It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

So all the 13 NoC witnesses

are wrong?



CIT says it's an aerodynamic impossibility for the plane to have flown NoC and also to hit the Pentagon, IIRC.

Do you agree?




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
CIT says it's an aerodynamic impossibility for the plane to have flown NoC and also to hit the Pentagon, IIRC.

Do you agree?

I'll answer that after you answer
my question I asked you first.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
CIT says it's an aerodynamic impossibility for the plane to have flown NoC and also to hit the Pentagon, IIRC.

Do you agree?

I'll answer that after you answer
my question I asked you first.


Fine.

I believe that they are correct when they state that they all believe the plane hit the Pentagon. Therefore, their belief that the plane was NoC is incorrect.

Now you.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Therefore, their belief that the plane was NoC is incorrect.

How could they ALL been so wrong???


CIT says it's an aerodynamic impossibility for the plane to have flown NoC and also to hit the Pentagon, IIRC.

Do you agree?

Does that flight path include the knocked down light poles?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
CIT says it's an aerodynamic impossibility for the plane to have flown NoC and also to hit the Pentagon, IIRC.

Do you agree?

I'll answer that after you answer
my question I asked you first.


Fine.

I believe that they are correct when they state that they all believe the plane hit the Pentagon. Therefore, their belief that the plane was NoC is incorrect.

Now you.


You know ultimately, just going off the available known evidence, I have to believe the same thing.

BUT...

I have always been baffled by CIT's evidence he gathered. All of the witness testimony, their own recounting of the flight path on the aerial photos. Police officers, all walks of life, all recounting this apparent path that they witnessed yet is completely impossible given all of the evidence we have been presented with.

How is this possible? So many witnesses, all with the exact recollection. Granted, I have no idea if CIT gathered witnesses with the southside flight path(with signed aerial photos and all) confirming the official story and just kept them from everyone to bolster his theory.

Barring that though, it's very strange that he couldn't find one person that contradicted the NOC path witnesses. Very strange that all of these people along different points all recount the same thing and corroborate each other. It's powerful evidence, but I suppose more witnesses are needed to clear up the apparent discrepancies.

Until then it will be just another 9/11 mystery, all physical evidence pointing to southside path, chopping down light poles, destroying Loyds cab, pushing over fence and gouging the generator. Yet large group of credible witnesses swear the jet couldn't of caused that damage, but do agree it impacted.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 


CIT make a big issue about their witnesses supporting and corroborating each other but when you look more closely it is not quite like that. For example, you have Ed Paik and Terry Morin who put the plane on the south side Navy Annexe / Columbia Pike area ( which I think makes them soc witnesses really ) and others who put the plane way north over the ANC maintenace buildings parking lot.

They are not generally supporting each other and it doesn't surprise me at all because I don't think it can be an easy thing to mentally transfer an impression of a low fast jet in the sky to specific points on the ground. When it comes to a choice between a witness being right about the flightpath or right about it hitting the Pentagon then I think it is a no-brainer for the latter.

If you are really interested I would also urge you to consider the witnesses individually. For example, here is an item about Ed Paik and whether he was inside or outside when the plane went over :-

911reports.wordpress.com...

You will find that Sgt Lagasse could not remember where he had been at the Citgo station on 9/11 when CIT spoke to him years later. According to some posts I saw on CIT's own forum, the poster had contacted Sean Boger who apparently has no idea CIT are using him as a noc witness. The plane crashed yards from his heli tower position and the tower was damaged by flying debris but CIT continue to use him as supposed support for their flyover theory !



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



How could they ALL been so wrong???


Well, since none of these supposed NOC witnesses agree on the path how could any of them be right?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

How could they ALL been so wrong???


Only this select group is wrong. All the other witnesses are correct.



Does that flight path include the knocked down light poles?


Why not do all 3 that I can think of?

1- the flight path that includes the light poles, generator, etc

2- labtop's proposed "straight in" flight path

3- a flight path that results in a hit it in the damaged area, at any angle

4- or of course, anything you care to comment on



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by PersonalChoice

Barring that though, it's very strange that he couldn't find one person that contradicted the NOC path witnesses.


How do you know that is true?

One thing that CIT and pffffft get right is that the NoC and the physical damage are incompatible. They have chosen to go with the NoC, and ignore the physical evidence like radar tracks, damage tracks - light poles, generator, and tree - and contridicting eyewitness testimony like the C-130 pilot that actually WATCHED the plane fly into the building.

That's their choice, but the lack of support on many forums to their beliefs borders on the scorn received by no planers at the WTC.

Draw your own conclusion why that is......



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Well, since none of these supposed NOC witnesses agree on the path how could any of them be right?

They all said the plane flew NoC,
but don't agree on the path?!?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Only this select group is wrong. All the other witnesses are correct.

Can I see a list of these "correct" witnesses and their claims of where the plane flew from?


Why not do all 3 that I can think of?

I'm not sure what you are asking, but there can only be one flight path that doesn't destroy the official story, agreed?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Page 2.



Calling911 : I originally believed there were not enough pieces at the Pentagon when I first started investigating, but then I also looked at the fact that I had never seen a crash of a 757 hitting a concrete building at 500 or so mph. The faster something hits and the "matter" that it hits can make a huge difference between how many recognizable parts found.

Craig Ranke : Right which is why you are DISMISSING the corroborated hard evidence we provide demonstrating a right banking relatively slow moving plane and making up your own speed with no evidence at all.

Furthermore the Pentagon is not solid concrete. You're only talking about 2 feet of layers of brick, concrete, and limestone.
The notion that it could disintegrate a 757 is ludicrous.


LT : I agree with Craig about the speed involved in the slight right banking trajectory from over the Navy Annex until Route 27. Three witnesses said it took about 10 seconds.



Craig : As an air traffic controller Sean Boger is an expert witness. Terry Morin is an aviator as well and he also puts it over 10 seconds from the Navy Annex to the explosion. William Middleton ALSO puts it over 10 seconds. The location of these witnesses puts them in a better position to judge speed than most. The right bank would be facilitated by this slower speed.


LT : Terry Morin saw the plane passing over his head, then ran to the parking where he could follow the plane from a backwards view until it reached the row of trees in front of the CITGO downhill, and then he saw only the tail until the explosion.
Mr Middleton, at the ANC graveyard's furthest south border road, had a very good sideways view of that trajectory. And Sean Boger had a perfect head-on view of the same trajectory.
And to perform even such a slight right banking maneuver, the plane had to fly at least half times slower than the official 500 miles per hour.


Note that the people who were nearest to the Pentagon, and the plane, had the best view of it, and they describe a last change of bank to a slight left one. Of course the much longer part of the flight path from the Navy Annex to Route 27 had to be flown by the plane in a slight right bank (right wing a bit down, left wing a bit up), see my NoC flight path proposal.

Penny Elgas however, saw the plane passing low over the road, a few cars in front of her, crossing Route 27 at a spot just before the Heliport landing pad, and she saw the under side of a wing. Not the wings, but a wing. In her position, she obviously could have only witnessed a left bank. Otherwise she would have seen the upper part of the wing, if the plane was still in a right bank.
Or the plane was high enough to let her see both wings' undersides. But she specifically said that the plane was so low, she was afraid it would hit a car.
Sean Boger's description of the plane coming towards him on its last piece of its, visible for him, trajectory from over Route 27 : "tilted to his right" = left bank



The just completed full renovation of the Wedge 1, Section 4 part, and thus also of its West wall, resulted in new, much stronger internal and external columns, which were re-bar enforced with a double ring structure, and that Wedge part of the West wall construction was not only bricks and limestone deck plates, but also a dense network of thick, hardened steel beams and columns, where a 2x stronger Kevlar netting was attached to.
If you want to see how that looked, see the just after-collapse photographs.
There you can clearly see the reddish beams and columns, and the white woven Kevlar blankets under the window frames and elsewhere.
That was an ultra strong structure. And guess what? That very bad pilot (as told by the first media reports) managed to hit exactly that renovated Wedge portion under a 90° horizontal angle to the wall, with the plane's nose cone and long fuselage main frame beam, head on on a full row of outside and following inside columns, and the two engines hit exactly on two other rows of such columns, see this diagram of mine :



That were the two rows 11 and 15 for the jet engines, and one row 13 for the nose cone and the long main fuselage beam. Look at all those recently reinforced columns in the outer E-Ring, which were hit by the most stiff and heavy plane parts on a NoC incoming approach and subsequent head-on impact.
As you can clearly see, ALL the column damage inside, behind that first blue West wall column to the right side (seen from inside) of the drawn head-on plane, and behind all the other not damaged West wall columns, is totally impossible to explain for a head-on collision.
And a head-on collision is the only left possible plane impact, after we have been provided by CIT of sufficient proof that a plane flew NoC, So-ANC grounds.
And when you listen to Sean Boger who saw the plane coming from the Heliport Tower's first floor controls room, and saw it impacting to his left side, you know that the plane impacted.
And even more when you listen to Penny Elgas telling her story, on the day of 9/11 to the media. She is a definite NoC witness. Together with Christine Peterson, who's car was a few cars in front of Penny's car, and the plane flew low over Christine's car roof.

That (orange) upward deflected first floor slab looks as the center of a thermobaric bomb explosion, set off so, that the ellipsoidal damage stayed in line with the 53° to the wall, angle of attack from a non-existing SoC impacting plane. The inside C-ring section damage was created with another thermobaric. So, all damage to the right of the Expansion Joint in the building, was artificial.

Make your own mind up what could have caused all those columns to be severely damaged, or lost, when you believe in the simple explanatory words of the CIT witnesses, who are sure that the plane flew between the CITGO gas station and the ANC graveyard grounds.
And you can hear those words loud and clear in CIT's "National Security Alert" video to be found on their site. Just forget for the moment CIT's conclusion of a fly-over, concentrate what all these people honestly explained about what they saw on 911.
And don't believe a word of the posters who try to wave them away as being plain wrong or victim of perspective distortions. They had excellent views of that plane, no mis-interpretation possible, it flew NoC, So-ANC grounds. In between those two areas. And not one ANC witness said that the plane flew over ANC grounds. Not one.


See this following diagram for the column numbering and note that the drawing's bottom is the West wall + impact, and note also all the exit doors in the C-ring wall. We have only photos from 2 extra smoke-venting exits there, the rolling door (at the very top right) and a small door even further away to the right, near the overpass corridors between the C- and B-rings.
And remember, the first two floors of the shown Wedge 1 were essentially open space with some light dry-walls and perhaps a few half-brick wide other office-spacing walls.
There are 7 front columns missing and 3 damaged ones. Also 3 missing columns inside the later collapsed part, perpendicular to the front columns. This is where the nose hit at column 13. The jet engines hit at front columns 11 and 15. Note that the second columns inside, behind those ones, were also missing.
And if you look at the photo of the second explosion, circa 1 minute after impact, you see that the white hot gases are expelled perpendicular to the West wall, through the impact's center opening.
And not under an 53° angle. That was probably the explosion to get rid of most of the already shredded aluminum parts, they did not want anybody to find proof in that early stage, that the plane was modified to be steered remotely. And they needed a fire inferno to stop the fire fighters reaching the remnants of that plane in the later collapsed front piece of Wedge 1's section 4.



Now realize, what a stunning coincidence it was, that this plane impacted exactly at the only reinforced part of the Pentagon, as if the whole renovation was set up only as a "pitcher and catcher" case, to be sure that the plane was shredded by the reinforced concrete columns and the added extra lattice of high grade steel beams and columns, and the Kevlar netting added as the last safety net to catch all produced aluminum shrapnel.
Also realize that the fuselage will fold and wrinkle instantly like an aluminum soda-can you stamp on with your foot and full weight, the moment the main fuselage beam will hit head-on to a row of subsequent reinforced columns and a huge floor slab. And do not forget the brick walls and limestone plates in between all the concrete and steel columns, and the full length of the steel-bars reinforced floor plate from the first floor, where the nose did hit.

This is as I see all the recent knowledge fit the picture :

Click for full image.



In my opinion, this is how a NoC plane impacted, and did not penetrate further than the first red line, where my inserted plane's nose touches that line at that red column. As you see, the impact damage fits the whole wingspan, and the internal damage does fit the position of the fuselage and the two jet engines. The wings and their beams are quite tough until a few yards besides both engines.
The two softer wing tip areas will quickly have been shattered.
All the vast damage inside, to the left of column 9, is unexplainable with this head on impact.
When you believe the words of those NoC witnesses. And I do believe them.
And millions do.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

I'm not sure what you are asking, but there can only be one flight path that doesn't destroy the official story, agreed?


Sack up.

I answered your question.

Now answer mine:

Are any of the NoC flight paths/damage areas on the Pentagon wall aerodynamically possible?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Is your flight path aerodynamically possible?

There'd be a whole lotta banking and juking to go both NoC and a straight, level, and square impact to the wall.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Are any of the NoC flight paths/damage areas on the Pentagon wall aerodynamically possible?

It doesn't matter.

If there wasn't a 757 flying SoC and through the light poles into the 1st/2nd story of the Pentagon, then the official story is a lie regardless if a plane crashed or not.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I don't think it is a far fetched theory at all. A huge 757 simply flying right over the Pentagon, maybe still traveling 230+ MPH, maybe a little faster because it is coming in for a landing. People would see it disappear, see a fireball, and never see the plane again. It isn't like the people who saw this happen would have thought the plane hit the front of the building. That's hind-sight, and what we were told later. They see a large plane, going barely over the Pentagon, and a huge fireball takes its place as it's gone in a snap.

I think it's some excellent research. They went out and interviewed all of these people, took multiple interviews which all corroborated the central theme of a flyover. It's not that hard of a concept to either visualize or pull off if your the U.S. Military.

I think its about the best theory on the table for what happened at the Pentagon, with the governments conspiracy theory on what happened at the Pentagon being about the most unbelievable.

This is all about finding out what happened and demanding something be done, right? And not about being unreasonably critical of peoples findings. So, I'm glad we have people like Craig and CIT.
Wish we had tons more of them in 9/11 and am sure he probably does as well.

Cheers-
Phil



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Joey Canoli, yes, I think it is aerodynamically possible, including a switch from a very SLIGHT right bank to a very SLIGHT left bank just before the plane reached Route 27.
Penny Elgas then "saw the underside of a wing", and Sean Boger saw "he tilted the plane to his right".
That's in my books, the way they are both describing a very slight LEFT bank.
Because if they described a more than slight left bank, the plane would have never hit the way it did. See my posted link to a CIT picture of Sean Boger with his banking commentary in it.
I expect that the remote control pilot performed a few very tiny adjustment to the plane's last few hundred meters, to exactly hit on a pre-planned SoC spot on the wall, either lighted up with a laser, or fit with a radar or radio beacon.

The first row of offices were the 2.3 Trillion dollar black budgets investigation, Auditors work stations (Army 11).
The last row of offices were Navy Special Use offices (ONI and others), mainframe computers and whatever more some others really wanted in their possession, or otherwise DEFINITELY destroyed. With SOLID proof that they were destroyed, otherwise the whole operation was useless.
Remember, the moving over from their temporary offices was for all these military branches just completed, from places deeper in the Pentagon. That means reinstalling all these very sensitive computer systems had to be repositioned and that gave some very influential people the chance to put them in places where they wanted them to be on 911.

And if you ask me why Rumsfeld spilled the beans about this missing or not accounted for $ 2.3 Trillion a day before, well, that's easy, do not expect that this auditing was just started. It was already in progress for many years, and some people out there in Washington, Jerusalem, London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow and Beijing really didn't want some very dark secrets to come out in the open. And they all like playing the "intelligence game", the real men and women in real POWER. They are not the politicians in sight, those are replaceable puppets. No, these are the real dark Intelligence power brokers.

Do you think 911, as we know now, was a sole American enterprise?
Of course not, all these entities keep an eye on each other, and not a single one of them spilled the beans on what they saw on their spy satellites. The one and only perfect happening to keep every greedy politician from now on in balance for a long time to come ("I know what you did last year"). Just look at what really happened after 911 in all these countries, all these years now.
Would you have ever expected or dreamed that all this money grabbing would have been accepted BEFORE 911?

Now observe my NoC + impact flightpath again, with this new insight:


The satellite picture with both SoC and NoC paths drawn in it.
Click for full NoC flightpath picture.





At this scale, I could not show the very slight wobbling of the wings just in front of Route 27 (a.k.a. Washington Boulevard).

And now, do note the distances in meters involved with the NoC plane's flight path on its last hundreds of meters :

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 NoC flightpath picture.




Now that we know that the intention at planning stage was, to down the light poles the night or early morning before the attack, and that their SoC path was inadvertently changed in real time by some error to a NoC path, there can be only one conclusion.

That plane was flown in real time remote conditions.
They had to have a solution at forehand for exactly this situation.
They had years to plan this meticulously, and they had plan B, C and D for all possible mayhem for their plans.

That C-130 described by one witness as an electronic warfare version, is a prime candidate for housing of the remote pilot, who flew that plane from a distance, aided by nose cone camera and cameras in the wings, for a perfect 3D picture. And there were for sure tens of other devices installed in the plane and in the Pentagon's West wall or the trailers in front of it, to secure that the plane even after a diversion, would hit at that EXACT spot.

And, lo and behold, that same C-130 flew in the vicinity of the crash site of Flight 93 near Shanksville. Yes, I know the exact distance as told by the same liars.
There were also 2 Doomsday planes in the air around Washington.
These people hate to make mistakes, they controlled the whole scene for at least 3 hours, and after that they only had to have their cohorts in place for Damage Control. See all these explosions at the WTC all over the day, recorded on seismographs, and reported by journalists and TV reporters.
And the two or three extra explosions at the Pentagon, one minute after impact, spitting out of the center impact hole, and the one just before the Section 4 partial collapse. I linked to both.

A few too many abnormal coincidences that day, don't you think so?


And always keep in mind, the one nation with the biggest and strongest Army, Navy and Air Force can do what they want, as long as there's no other power or combined powers to keep them in check.
See what US banks did to us all. This will be accepted no longer, by the new, fast rising powers.
We are living in an interregnum, even an interbellum, between an US-British-Israeli domination era and a for sure coming Russian-Chinese-and-Allies dominated era. And the unavoidable war period in between.

Bad times ahead, if America and Britain do not get a grip on their totally out of hand operating military-industrial-Israeli-bankers complex.
But the real global disaster would be, an intertwining of the old and new kids on the block.
Then, kiss your human rights goodbye. FOREVER.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Phil Jayhan
 




I think it's some excellent research. They went out and interviewed all of these people, took multiple interviews which all corroborated the central theme of a flyover. It's not that hard of a concept to either visualize or pull off if your the U.S. Military.


I also think it's excellent research, the interviews of the NoC witnesses.

But you slipped with the "took multiple interviews which all corroborated the central theme of a flyover."

They certainly did not all, in fact none.
That's the quintessence of this thread, and the logical conclusion of the other threads I hinted at (and linked to) at page 1.

They have done excellent work, of immense historical value, but they should have realized that their sole fly-over witness is not such one, AT ALL. Proof of that?
Just listen with a neutral stance to Roosevelt Roberts 2 interviews.

Do not get all excited and in a ecstatic frenzy about CIT's complete work, they are only human and made a huge mistake with their interpretation of Mr Roberts words in a hurried mobile phone interview, where Aldo Marquis really pushed the limits to get Mr Roberts to say that he saw two planes FLYING at the SCENE THERE.

Mr Roberts saw one plane hitting a WTC Tower on his TV inside the loading dock room, and then ran outside to check the sky, and saw a plane approaching from the southwest passing over Route 27, and then "he saw dust flying and people started to scream".
That's after the IMPACT.

All the rest of the phone conversation is clearly Aldo making Mr Roberts so confused, that he mixed up directions and time stamps. He repeatedly comes back to the one scene he really saw, the approaching plane, and then get pushed by Aldo the wrong way, and gives some totally impossible flightpath directions, essentially saying IN ERROR, that the same plane he saw, now turned back a full 360 ° and left the scene over Route 27 again. In less than 10 seconds!

NOBODY from all the hundreds of witnesses, near and far away, saw such a plane flying over the Pentagon roofs, making an U-turn and >RETURNING



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 


CIT make a big issue about their witnesses supporting and corroborating each other but when you look more closely it is not quite like that. For example, you have Ed Paik and Terry Morin who put the plane on the south side Navy Annexe / Columbia Pike area ( which I think makes them soc witnesses really ) and others who put the plane way north over the ANC maintenance buildings parking lot.

They are not generally supporting each other and it doesn't surprise me at all because I don't think it can be an easy thing to mentally transfer an impression of a low fast jet in the sky to specific points on the ground. When it comes to a choice between a witness being right about the flightpath or right about it hitting the Pentagon then I think it is a no-brainer for the latter.

If you are really interested I would also urge you to consider the witnesses individually. For example, here is an item about Ed Paik and whether he was inside or outside when the plane went over :-

911reports.wordpress.com...

You will find that Sgt Lagasse could not remember where he had been at the Citgo station on 9/11 when CIT spoke to him years later. According to some posts I saw on CIT's own forum, the poster had contacted Sean Boger who apparently has no idea CIT are using him as a NoC witness. The plane crashed yards from his heli tower position and the tower was damaged by flying debris but CIT continue to use him as supposed support for their fly-over theory !



Alfie1, regarding your linked article :
Ed Paik saw the right wing out of his window, thus the body of the plane flew OVER his office and garage.
Terry Morin just stepped out of the door in the space between two Navy Annex wings 4 and 5 (just Search ATS for " LaBTop Morin phone interview " and you will find much more on him, even the exact point where he stood), walked a few steps toward the parking lot where he wanted to pick up his sunglasses left in his car, while STILL inside that garden space, and then he heard a thundering noise reflecting from the walls, looked up and saw the left wing and the body of the plane passing over, while part of the right wing stuck out over the parking lot, essentially the same kind of observation as Ed Paik.
In my opinion, these two alone could still be SoC witnesses, when a SoC plane would have very slightly banked back again to south of CITGO.

BUT, combined with all the others, ANC, Heliport and Route 27 witnesses, they definitely are NoC witnesses.


"others who put the plane way north over the ANC maintenance buildings parking lot. "
Please show me proof of that, because it does not exist to this moment.
All ANC witnesses saw the plane flying TOWARDS their compound's buildings, but then saw it flying over the area between the border fence/stone wall of their compound and the North side of the CITGO station when passing them towards the Pentagon.

And there was no report of damage or repair to one of the two top antennas of the radio tower on the west side of Colombia Pike, in the records of the Virginia Roads Maintenance Offices. (Its an other name, but you can find the correct name easily). And the extremely zoomed in part of the radio tower's top part shows 2 antenna, and he thinks the most right one looks as if bend a bit.
Let him please explain to you, how can the nearer to the plane antenna can be still straight up then?

To your post's contrary, it is much easier for a plane's flight path witness on the ground, to "mentally transfer an impression of a low fast jet in the sky to specific points on the ground", than when he observes a high flying plane. He has lots of conformation points on the ground to relay to and rely on, when it flies that low as reported.
And the plane flew half slower than the advertised 500 MPH.
Three people all think it took the plane about 10 seconds from Annex to impact. Mr Middleton, Sean Boger,Terry Morin.

"You will find that Sgt Lagasse could not remember where he had been at the CITGO station on 9/11 when CIT spoke to him years later."

That's a bending of words. He did not remember that he stood at the first most northernly pump after the entrance to the CITGO compound. He thought when interviewed by CIT, that he stood at the next, second pump in that row of two.
He knew very well that he stood under the CITGO's North side roof, at the most northern pumps side.
And don't worry, we have the FOIA freed CITGO surveillance video, where you can see him stand between his car and the pump, watching the counting of his gallons, when he clearly jumps up as a white flash is seen in the footage, looks to the right, and then bend in his car to pick up his mike, to radio in that a plane just hit the Pentagon. The white flash is one second before all the people in the pay isle, inside the station can be seen on camera running to the door and outside. Where they all gather to talk and gesture towards the Pentagon's West wall.
And the same person who you linked to, had an extensive posting here at ATS before he left ATS, where he did argument to see two faint shadows on the right, south side of the CITGO on the street there, and thought it were shadows of a SoC plane's wings with a shadowy dot in between as its fuselage shadow.
His only problem, these very vague thingamajigs appeared 2 seconds before the white flash in the surveillance video. And 4 seconds before all people inside the shopping and paying isle in the CITGO building, clearly reacted on the impact.

I agree with you about Sean Boger, the Heliport controller being a clear impact, and also a NoC witness.
Do not forget, he was there with a female colleague, who just went down to the toilet.
But she HEARD the impact. And the shearing noises of metal ripping through their building.
The window glass on the side to the impact was broken, it's in the photo's on this board.
There is a photo on this board linked to from another site, where you see them walk together outside their building on the Pentagon lawn grass, near a tree, just ten minutes after the impact.
Her name is also known, so feel free to ask her.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Nope, no two of them agreed on the path of the flight. You are welcome to generalize all you want about describing the variations, North of Citco, South of Philadelphia, East of the Mississippi, West of the Atlantic Ocean, but in the end you have a handfull of people all of whom described a different path for the plane.

No corroboration. In fact, all these so-called testimonies prove is that it is very difficult to ascribe an exact path on the ground for a very fast moving plane in the air. In order to finally and fully determine the path you would need something like physical evidence like broken light poles and recorded data.

Thank you for your attention.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join