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.

 

Pentagon VIDEO Battle - Perspective 77 vs National Security Alert - 9/11 Pentagon Attack

page: 3
23
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Is there any reason why you haven't watched and read C-130 pilot Lt. Col Steve O'Brien interview? Apparently NOT because you would know that the C-130 was not the plane Roosevelt Roberts saw and you would stop issuing that as a lame excuse for what Robert's saw.

Stop omitting stuff that destroys your case.




posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


Are those folks anything like this guy's account?

James R. Cissell (later said published version account was "almost completely fiction" by reporter; says he did NOT see passengers.

[quoteSource
James R. Cissell contacted us to express his anger at the newspaper for taking his comments completely out of context. "The Cincinnati Post article, which you refer, angered me greatly after reading it. It is almost completely fiction based loosely on an interview I did with a Cincinnati Post reporter Kimball Perry who called me in response to an on air phone report that I did for Channel 12 in Cincinnati." Cissell relates what he actually told the reporter. "The reporter took extreme creative license not only with the title but also with the story as a whole. Why he felt the need to sensationalize anything that happened on September 11 is beyond me. My words to the reporter were, "I was about four cars back from where the plane crossed over the highway. That it happened so quickly I didn't even see what airline it was from. However, I was so close to the plane when it went past that had it been sitting on a runway, I could have seen the faces of passengers peering out."


So you see, your relying on press accounts that need to be verified instead of taken as fact.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


I am genuinely surprised that there are still some CIT supporters around. After all, even Richard Gage has jumped ship now.

The idea that on a bright sunny morning, with thousands of people around, a large jet flew over the Pentagon and off and away without a single person seeing it is preposterous. And the hypothesis is made even more preposterous by all of CIT's witnesses, who were in a position to see, saying it crashed into the Pentagon.

In any event, time has moved on. To support CIT's theory you not only have to ignore radar and air traffic control evidence. Physical evidence like light poles, cab, damage to Pentagon, plane wreckage and body parts. But we now have the final seconds of AA 77's flight data recorder decoded :-

journalof911studies.com...

I have yet to see any serious rebuttal of Warren Stutt and Frank Legge's paper.

So far as Roosevelt Roberts is concerned I would suggest that the evidence to be gleaned from all he has said, which is confusing, is that he saw AA 77 before it hit the Pentagon. He said he saw the plane approximately over lane 1 of south parking. My understanding is that this is very close to what was then the cloverleaf road configuration i.e on the path of the physical damage.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Anybody who has gleaned the impression that Sean Boger is a staunch CIT supporter might be interested in this brief exchange from CIT's own forum :-

z3.invisionfree.com...



new topics

top topics
 
23
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join