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.


More details regarding our findings

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 01:13 PM
Since I haven't gone into very much detail on this forum yet I will do so now.

The crucial eyewitnesses we will present were all located at the citgo station on 9/11.

ALL of their testimony matches.

They all definitively place the plane on the north side of the station making it IMPOSSIBLE to topple the light poles and damage the building as outlined in the ASCE report.

Here is a quote right out of the script from our movie:

Many of you may be thinking…."but eyewitnesses are unreliable". Although this may be the case in many scenarios; there are quite a few things that make this testimony particularly credible and strong.

1) The high level of corroboration from independent accounts.

(we will present 4 separate accounts all corroborating each other while not being contradicted by a single other witness in the entire investigative body of evidence.)

2) The simple right or left nature of their claim.

(They only have to recall what side of the building the plane flew)

3) The perfect vantage point.

(No other witnesses were in a better position to tell on what side of the station the plane flew then the witnesses that were on the station’s property)

4) The high level of credibility of the witnesses themselves.

(The reason for this will be apparent when the identities of the witnesses are revealed.)

5) The fact that their testimony was filmed on location.

(This leaves zero room for misinterpretation of their claims as they are able to re-enact their experience for the camera)

6) The extreme magnitude of the event being something that is virtually impossible to forget.

Number 6 is an important one. Ask yourself where you were on 9/11. Virtually everyone remembers in detail where they were, what they did, and how they felt on that day. Now imagine you were on the CITGO station property just a few feet away from the plane with a perfect view of the Pentagon. Does it seem feasible that you could be completely mistaken as to what side of the station the plane flew? Regardless of how you answer that question none of the witnesses we spoke with believe there is a remote possibility they could be mistaken in this regard.

So in essence this testimony proves the plane did not hit the building and that all of the physical damage was staged.

We do not believe a missile was involved at all.

We believe the damage to the building was created with pre-planted explosives that were strategically placed to simulate a crash from a plane.

posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 01:25 PM
So 3 of the witnesses were at the citgo and one other just up the street has the plane crossing over to the north side of columbia pike which in essence corrorborates this claim.

These are the 4 witnesses we will present in the "Smoking Gun Version" which will be released next week.

The rest of the witnesses will be presented in the "Researcher's Edition" which will be released soon after.

Most of the witnesses in the Researcher's Edition were further back in the flight path and were not in a position to see the pentagon.

What is notable about their accounts is that none of them perfectly describe an American Airlines jet.

As many as 5 of them describe the plane as white.

Because of this we believe the plane might have had some characterisitcs of an AA jet but also had other characteristics in order to confuse people who may have seen it fly over into thinking they saw one of the other planes reported in the area.

posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 03:29 PM
So, when is this doc going to be released?

Is it going to be free?

Is it going to be on GVID where it can get lots of attention and spur commentary?

posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 03:45 PM

Looking forward to watching your docmentary.
Just wondering what you make of the claims
of the sightings and in particular pictures examined in this

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 12:15 AM
"We believe the damage to the building was created with pre-planted explosives that were strategically placed to simulate a crash from a plane."

youve got to be joking , right ? that's the worst 911 bs ive heard . you
people used to be funny , now it's just sad to think that people really believe this crap . sad , sad people.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by rainking]

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 03:11 AM
Just watched your documentary. Good work, a little sketchy around the edges but it was really good. I submitted it to Alex Jones @ It looked great. Anyway, good luck to you.

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 03:15 AM
I cannot say you are specifically sure on what you said about it, but I can second it in opinion. I am currently doing a Research paper on 9/11 and I read somewhere before in different area's that they were doing drills and stuff to prevent such an attack from happening on american soil. In fact, they were supposed to do a run that morning. Maybe in collaborating with the 3 towers that had fallen and the pentagon having a relatively low damaged side.. could simulate an actual attack on base? >_< I know it sounds weird. But I am just trying to help out, if you check these boards.

top topics


log in