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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:20 AM
Further comment needed :
Page 2.

Calling911 :Those questions are answered with my theory. We are all trying to get more people interested, and those questions need to be answered to get the public interested.
You (CIT) have proved it was a lie, my theory is aimed at trying to offer answers to enough questions to spark more interest from the public. I am trying to work with you, not against you.

Craig Ranke : Speculation answers nothing.
Evidence is what we demand and you have provided none.
I am going to have to politely ask you to keep your theories on your blog and limit your participation on this forum to research, evidence, and questions about our investigation. Thanks.

Calling911 :I will keep theories to myself then,
But can I ask...
Why have a discussion or questions section? You completely dismiss people who are on your-side, (fighting for the truth) we are wrong if we don't agree 100% with your findings? I am willing, for the cause of finding the TRUTH to agree that my theory is not fully proved yet. I don't agree that American 77 flew over the Pentagon yet I still accept that your theory is quite real. Why are you continually cutting down theories that support the ultimate truth, the government was behind 9/11?

Until you can tell someone where American 77 is... most mainstream public will not support your evidence. I do support the possibilities you provide because I have been investigating this for a LONG time.

But for others, it is like trying to offer reasons why someone is still alive without having the "alive" person standing next to you. People want answers, not proof why something doesn't sound right. If you forced another investigation by the "government" or even 3rd parties, what makes you think they will all of sudden say, "we're sorry, we missed the part about United 93 not crashing and American 77 flying over the Pentagon? This is what I learned from the 7 years of investigating, people could care less about 'why the governments story couldn't work', they want to know ideas how it didn't work.

One point needed to clarify first.

Luckily, and honestly !!!, CIT offers online audio and video of all their research, to give peer reviewers a chance to scrutinize it.
I miss a lot of acceptance and gratitude from both sides of the debate, for this fine and honest online behavior of CIT.

I am afraid only 1 % of this thread readers have followed the link I gave to the other thread's pages 50 to 54, with my discussion with Alfie1 and jthomas, where they made me curious enough to recheck several times what Mr Roberts really said.
And that scrutinizing of my own mind did change my opinion of the only CIT fly-over witness.

The other one CIT speaks of, is not at all a reliable source for a fly-over, it is speculation. (" and there were others who saw the plane going on" or something like that).

So now, we have two NoC theories,
1. CIT with a NoC path and fly-over following,
2. Half CIT, half mine, with a CIT NoC path and an impact following.

I am curious how many agree with me now they have read my reasoning, and hopefully have followed my links and listened to Roosevelt Roberts CIT interview.
His Library of Congress interview is clear, he saw the plane approaching, crossing Route 27 and then saw dust flying above the roofs, and heard people shouting and then stream out the building.

Be so kind and honest towards the (surprisingly amount of) lurking and reading-only viewers of this 911-ATS forum, and be brave enough, like -Bonez- did, to express your opinion and/or opposition and critique to my argumentation.

And this friendly request is aimed at my fellow True and Honest History researchers, who do not express that sickening kind of "groupie" behavior, so well known from all the world's religious followers, who need a strong hand to hold, without ever criticizing the offered hands owner.

It's called Peer review, and there is no shame in doing so.

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:28 PM

Originally posted by ATH911

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.

Lack of sack duly noted.

By that same logic, if it aerodynamically impossible for a plane to have flown NoC and still hit the Pentagon as Labtop believes happened, then his beliefs are wrong, regardless if you believe the NoC wirnesses to be correct or not.

Do you agree?

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:30 PM

Originally posted by LaBTop

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.

Have you researched this?

Or is it just your belief?

IIRC, this belief puts you at odds with a lot of qualified pilots at pfffft.

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:59 PM

Originally posted by LaBTop

Luckily, and honestly !!!, CIT offers online audio and video of all their research, to give peer reviewers a chance to scrutinize it.

How do you KNOW that to be a fact?

There is no way to corroborate this belief.

You have what they've released, nothing more.

IIRC, CIT promised to release the raw interviews for the people that they have submitted as NoC witnesses, but haven't.

With a track record like that, how do you KNOW that there aren't interviews that they haven't released AT ALL?

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
By that same logic, if it aerodynamically impossible for a plane to have flown NoC and still hit the Pentagon as Labtop believes happened, then his beliefs are wrong, regardless if you believe the NoC wirnesses to be correct or not.

Do you agree?

And also hit the light poles? Yes.

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 07:14 PM

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
By that same logic, if it aerodynamically impossible for a plane to have flown NoC and still hit the Pentagon as Labtop believes happened, then his beliefs are wrong, regardless if you believe the NoC wirnesses to be correct or not.

Do you agree?

And also hit the light poles? Yes.


So then you agree that Labtop is wrong?

And that the NoC and impact are incompatable.

You choose to believe the NoC witnesses - even though they also agree that the plane hit the Pentagon - and discard all other evidence as being fake or planted then too, correct?

Physical evidence like the damage path - inside the Pentagon, generator trailer, lightpoles, tree - and other eyewitness accounts like the C-130 pilot.

They're all fake?

Good luck with that.....

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by LaBTop

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.

Have you researched this?

Or is it just your belief?

IIRC, this belief puts you at odds with a lot of qualified pilots at pfffft.

This remark of yours is in fact quite funny, in light of the fact that I have based my research on the fine research efforts of the Pilots for Truth. Thus also their calculations.

And on the personally drawn flight paths from their NoC witnesses, where my flight path fits in perfectly.
They have nice aerial overview drawings in their forum, with those orange lines in them, depicting all the, by all their interviewed witnesses, reported flight paths.

And I have flown about five thousand hours myself as an interested passenger. Several times around the world too.
Several full globe circles, I mean with that. And I know some military pilots. Very dear to me. And I talk, and write a lot, as you can see here. Thus, with them too. And I do understand them quite well. We got the same kind of training schooling.

When you study the PfT possible flight paths threads, you will see that they calculated them for SoC and NoC.
The last one included a low pass over the Pentagon roofs.

What I propose here and now, is exactly the same as their NoC paths, only a few meters lower downward at the last 120 meters of that flight.
And a VERY slight wobbling of the wings just before Route 27. A bank correction.
And of course a far slower flying plane than what the media and the reports offered.

When a remote pilot corrected the plane's NoC, long winded Navy Annex to Route 27, slight downward and right bank trajectory with a minimal left-steering input, the plane will react by tipping its right wing-tip up, let's say 2 meters up.
That is already enough for Sean Boger to watch a slight left bank, and for Penny Elgas who had a side view of the plane as it passed just in front of her over Christine Peterson's car and the light poles there, to be able to see the underside of the right wing. And of the left wing too.
Then, above the lawn another "slight push sideways on the stick" and the plane is nearly horizontal.
And also a very light, remote "push forward on the stick", and the nose will dip down and the plane will impact at the planned spot on the wall.
Instead of flying very low over the roof.

Which was all programmed in the remote control software, all the terrain features, so they could switch from one option to another, very fast.

I am trying to find out where that slight steering mistake took place, that diverted the plane from a clean SoC to a NoC flight trajectory.
And made those preplanned 5 downed light poles THE biggest mistake they made, in an overzealous attempt to make the whole Pentagon event, too obviously, totally correct for the expected and also planned, media circus reporting.

And I would like to see that you and eventual others refrain in future from mocking the pilots at PfT by using that same scandalous " pfffft " like you do, and others did as other persona here at ATS who got banned. A search for people who used this mockery, turn up past and recent member names.

These pilots are people who hundreds of other people have faith in and lay their life in their hands, when they board the planes they fly, so stop your childish behavior, it shows no RESPECT.
And I, and probably many others, really take offense of such childish behavior.

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 11:26 PM
This is the above remarked BIG photo of all NoC reported and drawn in by the witnesses, flight paths.
LaBTop's NoC and Impact flight path fits in perfectly.

Click this above link to see a really big, 1.592px × 859px photo of the Navy Annex, CITGO, ANC compound and Pentagon areal view.

The same Pilots for Truth and CIT one, but scaled to 640px x 345px to fit this forum :

And my proposed flight path and Impact :

Click for full NoC and Impact flightpath picture.

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 03:26 AM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
By that same logic, if it is aerodynamically impossible for a plane to have flown NoC and still hit the Pentagon as LaBTop believes happened, then his beliefs are wrong, regardless if you believe the NoC witnesses to be correct or not.

Do you agree?

And also hit the light poles? Yes.


So then you agree that LaBTop is wrong?

And that the NoC and impact are incompatible.

You choose to believe the NoC witnesses - even though they also agree that the plane hit the Pentagon - and discard all other evidence as being fake or planted then too, correct?

Physical evidence like the damage path - inside the Pentagon, generator trailer, light poles, tree - and other eyewitness accounts like the C-130 pilot.

They're all fake?

Good luck with that.....

Quite the opposite, NoC plus impact is aerodynamically possible, so we can discard that first quote of Joey Canoli.
Thus that NoC plane flying in a slight right bank on a steady course to the Pentagon West wall, could have never ever hit those 5 light poles. Period. End of discussion.

Why? See this PfT thread explaining why a NoC plane could have never ever hit those 5 mysteriously downed light poles.
Btw, my remark, far to the right of its actual crossing of Route 27 :

Which thread was meant to prove that a switch by the plane from a No-C/So-ANC position back to the officially endorsed SoC flight path and then still hitting the 5 thus downed light poles at the exact height and spots, and hitting the Pentagon nearly leveled out horizontally again, was utterly impossible.

It would have flown on its side through the area those poles stood, if it would have survived that instantaneous flip over from a right to a full left bank. After all that, it would have cut its right wing deeper than the jet engine into the ground, before it could have ever hit the Pentagon wall.

And don't play lengthy word games with me, PfT's thread certainly does not nullify my NoC and Impact proposal.
It is additional evidence of an impossibility when trying as the last resort as a skeptic, to couple a NoC path to the officially endorsed SoC flight path.
My NoC path is a fluently proceeding line, with a few, last moments, very small banking corrections as to still impact the right spot, even after they messed up the last part of their intentional SoC flight path.

Can you come up with something substantial, instead of playing crooked word games with people who do not understand that kind of psychological operations?
Try to refute some of my arguments, with hard evidence, instead of playing Scrabble with less 911-experienced members.

An example of your word games :

You choose to believe the NoC witnesses - even though they also agree that the plane hit the Pentagon - and discard all other evidence as being fake or planted then too, correct?

Even after you have been offered tens of extensive posts of mine, proving a possible NoC flightpath and a following IMPACT is indeed a very realistic scenario; you keep repeating this kind of twisted reasoning without any substantial refutation? Try to do better than that.
I have repeatedly written, that all non-NoC-fitting planted evidence must be observed as that. Planted.
The internal C- and D-ring damage, the fake "Punch out" hole in the C-ring wall which is clearly a "Punch-in" hole, and especially the 5 downed light poles to the far right outside of the max boundary of a possible NoC flight path. PLANTED.

Now the C-130 pilot, Lt-Colonel O'Brien.
He himself has repeatedly declared that he was so far behind the 757, that when he saw smoke rise from the Pentagon, he radioed in that "it looks as if the plane has impacted at the Pentagon".
He did not see an impact, he saw the smoke bellowing up. He was many miles behind the attack plane. He arrived at the scene three minutes later. Made an observation turn above the impact, and then left to the northwest, on his way back to his base, and while flying was also witness of the Shanksville flight 93 disappearance. He radioed in for the second time during his flight, that he saw a smoke column rising.

So, if you prove to me that Sergeants William Lagasse and Chadwick Brooks from the Pentagon Police were drunk on the job and could not differentiate left from right anymore, i.o.w. North or South (a 180° difference in angle), then I take you serious.
And there are a few more, Arlington National Cemetery witnesses who had to have been drunk too that day.

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 01:02 PM

Originally posted by LaBTop

This remark of yours is in fact quite funny, in light of the fact that I have based my research on the fine research efforts of the Pilots for Truth. Thus also their calculations.

I see a lot of words.

But zero confirmation about whether or not you've looked into any of those flight paths are aerodynamically possible.

Give us an analysis of banking angles, roll rates of a 757, g forces expected, and stall speeds..... at whatever speed you care to propose. With whatever flightpath you propose.

I'm saying you have no idea whether or not it's even phtsically possible for these planes. Show that you have looked into it, instead of someone telling you it's possible.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:10 AM
I found this (not so buildings-dimensions distorted) South of CITGO flight path drawing on Edward Paik's family photos site at :]Paik-Morin-lightpoles-flightline-jpg.

And this is a big ATS Media picture of it, unaltered, just click it.

The same picture scaled down to fit the forum rules regarding picture posting :

That yellow line in it is also for me the only possible flight path I can construct on this and other aerial view photos, where Ed Paik's observation and Terry Morin's observation both fit the impact point. But not an other, acceptable NoC flightpath.

But then this yellow flight path does not fit in at all with ALL the other CITGO and ANC witnesses NoC-plane positional reports.
And their verbal expressions how slightly they saw the plane right-banking, and its other flight characteristics like height, speed and angle of descent.
I could make a weaving line from Mr Morin to a point NoC and back to impact, but that would mean a plane in such a strong left bank over the Annex, and then strongly right-banking back at a position North of CITGO, that it would not fit at all the descriptions from all the CITGO and ANC NoC-witnesses.
That strange line would be essentially describing a plane behaving like in this following link to a Pilots for Truth animation where these experienced commercial airliner and Air Force pilots show the improbability of the plane coming over the Annex, to a point North of CITGO, then returning from NoC to SoC and ending up with the wings parallel to the ground and downing the 5 light poles, all together on such a, altogether totally impossible NoC to SoC and impact maneuver :

The following two aerial views are two possible flight paths constructed by me, where the plane flew mostly horizontally or in a slight right bank position, that fit all the NoC witnesses, EXCEPT the CIT phone interviews with Terry Morin.

This is the Paik photo album picture :

Click for big image of below one.

The same picture scaled down to fit the forum rules regarding picture posting :

And the following drawing is a NTSB flight path drawing where CIT draw in all of their interviewed witnesses NoC positions reported by those witnesses. I drew my dark blue line in it, depicting my proposal of an acceptable NoC flight path, without taking in consideration the spot Terry Morin told us, where he stood when he saw the plane passing over him, at the southern side of the space in between Wing 4 and 5 of the Navy Annex, about 5 steps from the parking lot along Colombia Pike :

Click for big image of below one.

The same picture scaled down to fit the forum rules regarding picture posting :

Thus the inevitable question came up to me, did Mr Morin remember exactly the facts, or was his memory mixed with later, official explanations?
Did he in fact parked his car at the northern backside of his building, where he would have had an unobstructed view to the tree line at the bottom of the Annex hill when he ran out of the space between Annex Wing 5 and 4 and through the longitudinal northern Annex Wing building's middle northern exit doors, which are situated right in front of that space. And thus, he would have come out of the door in between the fifth and fourth Wing of the Annex into that grassy space, and walked to the right instead of the left as he said. Towards the northern parking space, the Arlington Cemetery side.
I think however that would have taken him too many seconds to again get sight of the plane's trajectory, running to the right, enter the entrance to that northern Wing, run through its hallways and through the northern exit doors on to the northern parking space. Its a too difficult to explain story.
More likely he reported only one thing too vague; the spot where he stood in the space between Wing 5 and 4, when the plane passed over him. And if it went over him, or beside him.
But the further inside that space, the smaller the chance to run to the southern parking, and be there in time to still get a glimpse of the plane's tail, vanishing behind the tree line down the hill.

I have to go back and listen again carefully to Mr Morin's CIT audios, and look up my old thread-posts about him. I'm quite sure however he said he went back to his parked car to pick up his sunglasses, and he parked that on the Colombia Pike parking side, and he ran towards its entrance boot which is in the middle of that parking's border fence, after the plane passed over his head in that small entrance space between Annex Wing 5 and 4, to be able to follow the plane on its descent to the Pentagon.

He is also the one who was very reluctant to give an interview in the first place, and did not give permission in the end to CIT, to publish his taped conversations.

But CIT nevertheless made them public during the time that there was a fierce online discussion going on about the exact position of the plane regarding the part of Colombia Pike that ran alongside the Navy Annex.
They wanted to silence the opposition, no matter what Mr Morin told them, by still publishing Mr Morin's interviews against his plea not to do this. To make clear that Mr Morin saw the plane's body passing over his head, while he was still a few steps inside the entrance space in between Annex Wing 5 and 4. Thus only part of its right wing was over the parking space.

Perhaps Mr Morin could have optioned to confirm himself to the official story line which he, in the mean time, knew by heart already in the time that had past in-between 911 and the CIT interviews. Mr Morin was/is a government paid individual who perhaps feared for his position.

Perhaps that what Mr Morin told us is a mistaken recollection, or not the full truth, which would be the only logical conclusions left, when we consider the explicitness of the Pentagon, CITGO and ANC witnesses, all strong NoC events witnesses, about their recollection where the plane actually flew on 911.
Especially the statements of the Pentagon police officers Lagasse and Brooks, and the four ANC maintenance compound witnesses ( "flying over a point in the middle of the Navy Annex roof, there where that big antenna sticks up" ), and Sean Boger the Heliport tower operator ( "coming from over the center of the 8th Annex Wing, towards the right of the CITGO seen from my position in the tower" ), make Terry Morin's remarks different seen in light of all new information that we collected now.

The two last remarks about the plane flying over the center of Annex Wing 8, is also confusing me.
If I connect the Colombia Pike corner window of Mr Paik's office with that Wing 8 roof's center point, it becomes quite difficult to construct a believable northern flight path, around the CITGO station.

So, time to re-evaluate all our reasoning, and find the true flight path?

The specific points in my proposed flight paths are based on all CIT and my "re-found" witnesses, starting with Edward Pike and the fly-over his office and garage roof, then Terry Morin and his position in between Wing 4 and 5, then one of the ANC guys who specifically described EXACTLY the Wing 8 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 Bogers account who placed the plane also in the middle of the Wing 8 roof coming at him. Then the very exact account of 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 side of the road along the CITGO, on a parking that was bordered by some higher trees, and he stated that the plane's wake rattled the branches of those trees (so it flew just over those trees, and then Christine Peterson who is very precise in her being in her car at a standstill "in front of" the heli pad when the plane flew over her.
And Penny Elgas who saw the plane a few car length in front of her passing very low over Route 27.
She was a few cars behind Christine Peterson. And then Sean Boger again in the heli pad tower. Plane flew between that tower (Sean: passed to my left) and the concrete of the heli pad (Christine: right over my car).

Note that if I, or my readers them self, draw a straight line from Mr Paik to the Wing 8 roof center's "Y" shaped antenna, it touches the northern roof of the CITGO. And fits much better with Mr Morin's description.

What's everybody's opinion about all this?
Does it all fit, or is it becoming more of an inch and pinch task?

[edit on 20/4/10 by LaBTop]

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:47 AM
My last proposal of a possible NoC flight path, which fits all witnesses, included Mr Morin, the right bank described by all ANC witnesses and Mr Boger, and the speed necessary to cover the distance between the Annex Wing 8 roof center, and the Pentagon West wall impact point.
Described by 3 witnesses as about 10 seconds to cover that distance.
Those three were Mr Middleton, Mr Morin and Mr Boger.
Which far lower speed than the official speed of over 500 miles per hour, would make it possible for the plane to perform that last right bank north of CITGO.

This is that 1000px x 714px drawing :

And this is the forum fitted 640px x 457px aerial drawing :

PS: Joey Canoli, if you take a pair of compasses, measure off the radii given by the Pilots for Truth in their forum threads and posts for the possible flight paths at possible speeds, angles of attack and banks, put the sharp point of your p.o.c. somewhere North of CITGO on your printed aerial view, and circle a short line with the other, pencil point tip outside the aerial view on the white of your paper, and repeat that for the office window of Mr Paik, you get two crossing small arcs on that white paper part, and at that crossing point you stick your sharp point from your p.o.c. and now set the pencil point at Mr Paik's office and draw a wide arc from his position to that NoC position.

That's your fluent arc, describing a possible slight right banking flight path from him to NoC.
And I recreated that arc in Windows Paint.


A quick How-To of constructing possible 911 flight paths in Windows Paint.

Import the Pentagon aerial view photo of your choice into Paint.
Choose the bended line option, and a thickness and color for that line.
Put your mouse pointer at the bottom near Mr Paik's position inside his office, near the front window. That's where he observed the plane from, passing over the roof of his building.
Then, while pushing the left mouse knob, extent that line to the impact point.
Let the left mouse knob go. Then choose a point north of CITGO, and click first on the line you draw, and while you hold the left mouse knob, stretch your line upwards, until it fits all ANC and CITGO NoC positions and statements. Then let that left knob go.
The line must be fluent, to express a fluent arc from Mr Paik to Route 27.
Then Save As to your hard disk's My Pictures folder.
Then upload that picture to your ATS Media files via the Upload Picture feature.
Then Copy that ATS picture's URL to the ATS posting window when you want to include it in your post. Zoom it out if it does not fit the max board dimensions of 640x640 pixels, by including your new, smaller pixelation in the URL : f.ex.: [ ATS=640x450 ]your long URL[ /ATS ] (discard the Spaces to post).


posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:09 PM
Thank you very much all of my readers (about 4 it seems), to let me construct my latest thesis in peace.
I appreciate it, love to have my own private posting space.

The length of the outside wall on any side of the pentagon is 921 feet.( 280.72 meter )
The wingspan of a 757 is 124 feet 10 inches and not 125 feet as written (not by me) in one of my linked sources, the Pentagon total damage diagram.( 38 meter )

The length of my dark blue NoC flight path line between the Annex Wing 8 center roof and the impact is 3x the length of the West wall.
That's 3 x 921 = 2763 feet x 0.3048 = 842 meter covered in ca. 10 seconds.
That's 0.842 km x 360 [= 1 hr : 10 sec = 3600 : 10 ] = ca. 300 km per hour.
This is an approximate speed, note that if it took less than 10 seconds, the speed goes up.
That 300 km/hr is above its stall speed at landing approach height, when the plane flies clean (no flaps and landing gear out).
Note that any witness near to such a low flying 757, would later recall the thundering noise of its jet engines. And such a thundering noise often confuse some of these unexperienced witnesses to report a much faster flying plane, in their opinion.

The Pentagon building performance report :

On page 12 and 13 we can find chapter 3. Review of crash information, with 3.1 Aircraft data, and 3.2 Eyewitness interviews.

Frank Probst, 58, is a West Point graduate, decorated Vietnam veteran, and retired army lieutenant colonel who has worked for the Pentagon Renovation Program Office on information management and telecommunications since 1995. At approximately 9:30 A.M. on September 11 he left the Wedge 1 construction site trailer, where he had been watching live television coverage of the second plane strike into the World Trade Center towers. He began walking to the Modular Office Compound, which is located beyond the extreme north end of the Pentagon North Parking Lot, for a meeting at 10 A.M. As he approached the heliport (figure 3.2)

he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him. According to the Arlington County after-action report (Arlington County, 2002), this occurred at 9:38 a.m. The aircraft pulled up, seemingly aiming for the first floor of the building, and leveled off. Probst hit the ground and observed the right wing tip pass through the portable 750 kW generator that provides backup power to Wedge 1.The right engine took out the chainlink fence and posts surrounding the generator. The left engine struck an external steam vault before the fuselage entered the building. As the fireball from the crash moved toward him, Probst ran toward the South Parking Lot and recalls falling down twice.
Fine pieces of wing debris floated down about him.The diesel fuel for the portable generator ignited while he was running. He noted only fire and smoke within the building at the point of impact.
Security personnel herded him and others to the south, and he did not witness the subsequent partial collapse of the building.

Don Mason, 62, is a communications specialist who retired from the United States Air Force after 25 years of service. He has worked for the Pentagon Renovation Program Office on information management and telecommunications since 1996. At the time of the crash he was stopped in traffic west of the building. The plane approached low, flying directly over him and possibly clipping the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him, and struck three light poles between him and the building. He saw his colleague Frank Probst directly in the plane’s path, and he witnessed a small explosion as the portable generator was struck by the right wing.The aircraft struck the building between the heliport fire station and the generator, its left wing slightly lower than its right wing. As the plane entered the building, he recalled seeing the tail of the plane. The fireball that erupted upon the plane’s impact rose above the structure. Mason then noticed flames coming from the windows to the left of the point of impact and observed small pieces of the facade falling to the ground.[

A short commentary :
Did it really take Mr Probst 8 minutes to cover that short distance from his trailer to the heliport?
He is the next additional witness to the CIT witnesses who recalls the plane flying low OVER the Annex, and heading RIGHT for him at the heliport. If you draw a straight line in my last possible NoC drawing, you see what he described.
He must have been to the right of the fireball, no one goes running back through a huge fireball.
Btw, he must have reflexes of an Olympian, to come up from the ground that he first hit, and then start running, all faster than that fireball which must have exploded in mili-seconds.
It seems to me he was just outside of his trailer when he saw the plane coming, otherwise he could not have seen the fireball moving toward him. Thus the 8 minutes between him leaving the trailer and the impact he witnessed, becomes even more suspicious. You can cover 60 meters in about 1 minute. That's about the maximum distance he would had covered from his trailer to a position to the right of the right wing tip of the plane when he saw and did all what he described.

Mr Mason's interview explains -very conveniently- all of the official damage. Too convenient, now that we know of so many witnesses who saw the plane on a NoC path, thus the 3 poles he saw being clipped must be his imagination, just as the car antenna -possibly- clipped. And his whole back-up of the official story line.

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:01 AM
I have suggested for many years already, to the audience here and in other forums, that hypnosis will have been a big part of the post event techniques used by all these so-called FBI clearance briefings of 911 witnesses.

If you read the above two witnesses reports, and many more in the 911 witness lists online, there is one common ground which will evolve in the mind of investigative minds.
How come so many of them are generally explaining they saw light poles clipped and planes flying on impossible flight paths?

EDIT : And all of them were later forced to admit that they were in no position at all, in time or in fact at the scene, to have ever been able to witness those events.

Probably because of this :


Q: Can individuals be made to do things under hypnosis that they would not otherwise?

A: Individuals could be taught to do anything including murder, suicide, etc. I do believe that you could carry out acts that would be against an individual's moral feelings if they were rightly, psychologically conditioned.

Note: Individuals can be hypnotized without their knowledge. They can be programmed to commit murder, suicide, and much more. Think about the implications. How many "suicides" of important people we've heard in the news were not really suicides? How many murders were committed by people who didn't even realize they were assassins? How much has this technology been used to manipulate world politics? Think about the Kennedy's, Martin Luther King, Jr., and possibly even those involved with 9/11 and other major terrorist attacks. Note that this document is not available in the three CD set and must be ordered individually at this link.

This is just one excerpt of many chilling ones, from this utterly important link :
HYPNOSIS in MIND CONTROL experiments used to imprint criminal commands and false MEMORIES by the CIA, and it even aids (political) murder and suicide. This went on from the 1950'ies up to this very moment.!

And when you read and begin to realize the implications of the use of these monstrous techniques by the US Government (CIA), and who knows how many more foreign governments, perhaps your eyes will be opened and you start understanding why the EVENT of 911 was such a heinous one, which will dominate our, and our offspring's life for many decades to follow.

Link list :
Project MKULTRA.
CIA long list of Mind-Control by hypnosis or chemically induced, original documents FOIA-freed.
The Milgram hypnosis experiment.
The Stanford Prison hypnosis experiment.
One case of hypnotic effects by telephone, used on non-prepared victims, thousands of km's/miles away from the caller.

Another excerpt of the same above first linked document :

CIA document and page number: 87624, p. 3, 4 (also appended to 17748, p. 32, 33)
Title: Two Extremely Sensitive Research Programs
Date: 3 April 1953
Link to view images of original: Page 3, Page 4

Approximately 6% of the projects are of such an ultra-sensitive nature that they cannot and should not be handled by means of contracts which would associate CIA or the Government with the work in question.

We intend to investigate the development of a chemical material which causes a reversible non-toxic aberrant mental state, the specific nature of which can be reasonably well predicted for each individual. This material could potentially aid in discrediting individuals, eliciting information, implanting suggestion and other forms of mental control.

In a great many instances the work in field (a) must be conducted by individuals who are not and should not be aware of our interest. In all cases dealing with field (b), it is mandatory that any connections with the Agency should be known only to an absolute minimum number of people who have been specifically cleared for this purpose.

Experience has shown that qualified, competent individuals in the field of pharmacological, physiological, psychiatric and other biological sciences are most reluctant to enter into signed agreements of any sort which connect them with this activity since such a connection would jeopardize their professional reputations. Even internally in CIA, as few individuals as possible should be aware of our interest in these fields and of the identity of those who are working for us. At present, this results in ridiculous contracts, with cut-outs, which do not spell out the scope or intent of the work.

In the three CD set, this document is found appended to document 17748 on pp. 30 through 37.

I would ask many of our long time and important members to ask themselves if they could have been fallen victim to one of these hypnosis techniques described in the above link.
Truthers and Trusters alike !

Because it can be imprinted in ones mind even by printed words.

After the right stimulus.

Note that post-hypnotic effects can easily last for TWENTY YEARS and become even more strongly imprinted when repeatedly enforced.

The global Advertising industry has used parts of these studies to let you buy totally unnecessary products, or even dysfunctional ones.
The political industry has discovered these experiments and their outcomes two decades ago, and used it in their campaigning techniques.

You are all brain washed by MKULTRA techniques, when you watch or read mainstream media sources.

How can sane persons watch from the sidelines when crooked bankers rob them for ten to twenty years from their hard earned money with Ponzi schemes so idiotic, that most of them themselves did not understand what they were doing, except one Chinese citizen, Dr Li, who came up with this mathematical incorrect scheme, with serious flaws in it, but when it turned out that the profits skyrocketed, every banker turned a blind eye to the inevitable risks and outcome, and greedily grabbed what they could, as long as the economy was thriving.

Then the same suspected sane persons all over the world watched again in awe, when the same bankers came up with the solution for their immense moneygrabbing going utterly wrong :
All those seemingly sane persons had to pay all together the coming forty years to keep these crooks out of bankruptcy.
A real sane politician would have let them go down to hell, take over all banking jobs and put honest bankers in new banks to clean up the mess, assisted by all the former lower personnel who would have been given new jobs in new honest, truly citizens-controlled banks.
That would have saved all of us the forty years burden to come.

Ask yourself: do I really think I were and am not brain washed with these far to easy to use secret mind control techniques?

I do not understand that people like CIT, who have done incredible good work for the benefit of us all, can fall victim to such a logical fallacy as the clearly fake ""Push-Out; Exit; Punch-Out"" hole in the third Pentagon, C-ring wall, bordering that A-E Drive inside the Pentagon complex.

When CIT's Fly-Over theory for the main part is based on that officially endorsed FAKE description of a hole, and aided for another part by a long investigation by them, CIT, and their colleagues at Pilots for Truth of an officially endorsed NTSB FDR (flight data record) report, where they found some discrepancies in the last 2 seconds in flight height, and a different flight path than their own NoC path, then the thought comes to my mind, and perhaps yours too, that they were not murdered as so many of us were afraid of, but brain washed instead, which is much more effective and attracts no political attention from the handful of honest politicians left.

CIT stance, basing their FLY-Over theory on two clearly faked but officially endorsed documentations, while however standing firm by CIT's own NoC witness investigation is of such gross proportions, that I and many with me, am and are fully flabbergasted.

Officially endorsed = aided by the military top brass; nearly all of the elected politicians; and the mainstream Media backed by their military/industrial-complex masters.
This is page 1 of the CIT forum thread where CIT explicitly explains that they base their fly-over theory on that fake C-ring hole.
They already dismissed those five faked downed light poles and the impact at a 53° angle on the wall, thus logically also the faked damage to the generator trailer and the fence.
What's left is only a nearly head on impact damage, since the rest of that inside damage is nullified by not accepting a 53° angle of impact, which is totally impossible regarding all the 20 NoC witnesses.

When you consider all available facts and logical conclusions at this moment in time, then the inevitable conclusion must be :
There was no Pentagon Fly-Over scenario possible, at all.
There was however a nearly head-on Impact which extended no further than the depth of the first, E-ring.

[edit on 22/4/10 by LaBTop]

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:55 AM
For a very enlightening essay on mind control, including both the secretive aspects and how it is now being used to help heal people in most trans-formative ways, don't miss the lesson 14a from the Insight Course :

For a highly revealing documentary showing evidence of child sexual abuse by powerful elites leading up the steps of Congress, see Conspiracy of Silence :

For an astonishing, yet inspiring 10-page summary of a revealing book by a woman who once served top politicians in this capacity :

There are clear reasons why this material can be overwhelming. Most of us over the years have developed fairly well-established ideas of how democracy, government, and businesses function in our nation and world. Our educational system and the media generally reinforce beliefs we developed from an early age in the way the world works. It is not easy to open to evidence which seriously challenges these beliefs, even if the information is verifiable and from highly reliable sources. When presented with information which questions our basic understanding of the world, it's natural to feel uneasy and overwhelmed. Yet we encourage you not to despair. By choosing knowledge and understanding, we can and will build a brighter future.
There are many wonderful things happening in the world which are also being hidden from public view. Our Inspiration Center will introduce you to some of these exciting developments.
We encourage you to be skeptical in exploring this information. Some of what you read may at first seem quite unbelievable. Do a little research using the reliable sources provided and determine for yourself whether there is truth to the information provided.
Many people don't want to know about the major cover-ups going on in our world. Feeling relatively secure and content in their personal lives, they choose to avoid matters which might disturb their contentment. Yet as long as we choose complacency over awareness, these major cover-ups will continue. In fact, they will likely grow in magnitude until people are finally forced to open their eyes and deal with the consequences. The sooner each of us decides that we do want to know, and that we are willing to invite others to open their eyes, the more easily we will be able to build a world that supports the good of all of us.

Source : This excellent website : Want to :
Overwhelmed or Upset with This Material?

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 02:39 PM

Based on one very confused Mr Roberts, totally confused by a far too aggressive fly-over wishing CIT member.

There is nothing confused about Mr. Roberts, Labtop. Please by all means explain how I was aggressive or impressed my alleged flyover wish on him? Did I make him say it was "commercial jet liner" "just above the light poles"? Did I force him to say it was "50-100 ft alt"? Did I twist his arm to say "it looked like a pilot who missed his landing zone and was coming back around"?

Did you speak with him? Well I did. More than once in fact.

The second time I spoke with him, I was very careful to confirm again what he saw. I explained the presence of a C-130 minutes after the event and the alt it was at. He was confident that is not the plane he saw. Then I explained in great detail what it was we found out and the implications. He still stuck to his story about what he saw and did not waver. He asked if what we wanted was an interview and he agreed to a time. The next day he backed out due to his fears and concerns.

Don't you dare tell me or the readers he was confused. I appreciate your efforts thus far but you are out of line and providing a layer of misinformation with your monday morning quarterbacking and picture staring abilities. Are you qualified judge crash sites based on pictures?

Secondly not only did Erik Dihle hear co worker witnesses yelling that "a bomb went off and a jet kept on going" but Dave Statter interviewed witnesses who said the plane "went to the side of the building and not directly in" and the plane "tried to avert the building".

Lastly, we have Dewitt Roseborough. He was in south parking lot "heard a roar above his head" and "looked up" and saw a plane he thought was going to crash into the highway, then he saw a fireball rise over the Pentagon. He was dumbfounded and did not know what had happened. He went over it in his head for days. We called him, twice. Both times he refused to deny that he saw the plane flying away and would not confirm he saw the plane hit. You can hear Craig's call here:

When i spoke with him, I was even clearer than Craig. He stayed on the phone with me. I told him "if you saw the plane flying away above you while you were in South parking lot and then saw a fireball rise over the Pentagon then there is a serious issue and you know it". He refused to talk about it. he wouldn't even confirm what he was was the impact. So clearly witnesses are initially fooled/confused and then scared once they realize the implications.

Let's not forget the account of Robert Turcios who saw the plane pull up into an ascent (Darius Prather said it "pivoted up") over Rt 27, right before the wall and subsequent explosion.

This new wave of armchair theorizing is not needed and is more harm than good.

The plane flew over the Pentagon. PERIOD.

LabTop, can you tell me why you havent contacted any eyewitnesses?

[edit on 22-4-2010 by Aldo_Marquis_CIT]

[edit on 22-4-2010 by Aldo_Marquis_CIT]

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 02:53 PM
The ASCE report is what it is. It is their story for how the plane impacted the building. It is what their team documented inside the Pentagon. They were aided by the light pole flight path, two dubious PenRen workers descriptions of the alleged approach/impact and the generator trailer, and the surveillance video.

Labtop's theory falls flat when you see the columns blown up and out, almost to the north, directionally speaking. Also notice the spools. There was no plane at that point.

So, LabTop, they faked the light pole path, the generator trailer/fence, and the surveillance video so they could crash the plane into building at a different angle?

This is silly and a complete insult to the amount of work we have done. We did not do this so people like you can sit behind your computer and anonymously start picture staring and internet sleuthing new theories up in your mind.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by Aldo_Marquis_CIT]

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 03:36 PM
reply to post by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

A massive central flaw with your flyover theory is that out of all the hundreds/thousands of potential witnesses around the Pentagon that morning you do not have a single eyewitness.

Roosevelt Roberts is not a flyover witness. He has never claimed to see a plane flying over the Pentagon.

In his conversation with you he said he saw a plane around the lane 1 area of the south parking lot at about 50 to 100 feet. From his perspective, about half-way down the parking lot, it is quite possible that the plane was in fact over the clover-leaf just beyond and on a soc course.

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 03:41 PM
reply to post by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

dubious PenRen workers

What gives you the right to declare someone as "dubious"?

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

So, LabTop, they faked the light pole path, the generator trailer/fence, and the surveillance video so they could crash the plane into building at a different angle?

This is silly and a complete insult to the amount of work we have done.

So, Aldo, they faked the light pole path, the generator trailer/fence, and the surveillance video so they could fly the plane over the building at a different angle?

This is silly and a complete insult to the amount of work rhat all the real investigators have done.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in