics does not allow that.
And all the 20 NoC witnesses saw a plane only slightly banking to the right on that last part of the flightpath, thus not a crazy flip-flopping plane, banking maximum to the right (right wing down) and then maximum to the left (right wing up), between the CITGO gas station, the five downed light poles and its point of impact.
Such a plane behavior also nullifies any lamp poles damage, because the plane would have flown on its side through that area, with its right wing up.

Link to a Pilots for Truth animation to show the improbability of returning from NoC to SoC and the wings parallel to the ground at impact. Totally impossible.

Thus there is only one conclusion :
The military brass and top politicians (paid and bought by huge business syndicates), who all desperately needed this 911 Event, lied to the whole world. And fabricated in advance "strong evidence" for a SoC flightpath, including an internal damage path and the staged 5 downed light poles.
All a huge pack of lies. As I will demonstrate.

CIT's North of CITGO thesis is sufficiently proved by 13+ North of CITGO certifying and each other corroborating witnesses interviewed and video taped by CIT, which makes their thesis strong enough to make it a scientifically acceptable, proved fact.

When the CIT detractors use their usual attack mode, they are able to counter the CIT fly-over theory by saying : "show me your, just as long list of corroborating witnesses for that theory, comparable to your NoC list", and CIT can only show to the casual, not well informed reader, that they have up till now, just 2 still questionable witnesses for their fly-over theory, interviewed by phone only, unlike the 13 witnesses who were video and audio taped. (One exception, Terry Morin working at the Navy Annex and who saw a plane passing over him and the Annex, who did not want that his 2 phone interviews by CIT were published. But his words are convincing enough to position the plane's body flying over the Annex roofs.)

Links which are worth exploring further :

For any more personal 911-experiences audio reports from the Pentagon attack, saved in the Library of Congress files, which are still online and accessible :

Interview with Chadwick B. Brooks, Stephens City, Virginia, November 25, 2001
Does he really tell he saw the plane 3 times? During that 370° full circle around perhaps?
And he talks about an awful amount of seconds he had it in view, flying abnormally low, before it hit the Pentagon.
Which would mean the plane flew much slower than the official version tells us.
One very important detail has to be cleared with him: why did he mention two times he saw the plane "to my left", but the second time he says first : "but now I looked at my left".

Roosevelt Roberts interview just after 911

Pentagon (Va.)--Terrorist Attack--2001

Rescue work--Pentagon (Va.)--2000-2010
Witnesses--Crimes against United States
September 11 Terrorist Attacks, 2001--Personal narratives--African Americans

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 08:22 PM
Let's now concentrate on this CIT - Debate forum thread :
CIT - > Finally Another Theory!!! (For the Truthers side) :

Page 1 :
Craig Ranke CIT
Posted: Jan 2 2010, 06:53 PM

You forgot another definitive fact:

It is physically impossible for a plane north of the citgo to cause any of the directional physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and the building itself leading to the C-ring hole.

This scientifically proves the plane did not hit.

LT : Here originates the quintessence of the illogical fault in the CIT fly-over reasoning.

It is for sure physically possible for a plane north of the CITGO which impacts head-on to cause any of the directional physical damage, especially in the building itself. You can see that clearly in my above head-on diagrams. The first Wedge E-ring damage.

That damn circular hole in the outside wall of the third Pentagon ring, the C-ring hole.
CIT fell for the deceptive indoctrination by the media reporters, the military and politicians reporting the same story over and over, about the C-ring "EXIT" hole.

Any demolition expert can tell you at first glance what that hole was. An ENTRY hole.
A wall breaching kit. Which spews out broken bricks away from the wall when the thin detonation cord's explosive power cuts its path through the brick wall. Have a look at my linked video from the older wall breaching kit. You clearly see the broken brick pieces ricocheting downwards, away from the side where the DET, detonation-cord was attached. Opposite and away from that side of the wall.
Then watch the newer video from the "Gate Crasher" wall breaching unit. And see for yourself the stunning similarity of the C-ring hole's broken-bricks boundary, and the similar boundary after the Gate Crasher was ignited. Even the inside damage is similar in both pictures.

The damage inside the building was only partly caused by a plane or other flying object camouflaged as such, impacting head-on (at a +/- 90° angle) on the West wall, and penetrating not deeper than the inner wall of the E-ring, the boundary of the half hour after impact, fully collapsed part. The dark gray part in all the shown official damage diagrams. See my picture of it.

The light gray part deeper in the building, in the D and C rings, was all artificial, BECAUSE it does not fit a head-on NoC impact path.
Thus blasted away by explosives, probably of the thermobaric types.
Which will also strip all the concrete from the columns, leaving only the bare steel bars standing or hanging. All other columns further from the blasts were spalled and/or cracked.

And that artificial damage did NOT lead to the C-ring hole, that hole does not fit a NoC path at all, it was an entry hole, either to open up that wall to be able to rescue possible survivors, or it had a more dark purpose, to let the perpetrators enter the building from a secure point. That small road was easy to block against entry from others. And no worries for journalists or photographers.

CIT has always been wary of deceptions, but this big one they fell for. And hard.
Illogically as it is, since they are convinced of their own, witnesses-proved NoC flight path, as I and millions more now, are too.

There never was an >exit< hole.
It was an entry hole, and cleverly sold by the media as the end point of the trajectory from the last plane parts which had some momentum left. A very basic, simple deception, by calling and describing it a million times as an exit hole.

In his next page 1 post Craig Ranke CIT repeats his conviction that the C-ring hole fitted the whole SoC official theory. But when you strictly adhere to the NoC witnesses, then all the SoC damage which does not fit a NoC possible flight path, must be faked and thus discarded.

Discard the 5 broken light poles, and the C-ring hole (both utterly impossible on a NoC path), then there is only the impact holes, and the internal damage which does not show such a specific 60.25° True North "flight" path at all. Thus all D- and C-ring damage was military man-made.

Craig : This is where you are confused.
The directional damage is independently established via photographic and video evidence.
I'm talking about 4 separate points within the same trajectory all independently established without relying on a single govt report.
The light poles, generator trailer, outer damage to the facade of the E-ring, and the ending damage with the round C-ring hole.
ALL of the damage requires the plane to approach on the south side of the gas station and the location of this damage is a proven fact.
It is physically impossible for a plane on the north side of the gas station to cause any of that damage and this is particularly the case when you consider the right bank and relatively slow speeds as reported.

LT : To the contrary. It is certainly possible that a NoC flying plane impacted the West wall at the square hole we see in the early pictures, then its body and wings parts got nearly stopped by all the new reinforcements, and came to a halt just before the first wall of the E-ring.
Any commercial plane that impacts on a strong wall with rows of windows, will shatter first, except a few very strong parts ( jet motor shafts, 3 landing gear struts, wheels, fuselage beams), and then the jet fuel in the tanks (inside the wings and the fuselage) will act as a particle stream together with all the shrapnel left from the plane, and will stream like a fluid through all available openings created by the impact. The relatively large, very strong parts will quickly been halted by impacts with the buildings columns and the parallel walls, and certainly by the perpendicular walls. Especially on a near head-on impact flight path.
See my diagrammed proposal for a NoC flightpath ending in a 90° impact angle, a bit further below.

The next post by Craig :
Craig : The point is that ALL the physical damage requires a south side approach and NONE of the physical damage is reconcilable with the north side approach particularly with the right bank and relatively slow speeds reported.
(LT : I oppose this strongly, sure there is NoC impact and internal damage possible.)
This is not limited to the light poles. The generator trailer, the outer damage to the facade of the E-ring and the inner damage to the C-ring all require a trajectory South of the CITGO.
Since there is no physical damage that is reconcilable with a north side approach, we can rule out the notion of the plane hitting.
(LT : Again, a wrong conclusion.Discard all the SoC evidence, and suddenly we have an acceptable NoC impact.)
Sure enough people saw it flying away after the explosion confirming this beyond a reasonable doubt.

LT : And here we have an immense flaw in the CIT analyzing power.
Roosevelt Roberts is not a fly-over witness. He clearly told us in his first interview by the Library of Congress team,

Roosevelt Roberts interview just after 911

that he saw a plane coming in low, and it flew somewhere over the area behind the South parking area's Lane One, which is the nearest to the last part of Columbia Pike. Thus, he describes a flight path either SoC or NoC. All still in possible agreement with CIT's NoC witnesses.
And we should also carefully listen to what the witness told us, who walked to the South Entrance, after he had parked his car near that Lane One. Mr Levi Stephens. And combine his statement with that of RR.
Both witnesses reports, btw, will be very difficult to interpret when trying to make a disparage between a SoC and a NoC description for the flight path they both saw, without them drawing a line on a birds eye view picture of the area. And preferably standing beside them on the exact spots where they both observed that plane flying towards the Pentagon's West wall.

In RR's second phone interview years later with CIT, he starts to tell us exactly the same as in his first audio taped official interview. He saw a plane flying over the Lane One area (in fact behind it further away, since he said "then it crossed route 27"). Then, since he was in his car while talking to CIT (Aldo Marquis), he got confused by the style of questioning from Aldo, and throws in a plane flying back to the southwest, after he ran out from the phone he was on, just a few seconds from the border of the loading dock. So in these few seconds, a plane should have overflown the Pentagon's West wall, made a U-turn and basically flew back in the same direction it came from.
This is physically impossible in a few seconds. And not a single witness, who were there in abundance a few seconds after impact, did see such a plane on such a flight path back over route 27. (Washington Boulevard.)
Thus, the only conclusion can be : he got quite confused by the repetitive questions from Aldo, asking for fly-over proof, and mixed up the direction he gave for the plane in the rest of the interview. The only plane he talks about, is coming from the southwest, and to the Pentagon.
And listen carefully to him, he said it flew in the direction of the Mall Entrance. And that is a westerly direction. Fitting a NoC flight path perfectly. And he lost sight of it, when it disappeared behind the South wall, so it flew LOW enough to let him loose sight of it. Directly after that remark, he talks on about dust flying around and people starting to scream and running out of the building.
That was because of an impact and subsequent explosions.

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 08:39 PM
There are no real fly-over witnesses.

And I am sure that when a neutral person calmly interviews Mr Roberts, that the only fact which will come out is, that he saw a low flying plane approaching the West wall of the Pentagon, after crossing Route 27. And no returning plane, whatsoever. Since that is bluntly said, impossible, the way he explained it on the phone. So he don't need to be afraid at all for eventual repercussions from his bosses, he saw what many others saw, too.

Page 1 :
""Calling911 : Why wouldn't American 77 just be flown into the Pentagon...why leave any room for debate?

gh15 : This is actually quite obvious. Because the Pentagon wasn't going to be destroyed like the towers, they wanted complete control over the scene (which flying a plane into wouldn't give.)

LT : This is an important logical conclusion, which in my opinion sounds very reasonable.

Then we have the missing and not accounted for 2.3 Trillion dollars for black budget military operations, budgets which were obviously not controlled by any commission of the US Congress.
Remember, the Pentagon hit was perfectly planned as several deceptions within the main deception, and also regarding the planned and ordered placement of those people "in the know" who had to be silenced, those later victims, who had access to the only files and leads, to an enormous process of money grabbing going on in the top Pentagon circles, from WWII on and still going on.

Probably most of that money was used to keep America's greedy wars going, but for sure parts of it ended thus up in military and civilian pockets, directly or via complex war-profiteering corporate constructions. And no backup was ever found of those files, the original black-budget files covering more than 10 years, all burned or disappeared.
That was target 1. The auditors. Of the military black projects and their inter-weaved non-military tentacles.

So one or most of the Pentagon's top brass ordered early in the morning or already days before, the full staff of ONI to their conference room, including a general. And there they got all killed by an explosive event. Except one very young cadet who was shortly before send away as a courier. He was burned badly, but survived, luckily.

And that's why that famous exit hole had to be blown in that second, C-ring yellow-white brick wall, to completely top-off the already strong collateral planted evidence of a non existing plane flying on a non existing flight path, that entered the West wall under an angle of 60.25° True North on its way to a final end point, being this planted artificial hole. (53° off the facade line of the West wall)

That had to enforce the impression by the public that the last heavy parts from the plane just managed to break that circular hole from the inside out to the A-E Drive maintenance road between C-ring and B-ring.
The only problem with that : there were no really big, heavy parts photographed by the first allowed photographer, laying outside in that small heap of scrap metals and bricks.
Certainly not enough to smash in that wall and make that huge hole.
That was target 2. The Office of Naval Intelligence, the ONI. And its mainframes.With all the century old deep secrets of the power mongers in their files.

Page 3 :
""Craig : We don't believe that American 77 flew over the building either and we aren't asking you to accept ANY theory.""

LT : Craigs words seem to implement that he believes another, decoy plane flew over the western roofs of the Pentagon. Please clarify. What is the reasoning behind that.

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 08:56 PM
And when you look at the published official released diagrams from the Pentagon's inside damage,

there is no sane person on earth who would find an even slightly possible return to the official South of Citgo propagated flightpath for the plane observed by sergeant William Lagasse and his police colleague Chadwick Brooks AFTER the North of Citgo point on a map they placed it, just as all the ANC witnesses, where the plane flew over the last turning part of Columbia Pike northern of the CITGO station, then towards the south side of the Helicopter landing pad in front of the Pentagon's West wall, and just by the southern side of those two big trees which were standing in front of that Heliport landing pad, along Route 27 (a.k.a. Washington Boulevard).

The Official-Theory's SoC flightpath + LaBTop's example of a NoC flightpath :

One of the possible NoC flight paths (mine), together with the only official SoC flightpath diagram. Click for bigger picture.

That is the biggest misconception of all official story trusters, they think Columbia Pike ends somewhere near the end of the Navy Annex, when it in fact goes on in an wide S-turn around the CITGO station, passes that to the North and follows its way all the way to the Pentagon South parking.
Note also, that Roosevelt Roberts view from the South loading dock along the southern wall, did include most of the NoC flight path of that approaching plane.
Wide enough angle of view to eventually see either a SoC or a NoC flight path, which are only about 100 to 50 meters spaced apart, so it is very difficult to describe by Mr Roberts as a North- or a South- of CITGO gas station flight path.

Note that Mr Roberts is the only substantial witness, CIT thinks, of a fly-over. I don't think so.
Thus I ask you to carefully listen several times to Roosevelt Roberts first interview by the Army History Unit, and the one from a few years later, the second one, that somewhat hectic CIT interview of the same man, who was driving in a car when he was phoned on his hand-phone.

Link to a page to find RR's audio from his first Library of Congress interview :

And this is the direct link to Mr Roberts MP3 audio recording (5 MB) for the LofC :

There are, probable mil-spec, security cut-outs to be heard, two times. The first time is when he starts to explain what stuff he was unloading from his car, to be used for the 10:45 departure at the Heli port.
I do understand that the military does not want their enemies or the public to know the specifics of their preparation for a Pentagon Heli pad departure.
The second time is after he said : "as I hang up the phone"".
Then you hear this click, and then he says "The plane hit the building". To me, it's not clear, if this second glitch in the audio is in fact a cut-out, but it sounds like it. And that was a very decisive point in his interview. The interviewer should have asked him "which building?".
Now it sounds like he heard a plane hit the Pentagon, then he ran outside and saw a plane approaching somewhere behind the area covered by Lane 1 of the South parking lot.
Which was the area which was the furthest away from him. Its the lane originating from the last part of Columbia Pike, when that street comes out from under that Route 27 underpass, and that lane leads first to the South wall and then takes a sharp turn East, along that South wall to the East.
Thus, he had a good view to both the NoC and the SoC flightpaths.
Which one he saw, does not become clear at all.
There is another military witness, Levi Stephens, who had just parked his car in the Lane 1 area and was walking towards the South wall entrances when he saw a plane passing low.
So, the plane was not "over" Lane One, but behind it from the perspective of both military men.

The Library of Congress its "September 11, 2001, Documentary Project" :

Here is a thread with some posts of me and jthomas and others regarding the Army History Units interview and the CIT interview with Mr Roberts :

thread-title : Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish (on pages 50 to 54.)

Please read those thread's pages 50 to 51 to follow how the discussion between me and Alfie1 and jthomas come to a reasonable conclusion, namely that Roosevelt Roberts interview by CIT in fact showed that Mr Roberts saw a plane coming in from a NoC or a Soc flight path, and nothing else.
It was for me a refreshing debate, and opened my eyes already a bit to understand CIT's basis for their misconception of the by them accepted, officially offered (but in fact constructed and FAKE) C-ring hole as an exit hole, on a 60.25° True North flight path, flown by a SoC plane.

I will quote from that thread, member Alfie1's opinion (which is essentially the same as jthomas his opinion) , which I think now, after listening many times to both of Mr Roberts interviews, is the best explanation of the intrinsic meaning and missed intentions of Mr Roberts words :

Alfie1 : 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 map :

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 ?

I have only one remark to Alfie1 : the physical damage at the Pentagon was faked in the D- and C-rings, since a NoC path is proved, as I am explaining in this thread.
And if you look at my diagram of the Pentagon, and Mr Roberts position at the rim of the eastern loading dock area at the South parking side, you see that his angle of view (red lines) easily included both SoC and NoC flight paths. They are essentially only about 100 meter apart horizontally, at a point just east of the CITGO gas station.

Btw, Mr Roberts said in the CIT interview that it flew there at an about fifty feet height minimum, and less than hundred feet maximum (16.5 to 33 meters high, which is high enough to clear all obstacles on the NoC flight path, which is depicted as the green line in my satellite picture.)
First the official SoC last part of the flight, crossing Route 27 and cutting light poles.
Note that the NoC flying plane just needed to fly about 5 to 10 meters (15 to 30 feet) higher to clear all lamp poles, road signs and trees on its trajectory to impact.

Click for full image.

It would be extremely difficult to tell apart either a SoC, or NoC flight path at that observed low height, and both paths only 100 to, in the end, 50 meters apart in the horizontal plain.

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:04 PM
And below is the opinion of member jthomas, which I at first opposed, just like the opinion of Alfie1, but after scrutinizing listening to that CIT interview of Roosevelt Roberts, and his first Library of Congress interview, I definitely changed my mind and subscribe also to their opinions on how to interpret RR's interviews.

And that is why we, the Real-History Truthers at ATS, constantly need serious, civil opposition from our Official-History Trusters at this board. Because otherwise we end up as many of the One-Party-Line 911 boards forums. A disgrace to the historical correct TRUTH.

jthomas : 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.

Link to Roosevelt Roberts audio from his second phone interview, by CIT, you can find it beginning at 51:00 minutes into the next linked Video.Google by CIT,

The account of Roosevelt Roberts :

Google Video Link

Roosevelt Roberts never saw the "impact", he was inside on the phone, when he speaks of " the plane hit the building", and then ran outside to the rim of the eastern loading dock at the South wall, to look up and around and in the direction of the South parking, Lane One area, which is just a few degrees out from the Southern wall he was standing only a few feet away of, and in that area he saw a commercial jet plane fly low over it in the background. He said in the second, CIT interview, that he was in South Parking, and he was at the East loading dock (at the 52:30 to 33 minutes-seconds position of that video).
At his viewing-position at the boundary between the eastern loading dock area and the South parking lot, which took him "10 seconds tops" to arrive at, his view wasn't obstructed by the few big trees growing along that South wall.

Later in the interview he says he saw it flying (what would be on a route "back" to where it came from), in a South-easterly direction.
But what he in fact saw and said first, before Aldo Marquis confused the heck out of him, was a plane flying in the western background on its way to cross Route 27 and on to the West wall. Which wall he could not see from his position on the rim of the Southern parking, eastern loading platform in front of the South wall. He says he ran to the rim of that dock, and he saw the plane for a "quick five seconds, and it flew extremely fast".

I understand Mr Roberts' strange description of where he spotted the plane much better now :

"and I saw ANOTHER plane flying around the South parking lot, at a spot like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning."

He describes it as his position on the dock, when he looked west and saw the plane.
Look at my NoC + SoC combined flight paths pictures, and find that South Parking, eastern loading-dock border in the right down corner.
He stood with his back to the wall, looking to his right side and lifted his hand up with his watch with the short and the long hands showing the time, and now visualized again that moment, and explains the direction where he saw the plane coming from, as if he looked on his watch.
He said "at a spot like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning", and thus gives us a direction, pointing about a few degrees left of that south Pentagon wall, where he was standing about 15 meter in front of, at the border of the loading dock truck parking area, bordering the South Parking Lot area.

He feverishly tried to explain on the phone while driving in a car, that he saw flight 77 (or any other -Ev. remotely controlled- decoy plane acting as such), flying on a NoC or SoC flight path towards the Pentagon's West wall.
All the time trying to explain that to a CIT interviewer who was persistently trying to extract prove that Mr Roberts instead saw a plane which had overflew the Pentagon's roofs.

Which he did not see, and which was in fact totally impossible, no chance that a plane overflying the impact hole in the West wall and following a course over the Pentagon's roofs could have U-turned over the Basin on the other side of the Potomac River, and be back in the few seconds it took for Mr Roberts to run from the phone boot he was at, to the border of the loading dock truck area, which was no more than 7 steps outside, he said himself.

The only truly acceptable explanation of Mr Roberts his two taped interviews would be:
First he saw a plane on the TV-set in the hallway which hit the second South WTC Tower in New York.
Then secondly, after maximum 10 seconds, but probably less; which it took Mr Roberts to run 7 steps outside and then to the border of the truck-docking area, to check the sky, he witnessed a plane coming towards the West wall, which took about 2 or 3 seconds before he lost sight of it.
He even mentioned it flew towards "the Mall Entrance side" (Potomac side). Which is from southwest to northeast.
That could be either a SoC or a NoC flight path.
It is doubtful if he could ever made a distinction between a SoC or a NoC flight path of the plane he saw approaching coming from the southwest, from his view-point on that South loading-dock border part. When asked to draw a line on a map of the area. See my NoC flight path drawing on an area overview, together with the SoC flight path offered by the US government.

To conclude, I personally found these 3 opening posts from a poster, NK-44 on the Loose Change 911 forum :
The Basement Explosions

and the then following debate, an excellent example of private, but scientifically based 911 research, and we should all take it as an example of extraordinary persistence to get the true facts of that historical day into the history books.

And thus gather momentum for the growing hope we all have, to at least bring fair justice to those who organized, executed and covered up 911, and those who knew it was wrong but still let it happen, because they understood the enormous advantage of what was happening, for their greedy lifestyles.

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:42 PM
To all three posters :
I made perfectly clear, (I thought I did), before you posted, that I fully support all CIT interviewed NoC witnesses.
Thirteen people don't lie all about one simple to understand subject, namely, where flew the plane.

How on earth you then can ask and support this question:

"And what about the 13 NoC witnesses?",

goes really far beyond my empathic border.

I'll give you the short version, instead of these 20,000 above words :

The CIT phone interview of Mr Roberts was, after he explained the same flight path seen as in his first , Library of Congress audio interview, manipulative on the side of the CIT interviewer, he tried to extract any possible explanation which would favor a fly-over, which confused the hell out of Mr Roberts, who seems not too strong in directional assistance. And that's why he started swapping southwest with southeast in his answers.

He is definitely not a fly-over witness, and I would bet a fortune on that.
And he is also no definite NoC witness, his position is just too far away to be able to differentiate between an eventual South or North of CITGO flight path.
He simply saw a plane approaching at a low altitude, crossing over Route 27, on a trajectory towards the Pentagon West wall.

Thus, CIT has no fly-over witnesses, but 13 NoC witnesses, who all believe that a plane hit the Pentagon.
And Sean Boger is the best witness for that, he was in the Heliport tower, when the plane dived towards him from over the lamp posts and traffic signs on Route 27.

If you accept the 13 NoC witnesses, how can you ever accept any non NoC fitting, official but thus faked damage?

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:11 PM

Originally posted by LaBTop
I fully support all CIT interviewed NoC witnesses.
Thirteen people don't lie all about one simple to understand subject, namely, where flew the plane.

So to be ultra-clear, you believe the plane flew North of the Citgo, thus proving the official story wrong?

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:23 AM
I fell asleep while typing this first line below. I am online when you guys sleep in the US.

To answer your question :
Yes, I strongly believe that all 13 CIT witnesses watched a plane flying North of CITGO.
And I found a few more myself, which everyone up till now thought were SoC witnesses, but they are in fact the best NoC witnesses.

So, all NoC witnesses I strongly believe in, which makes nearly all the official proof of a SoC path, a full blown intentional LIE.

And now, after my debate about Roosevelt Roberts interviews in the other ATS thread, and listening about 50 times to his words and intonation while he is talking, I also strongly believe now that he is NOT a fly-over witness at all.

I showed you all in my last posts about that Jan. 2010 CIT Debate Forum thread, that Craig Ranke is convinced that the C-ring hole is a genuine plane parts EXIT hole.

Which is definitely also an official LIE.

And then he goes on to debate this man online, based on that LIE.
Several times!
Unbelievable illogical behavior from him, since normally he's a sharp guy who can reason quite logical.
But this one he fell for, hook, line and sinker.
And his whole fly-over thesis is based on this one interview, what a waste of time for him.

He should have posted his 13 witnesses, and left the theorizing what happened after the NoC plane passing to the worldwide online community.

Now CIT distracted a lot of them from their main discovery, that definite NoC flight path, which on its own clearly proves a HUGE MILITARY/POLITICAL DECEPTION.

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:19 AM
I also believe the NoC witnesses. However, I cannot accept or justify the fly-over theory. There's too much evidence against it.

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:20 AM

Originally posted by LaBTop
To answer your question :
Yes, I strongly believe that all 13 CIT witnesses watched a plane flying North of CITGO.

Now CIT distracted a lot of them from their main discovery, that definite NoC flight path, which on its own clearly proves a HUGE MILITARY/POLITICAL DECEPTION.

So you believe a plane hit the Pentagon,

but it flew NoC?

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 12:01 PM
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 12:10 PM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

So all the 13 NoC witnesses

are wrong?

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 12:16 PM
Do not reply to this Post


This forum is on "Strict Terms and Conditions of Use ENFORCEMENT" until further notice.

"Strict Enforcement" means:

Any Member lowering themselves to name calling, no matter how innocuous, will be red tag warned on the spot, no questions asked.

Any Member who, after receiving a red tag warn in this forum, commits another breach of the TAC will be post banned on the spot, no questions asked.

One warning is all you get before being post banned.

Any posts, replies or new threads, that are about Member personalities instead of the issues will be red tag warned and deleted.


[edit on 15/4/2010 by Sauron]

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in