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 Takes Pentagon Investigation Worldwide with World Tour!

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


So you telling me that AE911truth.org don't bring up good stuff?




posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


So you telling me that AE911truth.org don't bring up good stuff?


I have said no such thing, and I don't see how you could infer that from what I posted.


The bottom line is I like anyone who finds real inconsistencies with the Official Lie. I don't know that anyone has nailed 9/11 yet and what really happened. I just laugh at those that dis CIT though. Those guys are honest, average guys who have developed their own investigative skills and have sought the input and help of many. I respect them for that.

We are all going to look like fools though if it turns out that Judy Woods was right.
But after listening to her on a radio interview just for the heck of it, jeez...What a disappointment. Makes me think it was someone else who did her research. But I dunno, some of the smartest minds have the worst speaking abilities. It happens.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
amazing is that a thread like this is not visible to the masses, but threads with just crazy talk and completely non scientific evidence are dominant on ATS ... the board is a clearly a disinfo campaign by its own members



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Faiol
 


I wouldn't go quite that far man. While there are some questionable figures around here waging a disinfo campaign against CIT, follow your own heart. NSA has been around, and is quite well known here to 9/11 researchers, as well as CIT's other videos, like The Pentacon. If you hadn't heard of them or seen them before now, then just consider them some that slipped through the cracks. No biggie...Glad you're getting up to speed. Go to Craig's profile, and also check SPreston. Check out their threads and you'll see.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol
amazing is that a thread like this is not visible to the masses, but threads with just crazy talk and completely non scientific evidence are dominant on ATS ... the board is a clearly a disinfo campaign by its own members


So, the United States Government hijacks 3 planes and crashes them. They decide on the 4th one that they will... take the passengers of the plane to an undisclosed location and kill them. Send up a decoy plane that looks like commercial airliner. Fly it at a high rate of speed toward the Pentagon in broad daylight over a major highway during rush hour.... and fly it OVER the Pentagon in hopes that no one sees it? Oh... and at the same time they set off bombs inside that were planted by civilian contractors during a renovation.... OH... and another thing... in the middle of this they hired people to run around a burning building planting airplane part.

Can I ask you... This isn't crazy talk? Really?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by Faiol
amazing is that a thread like this is not visible to the masses, but threads with just crazy talk and completely non scientific evidence are dominant on ATS ... the board is a clearly a disinfo campaign by its own members


So, the United States Government hijacks 3 planes and crashes them. They decide on the 4th one that they will... take the passengers of the plane to an undisclosed location and kill them. Send up a decoy plane that looks like commercial airliner. Fly it at a high rate of speed toward the Pentagon in broad daylight over a major highway during rush hour.... and fly it OVER the Pentagon in hopes that no one sees it? Oh... and at the same time they set off bombs inside that were planted by civilian contractors during a renovation.... OH... and another thing... in the middle of this they hired people to run around a burning building planting airplane part.

Can I ask you... This isn't crazy talk? Really?


oh wait ... I didnt say anything about what happened, I dont know what happened ... so, stop putting words in my mouth ... that just proves you are some disinfo or you dont know how to read / interpret text

the only thing I said is that ATSers for some reason sabotage themselves by reading too much non sense threads, instead of good threads like this ... thats it

I watched yesterday, and I didnt know about the problem with the flight path and that people saw the plane coming out after the explosion ... thats amazing ,and I think they proved within their documentary that some people did hide history ... we dont know why, we dont know what really happened, but they did their job well, providing information

It doesnt matter how ridiculous it sounds, but the evidence suggests that the plane didnt do that damage ... maybe it did indirectly, who knows, but the plane didnt hit the pentagon the way explained by official reports, that was proven by this documentary

so, if they lied about that, why did they lie about that? and what else did they lie too?

crazy? well my friend, crazy things happen every single hour, people are killing civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq like their were in a video game, and you dare to say that people are crazy for asking questions about an investigation that didnt provide enough evidences to end the debate?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol
Can I ask you... This isn't crazy talk? Really?

oh wait ... I didnt say anything about what happened, I dont know what happened ... so, stop putting words in my mouth ... that just proves you are some disinfo or you dont know how to read / interpret text


I never said you said that. Those are that of CIT's.






edit on 17-9-2010 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I have issues with CITs findings, most notably the lack of witnesses to the alleged "fly-over".

However, I give total credit to the fact that their method of research goes beyond trying to analyze blurry, pixelated images off the internet. They actually get out there and investigate to the best of their ability, which is more than I can say about the majority of what ends up on ATS.

Kudos for that. Keep on digging, CIT. Even if I don't agree with your conclusions, I appreciate and respect the effort y'all put forth.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
No witnesses to any "flyover" exist. The Double Tree video ALONE blows their entire "theory" out the window. Then add in all the witnesses from all angles who saw and heard the event...

Worldwide tour, eh?

Guess it's fitting, they've been laughed out of the U.S. for quite some time now. No one can possibly take them seriously when looking at their motives and "evidence" with a critical eye.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Another attempt by the establishment criminals to hijack 911 truth with this high quality phony reconstruction… An “ATS Scholar, eh? … Well that explains it.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
No witnesses to any "flyover" exist. The Double Tree video ALONE blows their entire "theory" out the window. Then add in all the witnesses from all angles who saw and heard the event...

Worldwide tour, eh?

Guess it's fitting, they've been laughed out of the U.S. for quite some time now. No one can possibly take them seriously when looking at their motives and "evidence" with a critical eye.


Ummm...Roosevelt Roberts?

What exactly do you presume to be their "motives"?
Where exactly has the NOC evidence been discussed or approached with a "critical eye"? Please do tell.

By the way, careful on your dissemination of Roosevelt Roberts' and the NOC witness accounts. Your "critical eye" will be on show in your next post.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by subject x
 


That's a refreshing honest post.
It's a mature approach to say that we can "agree to disagree".
I certainly don't believe that CIT has deserved any of the flack they have received. All of what they claim regarding the NOC evidence is on record.

I personally can't reach any other conclusion other than flyover based on the trajectory but even if that conclusion isn't accepted, it at least raises serious questions on the validity of the alleged directional damage right through to C Ring.

I've yet to see this subject honestly debated.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


Roosevelt Roberts never claimed to have seen an aircraft flying over the Pentagon did he ?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


Roosevelt Roberts never claimed to have seen an aircraft flying over the Pentagon did he ?



Is that a "critical" approach Alfie?

That's like saying that somebody threw a ball over the roof of my house into the back garden because it came from that direction, but I didn't actually see it going over the roof so....?

What plane did he see in South Parking?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


Roosevelt Roberts never claimed to have seen an aircraft flying over the Pentagon did he ?



Is that a "critical" approach Alfie?

That's like saying that somebody threw a ball over the roof of my house into the back garden because it came from that direction, but I didn't actually see it going over the roof so....?

What plane did he see in South Parking?


I tossed that in because you seemed to be suggesting he was a " flyover " witness.

In fact I find Roberts testimony to be as confusing as CIT obviously did as regards timing, direction, what he saw, and what he was watching on tv just before running out onto the dock.

What he said doesn't really work for CIT but they hang onto him for grim death because they have nothing else. For example, if he heard an explosion which was a simulated aircrash to coincide with a plane flying over the Pentagon at hundreds of miles per hour it could not have doubled-back and been over South Parking in the few seconds he says it took him to get outside.

What fits better is that Roosevelt Roberts actually got a glimpse of AA 77 on the way in when it was pretty much over the clover-leaf and might well have appeared to be over the top end of South Parking from his perspective.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


Roosevelt Roberts never claimed to have seen an aircraft flying over the Pentagon did he ?



Is that a "critical" approach Alfie?

That's like saying that somebody threw a ball over the roof of my house into the back garden because it came from that direction, but I didn't actually see it going over the roof so....?

What plane did he see in South Parking?


I tossed that in because you seemed to be suggesting he was a " flyover " witness.

In fact I find Roberts testimony to be as confusing as CIT obviously did as regards timing, direction, what he saw, and what he was watching on tv just before running out onto the dock.

What he said doesn't really work for CIT but they hang onto him for grim death because they have nothing else. For example, if he heard an explosion which was a simulated aircrash to coincide with a plane flying over the Pentagon at hundreds of miles per hour it could not have doubled-back and been over South Parking in the few seconds he says it took him to get outside.

What fits better is that Roosevelt Roberts actually got a glimpse of AA 77 on the way in when it was pretty much over the clover-leaf and might well have appeared to be over the top end of South Parking from his perspective.


Nice dodge on my analogy Alfie.

Okay, so you're take on it is that he actually saw "Flight 77".
That it was more or less "over the cloverleaf".

What do you say to this placement of the plane being contradictory to all of the witnesses on the other side of the Pentagon?

i659.photobucket.com...

How do you propose that he could see either path given the South Loading Dock bridge was in his way?

i52.tinypic.com...

i53.tinypic.com...

i56.tinypic.com...

He is on record in his interview with Aldo Marquis that he ran out after "impact"



ROBERTS: ..upon impact I stepped out the little, uh, booth that I was in, and the distance between that booth and the edge of that dock is about maybe, I don't know like -- 7 steps from there. MARQUIS: Wow. ROBERTS: So it was extr-- extremely close.


Why on Earth would he "run" out into South Parking after watching an explosion on TV?? Logically now..

He claimed that he was aware of the attack on the first Tower,

From his LOC interview:



ROBERTS: As I was sitting there -- there's a TV right there -- and uh, all of the sudden a news flash came across the TV and said the World Trade Center has been bombed.



Are you actually saying that he never knew anything about the much repeated clips of the second tower impact until 09:37? That this explosion he saw on TV was timed perfectly for him to illogically run out to the dock just in time to "see" the plane in a 1.3 second timeframe?


He is on record in the same interview as claiming that he saw the plane for much more than the 1.3 seconds it would have taken (according to the official speed) to reach the facade from lightpole 1.



ROBERTS: Oh, it was moving extremely fast. It was like, uh. . . maybe you saw the aircraft maybe for like, uh, a quick five seconds.


In fact, he would have had the plane in his field of vision for even less than 1.3 seconds given his "perspective", if at all on the "SOC" trajectory.

That he messed up the time is irrelevant. He described himself as evacuating the building when he "ran back inside". After the explosion.



It’s about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning. And then, uh, there was dust and stuff coming from the ceilings, and you could hear people screamin’. So, what I did was I turned around, and I drew out my weapon; I didn’t know what was goin’ on. I thought we was bein’ invaded. I didn’t know what was happenin’. So I ran back into south loading, and I started forcing people out of the building. You wouldn’t believe how people don’t even think the seriousness of- of- of any situation. They just think “Uh, it’s just a fire drill.” But this time it wasn’t a fire drill.


How do you account for the "bank" he described when the plane had to be on a level trajectory from well before lightpole 1 as per the official account?

I agree that both of his testimonies are confusing but the first LOC interview has been heavily editted and appears to have been spliced for this purpose, but CIT's interview cleared up a lot of the points you just made.

I'm looking at his testimony in its enterity Alfie. Are you?

I'd appreciate logical, honest answers to the points made above.

By the way, an explanation of how the directional damage could have been caused from NOC would be appreciated too given your claim that CIT have "nothing else".

Cheers.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


I don't believe there was a noc approach and Roosevelt Roberts was , if anything, a soc witness.

The basic fallacy with CIT, and you seem to be subscribing to it, is that they maintain a witnesses' impression of a flightpath is a more potent memory than whether or not the aircraft impacted the Pentagon. I think that is nonsense.

There ia a great deal of evidence that AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Radar, Air Traffic Control, Witnesses , including flight crew of C130 in area, Flight Data Recorder recovered, Boeing 757 parts and body parts and personal possessions of passengers and crew. I have seen nothing to convince me that all this evidence is false and any alternative to AA 77 hitting the Pentagon just raises absurdities.

I don't regard Roosevelt Roberts statements as any more significant than any other witness that day . The only reason CIT, and you apparently, are anxious to dissect every word he said is that it is just about possible to consider that he saw a plane after an explosion/impact at the Pentagon. Never mind his testimony is so confused he may have been talking about what he saw on tv.

Like CIT, you cherrypick what he did say. You say that he said he saw the aircraft for 5 seconds when he could only have seen AA 77 for a second or two on a soc course but conveniently ignore his obvious timing mistakes, the fact of his refernce to two planes etc. People notoriously inflate the time of things and there is no reason to treat 5 seconds as gospel.

Why should we believe that , of all the thousands in and about the Pentagon that day, Roosevelt Roberts should uniquely have seen the plane after it had flown over ?

In any event, you have not answered the obvious. If a plane overflew the impact point at the Pentagon " extremely fast " as R Roberts describes it, how could it possibly be over lane 1 of the South Parking lot within the 10 seconds tops Roberts said it took him to get outside. Perhaps you could have a look at a plan and indicate to me a likely flightpath and probable g forces ?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1


I don't believe there was a noc approach and Roosevelt Roberts was , if anything, a soc witness.



This is true. In addition, it was confirmed by the "pilots" at PFT4911 Truth that the "fly-over" would not be possible. Ranke even conceded this fact. If Roberts saw flight 11 over the parking lot, it would have had to have taken a path to the RIGHT of the impact point. So the plane's view would not have been impeded by the "timed explosion." This path would also eliminate other NOC witnesses.





edit on 18-9-2010 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
I don't believe there was a noc approach


Then you are fooling yourself. The Pentacon and National Security Alert proved a North of Citgo (NOC) flight path from eyewitness testimony beyond any reasonable doubt.


The basic fallacy with CIT, and you seem to be subscribing to it, is that they maintain a witnesses' impression of a flightpath is a more potent memory than whether or not the aircraft impacted the Pentagon. I think that is nonsense.


Do they pay you to say stuff like this? :shk: Absolute rubbish. Why are you even connecting these two concepts? Oh, I forgot...You've got disinformation to disseminate.


The witness testimony of the NOC flight path stands on its own. There is nothing you can say or do that will ever change that, no matter how hard you try. Whether that plane impacted the Pentagon is another matter entirely. You might conjecture on that, but the NOC flight path cannot be refuted, period.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 




I don't believe there was a noc approach and Roosevelt Roberts was , if anything, a soc witness


You don't "believe" the corraborative body of witnesses who placed the aircraft NOC? Please explain.

I see that you are going to ignore all of the points I made in my previous post and go with the "incredulity" line...



The basic fallacy with CIT, and you seem to be subscribing to it, is that they maintain a witnesses' impression of a flightpath is a more potent memory than whether or not the aircraft impacted the Pentagon. I think that is nonsense.


Again, "think" and "believe" don't cut it. Before you get to the facade there Alfie, let's discuss the "SOC path" that you seem to have asserted yet have completely skipped over.

It's you who is accepting the "fallacy" that all of the witnesses on record on the west face of the Pentagon are simultaneously wrong. That they can't tell the difference between left and right.

You have dismissed a whole body of evidence regarding the necessary flightpath which I have yet to see described by any witness in a position to place the aircraft to the north or south of the Citgo Gas Station.
That is the equation that detractors and yourself (so far) have failed to address.



There ia a great deal of evidence that AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Radar, Air Traffic Control, Witnesses , including flight crew of C130 in area, Flight Data Recorder recovered, Boeing 757 parts and body parts and personal possessions of passengers and crew. I have seen nothing to convince me that all this evidence is false and any alternative to AA 77 hitting the Pentagon just raises absurdities.


The "radar" course that even the pilot himself of the C130 didn't describe?



"Our first sighting of the AA flight was just after we had gone by the mall westbound."
-Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien


C130 true path

Visual video evidence that the RADES data is false.

Visual placement of C 130 according to Tribby video


Confirmed by these people?

C130 witnesses

There are more on record if you want to see them.

Do you accept the validity of these witnesses?

Exactly what were Air Traffic Control watching on their screens that confirms what you say Alfie?

Do you believe that the following descriptions of the flightpath correlate with the official path?

Official Flight Path




Sources say the hijacked jet continued east at a high speed toward the city, but flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House. [...] At the White House Friday, spokesman Ari Fleischer saw it a different way. "That is not the radar data that we have seen," Fleischer said, adding, "The plane was headed toward the White House."

Ari Fleischer
Source





O'Brien went to the Pentagon to see what happened for herself, making her ever more certain that the Pentagon was a secondary target, and that the hijackers overshot or missed the White House. "I've been down to the Pentagon and stood on the hillside and imagined where, according to what I saw on the radar, that flight would have come from," she says. "And I think that they came eastbound and because sun was in their eyes that morning, and because the White House was beyond a grove of trees, I think they couldn't see it. It was too fast. They came over that Pentagon or saw it just in front of them. You can't miss the Pentagon. It's so telltale by its shape and its size, and they said, 'Look, there it is. Take that. Get that.' They certainly could have had the White House if they had seen it."

ATC Danielle O'Brien

Source





"we caught, on the radar scope, a few blips, maybe 7 or 8 (hands showing the spiral maneuver motion in correspondence with these radar dots), just enough to kinda go around in a half circle and then fade, eh - losing radar contact - RIGHT OVER um, WASHINGTON."

Video source

15:20 minutes video time of the above clip: Colonel Deskins, a lady radar person (with air force uniform), from the New York Command Center (of norad) comes on





Scoggins: Just to report, be advised the aircraft is 4-6 miles SE (southeast) of the White House. Huntress: 6 miles SOUTHEAST of the White House? Scoggins: Yup Huntress: He's moving away?

-Colin Scoggins (and Kevin Nesapany) place the/an unidentified plane SE & east of the White House/Potomac.


Colin Scoggins allegedly recieved this information based on a VISUAL from FAA HQ in Washington DC.



“I was on aTELCON and there were people who were actually looking at their window and saw the plane, they were speaking it verbatim on the phone to the TELCON. So it was a visual encounter, I assume they were in FAA HQ on Independence AVE. I know one persons name who was there and according to a USA article on around 9/20/01 I have an idea who said it on the phone, and he is the same person that I received the Phantom 11 call on.” “I don't know what office window they were looking from, I've always felt it was FAA HQ […] I am 99 % sure that the statement was made by visual...

Colin Scoggins




I don't regard Roosevelt Roberts statements as any more significant than any other witness that day . The only reason CIT, and you apparently, are anxious to dissect every word he said is that it is just about possible to consider that he saw a plane after an explosion/impact at the Pentagon. Never mind his testimony is so confused he may have been talking about what he saw on tv.

Alfie1


This is going to be a typical one-sided conversation Alfie.
Please answer my previous post on all the points you alleged about Roosevelt Roberts' testimony.
Again with the "tv".

I'll repeat (some of) the points I asked you.

Please explain why Roberts "ran outside" because he saw an explosion "on TV".

Please explain how it is possible that he didn't see this explosion "on TV" before 09:37.

How could he physically see the aircraft for "a quick five seconds" given the official speed of 540mph.

How could an aircraft allegedly travelling at 540mph "bank"?

Where in any of his testimonies does he actually describe the explosion that was heard and felt over 2km away after he stepped out of the building?

I'm not the one "dissecting" his testimony Alfie. You are the one concentrating on the TV remark and ignoring all of the fair points I've made whilst ignoring the rest of his testimony.



Like CIT, you cherrypick what he did say. You say that he said he saw the aircraft for 5 seconds when he could only have seen AA 77 for a second or two on a soc course but conveniently ignore his obvious timing mistakes, the fact of his refernce to two planes etc. People notoriously inflate the time of things and there is no reason to treat 5 seconds as gospel.

Alfie1


As above.

"A second or two"?

Here's a train travelling at 356mph

356mph train (speed record)

And of course what is presented to us as "Flight 77"

540mph

Remember that Roberts couldn't even see the full length of the alleged path from lightpole 1 to the facade as I've shown to you.



ROBERTS: Correct. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn't miss it.


Sometimes I actually believe that people forget the scenario they are trying to defend.



Why should we believe that , of all the thousands in and about the Pentagon that day, Roosevelt Roberts should uniquely have seen the plane after it had flown over ?

Alfie1


"In the Pentagon"? I'd say they would have had a hard job of seeing anything.

The "thousands" remark is a gross exaggeration when you look at the topography of the area.
The idea that there were "thousands" focussed on a specific area of the Pentagon, where flyovers are a regular occurence is not an honest comment.

We have not heard all of the testimonies available. The 911 calls in the area are still not public.
Still sequestered even though the Manhattan calls are in the public domain. Have been for years.

The argument is not what people should have seen but what they are on record as claiming that they saw.
I accept the testimony of people who were allegedly in a position to see an "impact" but given the trajectory described which is of equal significance and validity as any witnesses, I'll keep going until I hear a rational, logical explanation. So far, I haven't seen one.



In any event, you have not answered the obvious. If a plane overflew the impact point at the Pentagon " extremely fast " as R Roberts describes it, how could it possibly be over lane 1 of the South Parking lot within the 10 seconds tops Roberts said it took him to get outside. Perhaps you could have a look at a plan and indicate to me a likely flightpath and probable g forces ?

Alfie1


Answer a few of my points first Alfie, huh? Be a sport.
You claim that witnesses are prone to exaggeration yet you now take Roberts' testimony ad verbatim?
He said that he was "7 steps" from the dock.

He also said..



ROBERTS:I was in south parking, and I was at the east loading dock when I ran outside and saw the low-flying aircraft above the parking lot.


East Loading Dock

I know it's only a possibility, but look at his testimony again taking this possible location into account.

Whatever way you look at it Alfie and I know that the description of specifics he described is confusing but he is sure that he saw a "commercial aircraft after the explosion.

The NOC witnesses alone prove that the aircraft could not have allegedly impact from the described trajectory.
But you can't accept this part of the equation at all can you?




new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join