It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ATH911
The 12 or-so North of Citgo witnesses.
Where they all wrong, or lying?
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 ?
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.
Google Video Link
"and I saw ANOTHER plane flying around the South parking lot, at a spot like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning."
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.
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.
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY... ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ
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.