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.


NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all.

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:38 PM
reply to post by 911files

John, some guesses :

Perhaps one of these mentioned witnesses, in this post under my list of 22 Jeff Hill interviewed Pentagon witnesses :
Donald Symmes, El Kurnayti (who was on a driving range at a golf club a mile away and saw the plane pass above him, so a small chance that he could see whether the plane flew to the right of the VDOT radio mast, or not), Jamal ...., one of the Paik brothers? The brothers were inside their garage, Edward later told a NoC debunker interviewing him, that actually he was sitting behind his desk that stood in front of his office window, when he saw the plane pass over. That leaves quite a small angle of view for him in the horizontal and vertical plain.
That's why I said he must have seen its fuselage fly over the other, southern side of the Pike, to be able to say that the left wing passed over his shop.
I am glad this one NoC debunker went to Paik to check up on CIT's interview, because I got the impression from CIT's Paik interview, that he stood outside. He did not, he sat inside his front office which front-window looks out on the Pike.

Perhaps women with a male like voice? Cindy Reyes, Veronica ...., Mrs. Hubbard.

But my guess would be one of the taxi drivers you interviewed in that Etheopian restaurant, a bit down the Pike from the Paik brothers their car repair shop.

Btw, this is Jeff's phone call with Major Liebner.

His words express one thing very clear, that he saw the plane impact the building.
And he wonders why people still can say it did not.
He's in the military, and he sounds a lot like Reheat.
Ofcourse they defend their whole lifelong view on how things got to be solved.
By war, if have to.

One murder you call murder. Which is a major crime.
Millions of murders they call war. And if its in the interest of the Fatherland, it is absolved.

If one's at the loosing end of war, the defeated are called mass-murderers nowadays.
If you were on the winning side, you were a patriot rightfully defending your Fatherland, even when that was the initial aggressor.

I had many friends from the military who died of old age, and never expressed one word of sorrow for all the lifes they ended while in the ranks.
I have never understood such illogical behavior, but have accepted it as a result of thorough brainwashing while in the ranks.
I also knew a few who were seriously wrecked after they understood that no standing order can ever replace or be a substitute for your own moral constraints.
They discovered that the one golden rule in life does seriously clash with anything military:

Do not do to others, what you do not want to be done to yourself.

This simple rule will help anyone out who doubts how they should decide in any situation.
No complicated religions and their plethora of rules needed any further, just hold on to that one very simple golden rule, and you will have many more true friends.

I find it extremely odd, that when members of that forum reacted, they did not address even one of these very important phone interviews. Achimspock starts a post about a few witnesses not interviewed at all, and then it goes on about those.
Not one reaction on these 22 phone calls in its own thread about them......

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:00 PM

Originally posted by LaBTopI am glad this one NoC debunker went to Paik to check up on CIT's interview, because I got the impression from CIT's Paik interview, that he stood outside. He did not, he sat inside his front office which front-window looks out on the Pike.

Erik Larson is NOT an "NoC debunker", he is a 911 researcher/historian. As such, his interest is to document what happened. After I visited A-One Auto years ago and learned that CIT had "misrepresented" Paik in their video (or should I say left out critical information), Erik did a follow-up visit to more completely document Edward's account. He did not do it to "debunk" anything. He did it to set the record straight.

And no, that clip I posted is no one you have ever heard of. Do you actually believe that of the thousands of people who witnessed the final approach and impact of AAL77 that the few known to internet junkies is all there is? Do as I suggested. Go take a walk down Columbia Pike, talk to people.

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:14 PM
The problem is me not able to recognize what the man says. I think I picked up something like "VDOT mast, the right of it......." and the rest I really can't understand.
What is it in his words that you find interesting?

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:33 PM

Originally posted by LaBTop
The problem is me not able to recognize what the man says. I think I picked up something like "VDOT mast, the right of it......." and the rest I really can't understand.
What is it in his words that you find interesting?

Nothing important. Just telling me how the plane clipped the top of the VDOT tower.

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 02:44 AM
A post by Achimspok over at Pumpitout forums giving detailed descriptions about several eyewitnesses who were positioned west of the Sheraton Hotel :

His conclusion he expressed in this GE map drawing, with the NTSB positions in it as light-green pins, and the witnesses as yellow pins, the rest of the pins are described too : (779px × 600px)

If I understand him right, he connects the view directions of the left side of the NTSB path and the resulting line crosses the right side view directions nearly exactly on the NTSB path, which goes in a straight line over the VDOT radio mast (SoC) and then through the downed light poles to the impact point. This is a very wide area map, and you saw what happened to me when I used graduated arcs, plastic triangles and rulers, to find out that the resulting paths did not match the GE Ruler window's Heading degrees feature.
I'll try to load these points in a modern GE map, and see if the heading is straight to column 14. I do however not find the lat. and long. values for the two shown NTSB light-green pins.
Anybody have those for me?

I find that whole thread discussing CIT witnesses and eventual misconceptions made by CIT quite interesting. I agree with many of Achimspok's conclusions, and replacements of key-witnesses on Route 27.

CIT did place a few in the wrong places, then.
But I would advice him to scrutinize Vin Narayanan's account. He clearly says that the impact "was only 50 yards away". Look at the earlier posted bigger area map.
If Vin stood where Achimspok places him, that's 330 meters/yards away from impact !!!

I do not think a mathematical mind like Vin's would make such a huge mistake.
I said already before that he seemed to mistake all distances he mentioned by half, in this case if he stood where I said he was photographed, that's about 100 yards and not 50 yards.

I am willing to discuss this PumpItOut thread with anybody here, there are quite some misconceptions in there too. Achimspok perhaps did not know at the time from later surfacing interviews with a few of these interviewed witnesses. Or did not read or listen to all the full words of them.

For example, this is the CIT interview with Vin Narayanan in this Australian 9/11 Truth Movement forum thread, page 15, a post #141 by Onesliceshort, a clever member from the PfT and CIT forums :

"At 9:35 a.m., I pulled alongside the Pentagon. With traffic at a standstill, my eyes wandered around the road, looking for the cause of the traffic jam. Then I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet. The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon.

"The windows were dark on American Airlines Flight 77 as it streaked toward its target, only 50 yards away."

"The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball."

He was right "alongside" the Pentagon. Only 50 yards away from its target.
[LT : However, that second 1x1 meter exit sign Onesliceshort seems not to know about, stands in a spot "alongside" the Pentagon, its southern wall. And Vin's car could have stood just in front of light pole 4, or 5..? If 5, he could not see the poles being clipped. But you should check the exact spot of that second exit sign beside Route 27 its north lanes..)

In Aldo Marquis' call :

27:50/34:14 :

ALDO: So you were under an overhead sign. Correct?

NARANYAN: ..I was under an exit sign, basically..I was just before the exit sign..the exit sign was on the approach.

ALDO: And you say the tail actually hit the sign?

NARANYAN: It clipped it..


ALDO: So did you see it clip any lightpoles?

NARANYAN : No, it didn't clip any lightpoles or anything like that..
it didn't clip any lightpoles, just the exit sign.

Was he referring to the exit sign that is just before the poles on the official path?
[LT : Actually, there are three exit signs there.
One on the huge board just before the Pike-underpass. That's in fact the only one you physically could stand under. And could have been clipped. But then no lamp poles clipped? Illogical and not fitting the 5 poles.

The next green one is standing beside the road, and that is the most interesting exit sign for now, because it stands at a spot with no trees at all near it, is about 1x1 meter, but perhaps had an extra sign above it that was clipped? You can not stand under it. And it is very near to, or even under the SoC flight path.
I have to look up that photo with it in it, so we can extract its position from that photo.

The third one is the small green one on a short pole, about 2.50 meter high, beside the road, just a few meters in front of the two trees that grew in front of the Heli Pad. It's the exit sign that indicates that the exit-lane begins, and you should choose that lane if you want to go to the Mall or River Entrances.
That's the third one, I think Vin stands just in front of, in a shiny darkgreen Pick Up van. In one of the Steve Riskus photos I already showed. You can not stand under it. It is under a NoC flight path.
It is too low to be clipped and then no light poles also standing there would have not been clipped, that is nearly impossible. The plane must have just cleared the lamp poles there and must have been in such a dive angle, that the tail could touch that sign. That's impossible, the nose of the plane would have shaved the lawn.

He saw no lightpoles being struck. He was adamant about that.
He also claimed that there were no trees obstructing his view.

These are the trees Aldo was referring to

(LT : 4 photos from under the I-395 overpass were inserted to show the three trees beside the huge traffic signs board.)

What did he tell you in your interview Shure?

No, there were no trees in my way, actually there were no trees there. I was right there where it happened.
The plane flew right over my head.

Now squeeze that neuron Shure, go on.
There's only one logical conclusion where he saw the plane enter Route 27 isn't there? Given he was in front of the Pentagon, no trees blocking his view just before a roadsign?

edit on 24/6/12 by LaBTop because: Resized picture to fit ATS

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:00 AM
The problem for Onesliceshort is the same, he does not know about the second 1 x 1 meter green exit sign, and neither about the third small green exit sign on a 2.5 meter pole.
He thinks Vin stood somewhere near and beside the half-road spanning traffic board on the other side of the HOV lanes ! Under the bundle of orange flight paths that CIT drew to show their NoC witness manually drawn paths.
You can see that traffic board just north of pole 4 spanning the south going lanes in the drawing I posted above with "official flight path" printed in the center.

The problem for that proposal is, that Vin could not read those signs on that board, since they are meant for south going drivers. He only could have seen the back of those signs.

Achimspok's post nr 31 :
is a beauty that I have already linked to in earlier threads when Reheat came up again with his exceptional huge bank needed to bank to the Pentagon.

Flight instructor Mr John E. McLain explained it very well :

and his quoted text is what Reheat should explain to me. Why is the use of rudder to achieve a slightly angled bank not possible? And as this flight instructor adds, this technique will also proceed further if continued, to a medium bank.

John McLain :
My suggestion is that, for any turns of less than five degrees, use rudder only to establish the desired bank. A slight application of rudder in the direction of the turn will produce a very shallow bank and eliminate the adverse yaw. Please note that I did not say to keep the wings level with aileron, which is a common misconception. The rudder application will produce the desired small bank, and you should let it. ... I am advocating using a little rudder-induced yaw, with no aileron, to produce a slight bank.
… once a medium bank is established you must neutralize both the aileron and rudder. A common mistake I see with pilots is the failure to neutralize the rudder. This results in a continued yaw in the direction of the turn and a tendency for the bank to steepen. The pilot’s tendency is to apply opposite aileron, and we then have the dreaded cross-control. Don’t let this happen to you.

And I do know this too, as quoted by Achimspok on his first thread page :

Quote: John Bursill

"I agree absolutely that the pressure on the airframe changes massively at low altitude as Balsamo states and that the effective "drag" and "air pressures" are equivalent to super sonic speeds at 510 Knots at sea level yes, but this pressure is only a catastrophic structural problem when the aircraft is changing direction."

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:20 AM
This was also an excellent text and explanation by Achimspok, which I also remember to have linked to before in other threads, and Reheat never reacted with counter arguments, just the usual insults that I am a troll, truther, liar, whatever insult he remembers to have used already, while posting.

Albert Hemphill : The aircraft was moving fast, at what I could only be estimate as between 250 to 300 knots. All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for approximately 3 seconds.

Achimspok :
We get some speed of 330-350mph. Other sources give a speed up to 420mph.

NOTE: This image was resized. To view it full-size, click on the image.


So the necessary bank angle of 27° - 39° for a 6.5° trajectory change over a distance of about 500 meters is absolutely in the range of the possibilities. An angle of 27° is quite similar to the impact angle of the WTC1 plane and no witness I know described it as "high banking". However, some statements in the witness accounts are extremely interesting.

Hemphill describes "as if he'd just jinked to avoid something".
Morin described some similar sudden movement and interpreted it as a "right bank" may be because he just saw the tip of the tail moving to the right.
Steve Storti mentions a right bank before it reached the Navy Annex and mentioned some additional movement "veered sharply".
Lagasse described some yawing by the use of the rudder.

That movement will also cause some small banking if not prevented by some aileron movement. According to a flight instructor that yaw movement do not end just by turning the rudder into a straight position. I assume that such a maneuver is extremely difficult and even dangerous close to the ground. Imo it is far out of range for Hani Hanjour (and probably also for experienced pilots flying by hand and sight) and btw the start of that yaw movement would have pushed the pilot sideways with a lot more force than an un-banked turn in a roller coaster. But whatever piloted that thing it still had to end that movement by some similar complex and dangerous maneuver while leveling above the bridge.
A plane do not bank suddenly. The banking maneuver still needs some additional way to reach the necessary angle and to level the wings afterwards.

As I wrote before, the damage of the light poles show no detectable bank angle. Even the FDR data show no left bank but a lot of people believe that these data ended much earlier for whatever reason. Since the FDR doesn't "know" that the plane will crash in may be 4-8 seconds we definitely can exclude that it stopped recording. A yaw movement wouldn't appear in these data and even the rudder movement was probably not recorded (???).

Posted Image (LT :no image btw)
Hence, the jinked yaw movement appears like the best explanation so far.

LaBTop : And that was exactly what I have proposed before and which was laughed away by Reheat again, no arguments also again. The usual "I am not going to waste time anymore on this pile of poppycock of an obvious -fill in todays insult to me-. Etcetera).
The flight instructor with a name, John McLain, seems to think it can, however.

You just have to watch that red line, the graphic-downslope-moving bank angle-showing line, going to 300 and 420 KTS while showing a plane's bank angle at these speeds. And watch the red text in the top left corner of that very clever GIF-animation made by Achimspok, showing changing bank angles. And how they change depending on speed and time per 500 meters.

That's exactly what I have proposed too ! And what all NoC witnesses also described and showed with a toy plane in their hands.

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:25 AM
You all should realize once and for all, that WHEN that plane flew NoC, and passed over Christine Peterson's head who said she stood IN FRONT of the Heli Pad on Route 27, then the whole official story AND the whole FDR are false.

And huge deception techniques will in THAT case have been and will still being used, to hide these things, and really everything they can throw at us will be used to suppress the real historical truth.
And one of their techniques will be, to ridicule people like me and many others on the Internet, trying to let them appear to be silly, crazy conspiracy nuts.

I am not.

I am open for arguments from both sides of the fences, and will try to come to a well balanced decision what has the highest probability to be true.
On some aspects of 9/11 I have reached that conclusion, on many others not at all yet.

True history is often attacked with deadly force by all governments, they do not want their citizens to wake up. They need worker slaves, and always try to keep them uninformed.

That has to end. We are not on this earth to work as paid slaves for the few.
We must have the time to educate ourselves, and find early in life already the real important answers all by ourselves, and shall not be indoctrinated to follow the dictates of the few.
Work should be a real FREE choice, and deeply satisfy you.

And it easily can be accomplished, when we now stop these crazy trillions of money budgets spent worldwide to wage war, to poison us with alcohol, "health" drugs, nicotine and so many other tax slurping money-makers.
And stop paying too many people exorbitant high wages, which are far out of the boundaries of any logic.

Then you can pay everyone a well balanced salary for the services they give back, and the real bright ones, pay them maximum 3 times more than that. The happy ones will stay happy, because work and freedom of mind and time will be in balance, and the career seeking ones can have a bit more for their extended efforts.

Knowledge has to be free, and it is what you do with it, that must be regulated by full and open information, not by suppression and hiding nearly everything, even falsification of huge, costly research, to make the masses think that they should fear everything. They rule by implanting fear through the controlled media.

Several scientists have been caught in the last decades, and it was proven by others, that their studies were paid for by the government, however only when the desired outcome should be obtained. Then this paid-for outcome was used to introduce harsh new laws that cost millions of people their life and/or freedom. And it is still going on, on increasing levels globally.

This is the worst form of deception.
We must be able to blindly trust our global research efforts, which are still mostly free to access.
Just compare the global amount of money spend on cancer cures, to the global military budget. Don't you feel that huge unbalance indicates that some severe disharmonious people are in places of influence, where they should be banned for life?

Government is not some shady entity. Its a bunch of greedy politicians, bankers, captains of industry, and top military brass.
Fed and influenced constantly by a huge army of high-payed lobbyists who try to influence every politician, researcher and military men/women to use only THEIR own huge-company's resources.

And these few, have NAMES.
Make them accountable and responsible for the immense suppression of the real truth.
Stop the GREED, and the accompanying millions of murders, and their well paid murderers.

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:27 AM
Achimspok's post nr 33 gives the data Exponent asked for, namely the last NTSB positional data :

also, are Mclain's comments all related to small aircraft?

Yes but the physics are the same. Problem, such a yaw probably could damage the entire plane.

I'm looking into the FDR with all the informations I could found
mag heading very precise
lat/long failure 3000ft

given the descent rate and the heading it looks like the last FDR was recorded about at
77° 3'45.82"W

That's pretty close to Citgo but of course south. Furthermore it looks like the plane was high enough to pass over the VDOT mast.

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:37 AM
John (911files), I have looked it up for you, you asked when the photo showing a SoC flight path you have posted was made. From your own link :

That "SoC path" photo you posted was not shot on 9/11, during the Fairfax County Police helicopter flight with the FAA officials onboard, who said that the plane flew over a small office building about a mile or a little less away from impact, and thus the pilots started their AA 77 attack path mimicking on 9/11over that same small building, which is btw not the Annex, as Reheat tried to insinuate.

On page 22 the two pilots say this :

--name-- Then when they (LT: the FAA officials on 9/11 afternoon) were satisfied, we landed, and then we went up a little bit later, taking video footage and downlinking it to the command center.
--name-- Do you still have a copy of that video?
--name-- He told me he does not have it.

(LT : thus, this photo you showed, John, is not a screenshot of that initial FAA officials flight, where the FAA officials asked the two pilots to fly over a small office building which the FAA officials heard from someone on the ground, that AA 77 had flown over that one. That photo you linked to, must have been one from the flight done by Dan, the next day. Other evidence for it is the small amount of smoke in it, just as Dan told that he saw the next day, 9/12. He said the major fires were out.)

Page 23
--name-- (second pilot) 16 but I believe it was the next day we had a photo mission down there.
--name-- Yeah.
--name-- We took quite a few photos directly overhead of the Pentagon.
--name-- And would that have been yourself?
--name-- Yeah, I flew that. (the second pilot, named Dan. The first pilot had the next day off, on 9/12)
Page 25, (Dan, the second pilot, is back.)
--Dan-- 9 Yes, we did . We had a photo mission the next day.
--name-- All right.
--Dan-- On 9-12. 9-12. It was in Fairfax 2 with myself as the pilot, --name-- and --name-- as the flight officers and the photographer would have been, is it --name-- --name--: --name-- --name--: --name--, who works for the --name-- Fire department.
20 --name-- fire department, Fairfax County Fire Department. We took -- well, actually, we took off from
Page 26
the base at 1555 and returned back to the base at 1650, so just under an hour flight. The main mission is to photograph the Pentagon. So we -- I don't remember the specifics of the route of flight. We approached it cautiously. By then ATC was back in business, and they were super jumpy and super cautious. (NOTE that air traffic control seems to him to have not been on the job for a full day. WHY? )
But we got our clearance to Washington Tower to proceed to the Pentagon (LT: the tower on Ronald Reagan Int.) Photography was around the perimeter of the Pentagon.
--name-- Who directed this mission?
--Dan-- I'm not certain. It was definitely requested and approved by I'm sure all the appropriate people. I think that the FBI was the initial requester of either that one or yours. I thought it was this one. I'm sure we can -- that can be researched. But it wasn't internally generated. It was definitely a formal request that we do it, and we supported it. So the perimeter shots, quite a few of them.
Page 27.
I think he took video as well as still pictures. And then we took quite a few directly overhead, looking down into the damaged area. By then, it was -- there was still a little bit of smoke, but most of the fire was -- I believe the major fire was out. We still have quite a number of these pictures, the stills, on computer here, if you were interested in them, if you don't have them already.
--name-- Yeah, we probably don't.
The -- again, you know, (inaudible) the story for the Army.
--Dan-- And then returned to the base, cleared with Washington. The flight was uneventful. It was extremely interesting, being directly over the top of all of the devastation.
Page 28.
15 --name-- I imagine you've gotten with some of the photographers that were on the scene and gotten some of the pictures from them.
18--name--? There's a guy, a --name--. I don't know if you've got with him yet. --name--. He took quite a number of pictures, and he seemed to have an interest in the aircraft that were on the scene, too. He took quite a
Page 29.
few of them. And some of them are on our wall up front that he took. That's probably another source of possible photos.
--name-- I don't -- we have some aerial photographs, but not --
--name-- Well, these wouldn't be aerial, they would be --
--name-- (Inaudible.)
--name-- Yeah.
--name-- (inaudible) took (inaudible).
--name-- I can certainly show you all of them that we have.
Page 30.
--Dan-- but that seems to be all the missions that we had related to the Pentagon -- two Fairfax County aircraft on 9/11, the third helicopter on 9/11, which is a private helicopter that we have that was offered up by the owner, that we used for various things that day, and then also the photo mission the next day.
--end of my typing of all of those excerpts--

It is clear to the thorough reader, that your photo posted in this thread is one of the set of photos taken during the next day flight flown by the pilot named Dan, and those photos were taken by a Fairfax Fire Department photographer.
They were handed over to the Army History Unit interviewer by Dan.
The video shot in the heli used by the two pilots, --name-- and Dan on 9/11, together with the FA officials on board, beginning at the small office building about .33 to .36 mile from the Annex ; from that one, the pilots told the interviewer, they had no copy of that.

I also remember that the two hires photos from that heli parked on the grass, were showing at least one tour bus parked just before the overpass on the Pike. And Dan told us that the next day tour buses were there. He parked on 9/12 at the same spot as on 9/11, since that still was a designated heli landing spot.

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:43 AM
John, I do think and hope you still have a HiRes copy of that CITGO FOIA released VCR tape.

I also provided them with the original VCR tape (copy) given to Scott Bingham by the FBI from the Citgo.

I too have posted quite a lot on the CITGO security video tape flash :
Title : Body-language in CITGO video - North path indication?

It misses all my links to your FORMER website, its pictures, just click the QUOTE tag in the posting window and you will find the links for the open spaces in my post, all to your former site pages like "" and your PDF's at your also defunct site "", like this one :

My link I posted then to the Judicial Watch site where the sharp version of the CITGO video was saved to, is defunct.
But they seem to have moved it to this page, but now it's only damn YouTube versions !!!
Only the Doubletree Hotel one is still a .wmv version. Where is that .wmv version I used to make screen shots from the CITGO video, and why is it not saved by Judicial Watch in that form, but only as a crappy YouTube video? :

Official Legal Documents

Pentagon security cameras footage #1
Pentagon security cameras footage #2
Footage from the Citgo cameras
Footage from the Doubletree cameras

I am sure I have it saved on disks, the .wmv version which I can play in my Windows Media window and pause at will, expand at will etc.

Btw, Adam Larson and me respected each other's opinions, and did differ on many subjects, like his supposed two thin black lines seen for a second which he interpreted as possible shadows of a plane's wings, just to the south of the CITGO canopy. Its THREE seconds earlier than the canopy ceiling flash, where EVERYBODY reacted instantly on !
That was not the shadow of a plane, John and Adam. That ought to be the end of that shadow discussion. Nobody reacted on those thin, shadowy lines.
But they definitely did on that huge flash inside the CITGO northern canopy ceiling.

That means that Adam's thesis of an existing partial shadow of a plane flying and passing by the south side of the Citgo gas station is not synchronizing with the movements and reactions of the people seen in the video.
It's 3 seconds too early. No one in the video reacted in that moment as they did when the flash occurred.

And Craig, from the moment on, that I first viewed the testimony of sergeant Lagasse in your team's first video posted here, I was dead sure that there was a plane flying to the North of Citgo on 9/11.
It was the pure body language of this man (Lagasse), expressing his utter amazement when you told him that the cut light poles in the official southbound flightpath did not synchronize at all with his northbound observed flightpath, what convinced me on the spot that this was a genuine and honest testimony, implicating a huge military deception.

Lagasse should get a Pulitzer Prize, when it turns out he did not see a plane where he's pointing at in my earlier posted CIT photo of him, namely above that transformer on a pole, on the right side of the Pike, north of the CITGO canopy.

There is one very important detail in that video, that I could see better with my old Ilyama hires 24 inch monitor, not a flat-screen. That one showed quite a lot more video details in the .AVI file I obtained those days, then on the recent day flat-screens.
Please read my thread thoroughly, it is very detailed and it could change your mind on several things you now seem to be sure of.
And I still have doubts, whether Lagasse stood with his back to the pump, or with his back to the pay counter office, the moment we see that huge flash reflected from the inside of the canopy, see the CITGO .ATI or .wmv video.

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:46 AM
That YouTube video I now had to work with had crappy details in its "flash" window.
One thing was clear however, Lagasse stood in between his car and the pump where he was filling up his police cruiser. He started to ran around his car at the 4.44 / 5.21 point in the YouTube video when a huge flash can be seen just left of the corner pole under the canopy.
He ran to the driver side of his Pentagon police cruiser, radioed the event in to his dispatcher, and jumped in his car and sped off, first backwards, then over St.Joyce Street took a right turn onto the Pike, then under the overpass and to the Pentagon South Parking Lot.

And all the people at the pay counter inside, immediately started to run to the door at the Pentagon side, and stared to the Pentagon, directly after that huge flash.
Read my excerpt of Jose Velasquez remarks, that a plane its loud noise made him run outside, to watch a plane thundering down to the Pentagon. So he thinks he was alerted by the noise not by the flash, but the video shows him behind the counter, reacting when the flash occurred.

"I knew something was wrong. The planes come more from the north and west [to land at Reagan National Airport] not from the south. And not so low."

This one remark from him was the cause for the birth of an army of new 9/11 official story doubters :

Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."

Achimspok has posted here and on the PumpItOut site that Lagasse did not react when the plane would have passed, only about 4 seconds later.
And he found that very suspicious behavior.
He did not realize, that the clocks in all video windows in that video, were not correctly set.
They were offset by about 4 seconds from the real time, if I remember that value right.
And he based his conclusion about Lagasse on the video clock times shown in the CITGO security camera multiplexer screen.....which were incorrectly set !

Can you see in your own tape copy any better than me, if Lagasse stood with his back to the pump and thus with his back to the north side? If so, how could he have seen the plane? That must have streaked passed the north side, when his report is true. Then he could not have seen it fast enough, by spinning around his toes. But he would have been alerted already by the intense jet engine noise, first. And turned his head to the incoming noise.

AND I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE HEAD MOVEMENTS OF ALL PEOPLE IN THE PAY COUNTER AND IN ALL PUMP VIDEO FRAMES; so we can determine if they looked southwest or south in a SoC direction, or if they looked northwest or north in a NoC direction.

It seems like he is looking at his tank filling hand, thus with his back to north.
A person who has to pay for his own gas, looks at the pump counter. North in this case....
Someone getting his gas paid for by his boss, looks at the filling opening to be sure that the petrol does not overflow. He's not interested in the price, boss pays! In this case, he's then looking South.....
If he can be seen as looking to the south without turning his head of course, then he could and should have seen a SoC flying plane.

Why on earth he would then have reported a NoC plane, is beyond my grasp, of course.

And Chadwick Brooks, his colleague parked on the other side of St. Joyce Street, the street along the CITGO leading to the Pike-junction 80 meters further.
Why did he also report a NoC plane, even added that he saw the leafs of the last few trees that grow west, opposite of the CITGO grounds and also on a line that can be drawn to the north of the CITGO canopy, rattle in the wake of the jet engines?
This row of trees was and still is growing along the Pike its winding part sloping-under the 8th Annex Wing hill side.

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:57 AM
Your post '48 on page 2 in your "TheCitgo Ghost" thread at JREF
says something I think does not fit that ghost helicopter you are searching for.
Or you must mean a totally different flash on a wall inside the cashiers counter room.

Yet the problem with the Park Police helicopter scenario outlined by Sherwood is that its existence is based primarily on spurious evidence. His account is second-hand, and most likely third-hand. As far as I know, this pilot, nor his interview has never surfaced. There is some evidence (movement of debris on the ground) in the Pentagon gate footage of helicopter wash in the vicinity of the Mall gate about 8 seconds (if I recall correctly) after impact. There is the "flash" on the wall in the Citgo video that can be correlated to a low-altitude reflective source in the same general direction at the time of impact. There is an account by a ANC worker who saw a "plane" moments after impact in the same area. Now there is this little radar "track" (I am still suspicious of the Citgo canopy being the culprit in this case). Quite frankly, none of it comes even close to the evidence threshold required to say the darn helicopter ever existed.

Sure wish we had those Pentagon videos the FBI lost

The "flash" is very real, but is not on the wall in the CITGO video, but on the ceiling of the northern pumps part of its canopy. And is clearly connected either with the passing of a plane like AA 77 with a reflective fuselage surface of polished aluminum, or, is a mirrored reflection of the impact flash at the Pentagon.

Such a supposed impact flash reflection is in my view, very unlikely, the distance is too far, the intensity will have bled mostly away over that space. And the angle is 90° on the length of the flash on the CITGO northern canopy's white painted ceiling.
The weather was very bright and will have totally overexposed such a far away explosive impact light flash.
And the main reason, the flash came from straight north, not from east where the Pentagon is.

The sun was however in the right position to be the source of the flash, caused by its reflection on an eventual passing polished aluminum hull of AA 77, while flying in a NoC flight path.

It is also totally suspicious that the main northern canopy camera was taken away by the FBI the next or the same day. That one was the one for any serious security breach-evidence since it hung on the western corner under the canopy. It was the only one that could read all the number plates ! And the footage window in the CITGO video camera's compilation screen, of that FBI seized camera, has been replaced by the illogical side view camera window, the one hung in the southeastern corner of that canopy, just above the s.e. corner of the pay counter room. You numbered that camera as Nr 3 in your drawing I linked to in my thread.

That one could not register number plates from a petrol thief car, speeding backwards and away from the CITGO grounds.
Btw, all those cameras are totally worthless for identification purposes, if that was the REAL screen resolution.

Which I can't believe was the original size. That must have been bigger, and sharper. Do you really think an immense entity like the NAVY would have spend small money on a seriously crappy surveillance system like is shown by the FBI delivered "evidence video" after years of FOIA requests? I don't, not at such a high risk spot.
Damn it, all high brass COULD order their drivers to fill up their gas tanks there.
While sitting in their cars to read reports, or entertaining their secretary.
A prime terrorist attack spot !

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 04:05 AM
John, on a side note, why are you, the one who clearly spend lots of time and effort on the radar issues of 9/11 and the 9/11 FDR's decoding issues, treated so hostile by the majority of the responders in your "Citgo Ghost" thread? Even straight out condescending. Really like you were the local idiot-savant.
Which you clearly are NOT.
This is by the way the exact same way the JREF migrants here at ATS act against me, as if anybody not choosing their side are idiot-savants, which we definitely are not.
This tactic has all the signs of a funded psychological operation effort to make 9/11 researchers the laughing stock of the Internet.

I respect anyone spending lots of time and efforts in trying to understand what really unfolded on 9/11. You are treated totally without any respectfulness there, and they should be ashamed.

It's that lack of respect for someones hard work, and the straight out childish insulting posting behavior at that JREF forum that made me decide in 2005 already, to never post there again.
It's a pity their moderators and administrators let these immatures go rampant at these 9/11 posts in such a despicable manner there, since there are some bright minds posting there over the many years.

But these minds did slowly migrate to these ATS conspiracy forums too, as we all can see.

And I repeat, respectful opposition with mutual respect is the lifeline for 9/11 forums, otherwise they will end up as one sided gentlemen clubs, where everybody is SO nice to eachother.

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:07 AM
More walls of text amounting to hand-waving. Good luck with your "research", but quite frankly I'm tired of rehashing the same old discredited NoC theory.

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:23 AM

Originally posted by LaBTop
John, on a side note, why are you, the one who clearly spend lots of time and effort on the radar issues of 9/11 and the 9/11 FDR's decoding issues, treated so hostile by the majority of the responders in your "Citgo Ghost" thread? Even straight out condescending. Really like you were the local idiot-savant.
Which you clearly are NOT.
This is by the way the exact same way the JREF migrants here at ATS act against me, as if anybody not choosing their side are idiot-savants, which we definitely are not.
This tactic has all the signs of a funded psychological operation effort to make 9/11 researchers the laughing stock of the Internet.

Shows that you do not understand the scientific/engineering approach to problem solving. When a person develops a hypothesis (such as NoC, Citgo Ghost, etc), they serve themselves no good what-so-ever to present it to a cheerleader section. Rather, the researcher is better served taking it to a crowd of tough skeptics. If it survives that scrutiny, then it is worth pursuing further. Quite frankly, I've drawn more hostile fire from the "truther" side of the debate than I have the "debunker" side. After my appearance on Coast-to-coast in 2007, P4T and CIT started an email campaign to the C2C host (Ian) that was very vicious and downright hateful. As a result, Ian asked me to come back and do a full 3 hour show. I declined of course, because it does not take 3 hours to simply state that the CSV file provided by the NTSB was missing the last few seconds of data. In the end, I was right, P4T was wrong (as has been the case for just about everything else). But as a result of that process, I learned some things and was forced to pull together a team of folks who are second to none in their related fields to help work through some of the outstanding issues objectively.

However, you will find that many JREF'rs will no longer deny the FBI is withholding video evidence. They may hand-wave and deny that it means anything, but they no longer deny their existence. Yeah, they are a tough crowd, but I need them to keep my own confirmation bias under control.

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 06:42 AM

Originally posted by LaBTopIt is also totally suspicious that the main northern canopy camera was taken away by the FBI the next or the same day.

Why do you keep perpetuating this lie? The only thing the FBI took was the video. Show me a property receipt where the FBI took a camera at anytime. They do have to give receipts for everything they take, or did you not know that? It would look something like this one they gave for the Pentagon videos/hard drives.

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 11:37 AM
John Farmer (911files), these are some extensive remarks from the History Commons website,

1. About your "Ghost Heli", very informative and a long text :
United States Park Police :

2. Results Overview search for "helicopter 2001" :

Early Morning September 11, 2001: Helicopter Crew at Aviation Unit near Pentagon Away for ‘Traffic Survey’

A helicopter and its crew that are always on standby for “contingency” missions in the Washington area are away from base early this morning conducting a traffic survey, but apparently return at some point before the Pentagon is hit. The crew belongs to the 12th Aviation Battalion. [US Army Center for Military History, 11/14/2001 pdf file; Army Center of Military History, 11/14/2001 pdf file] The 12th Aviation Battalion is stationed at Davison Army Airfield at Fort Belvoir, located 12 miles south of the Pentagon. It is the aviation support unit for the Military District of Washington, and operates UH-1 “Huey” and UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters. [Military District of Washington, 8/2000] According to a chief warrant officer with the unit, the 12th Aviation Battalion has “two crews that are always on standby for any kind of contingency mission.” It is one of these crews that is “out flying around doing a traffic survey.” [Army Center of Military History, 11/14/2001 pdf file] The exact time period during which the crew and their helicopter are away from base is unstated, but they apparently return to Davison Airfield before 9:37 a.m., when the Pentagon is hit (see Shortly Before 9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001). [US Army Center for Military History, 11/14/2001 pdf file] They will be the first crew with the battalion to take off in support of the rescue operations at the Pentagon once the unit’s aircraft are permitted to launch again following the attack. Others members of the 12th Aviation Battalion are also away from base this morning, for weapons training (see 8:46 a.m.-9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001). [Army Center of Military History, 11/14/2001 pdf file]
Entity Tags: 12th Aviation Battalion, Davison Army Airfield
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

I repeat for the hard-heads still not understanding how research is done :
You start doubting everything, collect evidence to weed out most of those doubts, then concentrate on the remaining questionable subjects.

Thus, IF, I repeat IF, the NoC witnesses are not mistaken, then the 9/11 Pentagon event was a huge psy-ops.
In that light seen, we should scrutinize every helicopter in the near airspace around the Pentagon, shortly before and during the Pentagon attack.

That 12th Aviation Battalion its Fort Belvoir base is located 12 miles south of the Pentagon.
At an assumed top speed of 300 MPH (UH-1 “Huey” and UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters) it would need 5 minutes to return to base. If the "returned to base before impact" remark is true, it could not have been the "ghost heli" from John Farmer's recent research, that was seen 2 to 3 minutes before impact.

If however 9/11 is a psy-op, anyone of these described helicopters could have been the one spotted by Jeffrey Mark Parsons of the United States Border Patrol, who stayed in the Merriot Hotel for a month in the room from where he saw the "ghost heli", 2 to 3 minutes before AA 77 impacted.

The "ghost" helicopter’s pilot reportedly describes the incident when later interviewed by a US Marine Corps historian. Details of the pilot’s account are then revealed by US Navy historian John Darrell Sherwood, who is a colleague of the Marine Corps historian, while he is interviewing Jeffrey Mark Parsons.
Which event John Farmer mentioned earlier in this thread as the "ghost heli" investigation he is currently busy with.

That "ghost" pilot who is

“an aviation sergeant with the United States Park Police,” is “in the area [of the Pentagon] and he got a call saying, ‘Try to intercept this plane, try to distract the plane, try to do something to, you know, prevent the plane from going into the Pentagon.’” It is unclear from what Sherwood says whether the helicopter is on the ground or already airborne at this time. In response to the instruction, the helicopter goes “to try to distract” the approaching aircraft :
Shortly Before 9:35 a.m. September 11, 2001: Park Police Helicopter Instructed to Intercept Plane Approaching Pentagon

And IF the NoC witnesses are not mistaken, conveniently enough, it seems that the bulk of the Fort Belvoir base personnel was gone on a 2 to 3 hours drive to their (rifle?)shooting range, Fort AP Hill, and was exercising there already when they heard of the 9/11 attacks in New York :
8:46 a.m.-9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001: Aviation Unit Based near Pentagon away for Weapons Training at Time of Attacks.
Thus, there were a lot less witnesses on that base, if one of its helicopters was used for a special operation on 9/11.

This is the seemingly logical explanation of that "ghost" helicopter, and it is logical only IF the NoC witnesses are all mistaken. If they are not, then this explanation is a clever smokescreen :

(9:35 a.m.-9:36 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Several Witnesses See Helicopter near the Pentagon.

Jeffrey Mark Parsons,a senior Air Force officer and Jennifer Reichert, all three see a helicopter near the Pentagon, and Jennifer even sees one take off from the Heli Pad, minutes-maybe seconds before AA 77 impacted. Read the whole above linked text.

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 11:40 AM
(Shortly Before 9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Sheer Coincidence Brings Emergency Rescue near to Pentagon; Bomb Disposal Unit Also on Its Way before Attack.

Nine different fire and medical service units are dispatched to 1003 Wilson Boulevard in Rosslyn, Virginia—within the vicinity of the Pentagon.
Assistant Chief James Schwartz of the Arlington County Fire Department will later recall that, around this time, firefighters are dispatched in response to an alarm at the high-rise USA Today complex in Rosslyn (see (Shortly Before 9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001). The address of the complex is 1000 and 1110 Wilson Boulevard, suggesting this is in fact the same incident as the “apartment fire” at 1003 Wilson Boulevard.

Again, USA Today connected firmly to the Pentagon attack.
IF the NoC witnesses are not mistaken, and 9/11 is a huge psy-op, then this could indicate someone in the know to have got second thoughts, and wanted to have as much medical and fire professionals ready, and as near to the attack-impact as possible. Because he/she knew a lot of casualties would be the result.

Shortly After 9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001: Park Police Aviation Unit Promptly Responds to Pentagon Attack.
A long, interesting read, John.

(Shortly After 9:41 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Park Police Helicopter Provides Live Video Feed of Pentagon Crash Scene to FBI and Other Agencies.

A US Park Police helicopter that is responding to the attack on the Pentagon and flying above the building transmits a live video feed of the crash scene to the FBI and other agencies, providing them with instant information about the extent of the damage and destruction at the Pentagon. [US Congress. House, 9/11/2002; National Park Service, 9/21/2002] The helicopter, which has the call sign “Eagle I,” is one of two helicopters belonging to the Park Police Aviation Unit that arrived at the Pentagon minutes after the attack there (see Shortly After 9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001). [Rotor and Wing, 11/2001] It has microwave “downlink” capability, which enables its crew to fly over a particular location and transmit instantaneous video images to the Park Police chief’s command post and other locations.
FBI Requests Video of Crash Scene - Shortly after Eagle I arrives over the Pentagon, the crew receives a request from the FBI to send it information using the downlink on their helicopter’s video camera. [McDonnell, 2004, pp. 22 pdf file] According to Sergeant Ronald Galey, the pilot of Eagle I, the FBI arrives on the scene “within 10 minutes or 15 minutes” of his helicopter reaching the Pentagon. Galey will later recall: “We heard from them immediately: ‘Start your downlink, we want to capture everything that we can.’” [US Naval Historical Center, 11/20/2001] The downlink capability then enables the crew of Eagle I “to transmit real-time images and information to people who needed them to make decisions,” according to the National Park Service’s account of 9/11. As well as the FBI, the images are sent to the Secret Service, the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police, and Park Police headquarters. Eagle I spends “the next four or five hours flying overhead and transmitting video images to the FBI.” [National Park Service, 9/21/2002; McDonnell, 2004, pp. 23 pdf file]

Can that WHOLE footage be FOIA'd, John?

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 12:02 PM

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by LaBTopIt is also totally suspicious that the main northern canopy camera was taken away by the FBI the next or the same day.

Why do you keep perpetuating this lie? The only thing the FBI took was the video. Show me a property receipt where the FBI took a camera at anytime. They do have to give receipts for everything they take, or did you not know that? It would look something like this one they gave for the Pentagon videos/hard drives.

John, I repeat, IF, and only IF, the NoC witnesses are not mistaken, then this would certainly not be dealt with by a receipt. The insiders would take it, without receipt, and probably disguised as FBI agents, with false, but made by the same presses as the originals, identifications.
IF, and only IF 9/11 was an inside job as these NoC witnesses must now realize, then you can expect lots of these kind of psy-ops.

John, does it not strike you as extremely strange, that the FBI within MINUTES of the impact, confiscated ALL these video feeds of cameras possibly able to register that plane?

That is not a clever FBI director directly reacting after being informed of the impact.
You know that these kinds of operations normally take weeks of planning, to get the right men to the right places.
Bear with me : EIGHTY FIVE camera feeds, from which a great part were confiscated within minutes of impact?

We can be credulous, but not stupid, do not underestimate the growing anger under the populace, we can see what they did, do and still plan.
Immense amounts of money disappeared and are disappearing while we type.
And they plan to rise the energy prizes globally, to unknown heights.


One would nearly say that that film about two star ships being funded by immense amounts of money, is secretly happening.
One explodes in Florida, but then one secretly build in Japan, surfaces to save mankind.

Well, I do not believe in that kind of propaganda. I could believe that scenario, but then only meant to save the happy and wealthy few.

GREED is the motor of everything today.
Introduce a new goal for mankind to strife after, which equals or out-masters GREED, and we will be saved.
Otherwise, we are definitely done as a race.

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in