The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Originally posted by SPreston

jthomas
How does it feel to be completely refuted by facts and evidence you never considered, SPreston?

Picked up those tickets yet, so you can desperately search for any real living witnesses to the official Flight 77 south of the Navy Annex flight path? Good to see that at least one of you 'government loyalists' grew some cohones, or is your promised trip just another lie?

You ARE a nervous Nellie, aren't you?

You know I'm looking for your witnesses to a flyover. I even asked Rob Balsamo to give me the flight path of your jet flying away from the Pentagon so I wouldn't waste my limited time.

VERY curiously, neither you, Balsamo, Ranke, or Marquis can give me any flight path of your jet flying away from the Pentagon. I even showed Balsamo the wide geographic area I showed you in my post above, but he couldn't come up with a flight path either. That is pretty damn amazing, don't you think?

Since none of you can give me a flight path, which I thought would be an obvious thing for you all to be able to do, do you think it is worth my time wandering around aimlessly in Washington looking for your eyewitnesses?

Do tell, SPreston, are you desperately searching for those "flyover eyewitnesses" you want me to interview? You'd better hurry - I only have until this Thursday to cancel my flight if you can't give me that all important flight path of your jet flying away from the Pentagon after the explosion.

Originally posted by SPreston

Soloist
If it flew over where in the world did the FDR come from? Think about that logically, step away from your computer and put away your hatred for the government for a minute.

Now that you're back, do you think that they simply took the FDR from the "flyover" plane and planted it at the scene? Does that sound about right?

Well, then why would they go through such a successful and elaborate "deception" and use the actual "flyover" plane's FDR?

Obviously the 9-11 perps did NOT use the FDR of the decoy aircraft.

No kidding. Thanks for helping prove my point to the poster for which my query was directed.

Originally posted by billybob

ever seen a nascar wipe out? THAT is what it looks like when metal is hurling about a hundreds of miles an hour.

Sheet metal on a Nascar is very thin and designed to fling free in an accident. There is no structural integrity whatsoever on the body of the car. Contrast that with an airplane where the body *IS* a key structural component, then you see the error in your comparison.

Well, one error of many.

the light poles were not moving at hundreds of miles per hour when they hit the lawn, or the taxi, and therefore, they were not hit by any 400+ mph plane,

Cool. What sort of device was used to measure the actual speed of the poles then? I mean, since you said they weren't moving that fast and all.

but were planted, and therefore it was a planned deception.

Planted, really? Yet not one shred of evidence, or eyewitness testimony from the people who were THERE, that the CIT uses as their "proof" report this "planting of the lightpoles". Wow.

the nascar crash is to represent the poles, not the planes, dimlights.
look at the lawn around the poles.
if they were violently smashed down into the lawn, there would be some mighty big divots.

like king kong goes golfing size divots.

no, siree. those poles were laid there gently.

there is even rust along the torn edges on some, meaning(because debunkers are scientifically challenged), that those tears were there for a long time.

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
For 1, i have shown evidence of the government document and will produce it if i can get it unclssified through a FOIA request.

So you have an FOIA request in at the moment?

Would you mind sharing the FOIA Request Number?

ULTIMA1, you continued to post for up to 13 hours after being asked these questions. You even continued to post in this thread.

You state that you possess a classified document that would prove the "official story" false, but you say that in order for it to be released publicly it must be obtained through a FOIA request.

So I ask you again -

Do you currently have a FOIA Request to gain public access to this document?

If so, what is the FOIA Request Number?

Originally posted by billybob
look at the lawn around the poles.

Please, by all means refer us to this amazing photographic evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the light pole damage was fabricated.

Originally posted by billybob
the nascar crash is to represent the poles, not the planes, dimlights.

Wow, nice uhm, is that an insult? Surely you can do better.

So you're saying racecars crashing are the same as a stationary object (pole) being hit? That's the comparison then?

look at the lawn around the poles.
if they were violently smashed down into the lawn, there would be some mighty big divots.
like king kong goes golfing size divots.
no, siree. those poles were laid there gently.

You're assuming they were violently smashed down.

there is even rust along the torn edges on some, meaning(because debunkers are scientifically challenged), that those tears were there for a long time.

Since we are "scientifically challenged" please explain why are all lightpoles corrosion resistant, have you ever seen one rust out before this? Most are made of galvanized steel (some are aluminum) since they have to be out in the elements and not rust.

Or did they in fact plant some super cheap Government knock-offs?

If the tears were there for a long time, which light poles *DID* the witnesses actually see being knocked down??

the majority of 'famous' witnesses either worked for 'USA today' or the military.
dubious at best.

i'm not 'assuming' the poles were violently knocked down. it is simple physics.

plant a pole in the ground, and hit it hard and fast enough sideways with a big hammer that it is either sheared at the base, or uprooted.

does it fall gently?

you cannot possibly hit a pole with a 120 ton hammer traveling at several hundred miles an hour, and have the poles fall over gently.

Originally posted by billybob
the majority of 'famous' witnesses either worked for 'USA today' or the military.
dubious at best.

i'm not 'assuming' the poles were violently knocked down. it is simple physics.

plant a pole in the ground, and hit it hard and fast enough sideways with a big hammer that it is either sheared at the base, or uprooted.

does it fall gently?

you cannot possibly hit a pole with a 120 ton hammer traveling at several hundred miles an hour, and have the poles fall over gently.

No? What if they were to get stuck on the hammer? Then fall off?

What it it were struck, and then damaged, but then fell over shortly thereafter?

Surely that couldn't happen though! That doesn't sound like "simple physics"!


Yes, you are 'assuming'.

Originally posted by discombobulator
If so, what is the FOIA Request Number?

Well i can see you know nothing about FOIA request, since there is no such thing as a request number. Specailly when the FOIA is a internal agency request

Please at lease be mature enough to try to find out about things before posting so you do not look so immature.

Ok, let's start with the basics. Tell me as simply as you can, why would they manually knock over lightpoles? What purpose does this serve? Obviously not to prove a plane was there. The witnesses that saw it hit the Pentagon, the gaping hole and explosion with accompanying fireball, and the missing flight 77 pretty much is all they need to say a plane was responsible. Why would they knock down poles? Why add one more factor that can possibly disprove what they were trying to do?

If you want to give credence to your theories, you need to explain away some pretty basic stuff. If I were masterminding something like this, I sure as hell wouldn't suggest we knock down lightpoles. It serves no purpose whatsoever.

The E-4B "Doomsday" acting as the decoy flew over the Pentagon roughly the same time the drone hit Wedge one of the US Naval Command Center. The drone was a Raytheon A-3 Skywarrior in American Airlines Flight 77 paint scheme.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by discombobulator
If so, what is the FOIA Request Number?

Well i can see you know nothing about FOIA request, since there is no such thing as a request number. Specailly when the FOIA is a internal agency request

Please at lease be mature enough to try to find out about things before posting so you do not look so immature.

What a curious response to my questions!

An internal FOIA request? No request number?

I'm pretty sure I could go back and dig out a post where you claim to have gone through the FOIA process a few times before, yet here you are make these curious claims!

And you completely dodged the question.

I think CIT sent billybob over to entertain us with a song and dance routine while Craig and Aldo try to figure out what in hell they're going to do now.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by discombobulator
If so, what is the FOIA Request Number?

Well i can see you know nothing about FOIA request, since there is no such thing as a request number. Specailly when the FOIA is a internal agency request

Please at lease be mature enough to try to find out about things before posting so you do not look so immature.

Really there is no such thing as an FOIA request number or control number. And BTW I have seen your transcripts and they by no way prove you work for the NSA or that you are even the said person in question. Just curious how long ago did you file your request?

[edit on 18-8-2008 by tide88]

I knew I'd find it.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Are you really that immature? As proven most of the evidnece has not been released by the FBI and NTSB. But if you file FOIA requests (like i have) and have access to good resources (like i have) then you can get infomration.

Here you are claiming to have filed FOIA requests. Yet now you curiously claim this:

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by discombobulator
If so, what is the FOIA Request Number?

Well i can see you know nothing about FOIA request, since there is no such thing as a request number. Specailly when the FOIA is a internal agency request

First, to claim that there is no FOIA Request Number is laughable in the extreme. Every Government agency has their own internal department handling FOIA requests. Each request received is assigned a unique Case File number otherwise referred to as a FOIA Request Number.

Secondly, the FOIA excludes requests from other Government agencies unless they arrive in the form of referrals. Correct me if I am wrong but you do claim to work for the NSA, is this correct?

The Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) generally provides that any person (with the exception of another federal agency, a fugitive from the law, or a representative of a foreign government) has a right, enforceable in court, to request access to federal agency records, except to the extent that such records (or portions thereof) are protected from disclosure by one of nine exemptions. As part of the Agency’s compliance with the Electronic FOIA (E-FOIA) requirements, NSA/CSS has begun to post FOIA information that will inform the public of NSA/CSS missions and functions. For information on how to submit a FOIA request, please see the NSA FOIA Handbook.
www.nsa.gov...

You conclude your post with...

Please at lease be mature enough to try to find out about things before posting so you do not look so immature.

... no hint of irony whatsoever.

ULTIMA1,

You state that you possess a classified document that would prove the "official story" false, but you say that in order for it to be released publicly it must be obtained through a FOIA request.

You are now being asked for the third time to answer BOTH questions.

Do you currently have a FOIA Request to gain public access to this document?

If so, what is the FOIA Request Number (or Case File number)?

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by billybob
the majority of 'famous' witnesses either worked for 'USA today' or the military.
dubious at best.

i'm not 'assuming' the poles were violently knocked down. it is simple physics.

plant a pole in the ground, and hit it hard and fast enough sideways with a big hammer that it is either sheared at the base, or uprooted.

does it fall gently?

you cannot possibly hit a pole with a 120 ton hammer traveling at several hundred miles an hour, and have the poles fall over gently.

No? What if they were to get stuck on the hammer? Then fall off?

What it it were struck, and then damaged, but then fell over shortly thereafter?

Surely that couldn't happen though! That doesn't sound like "simple physics"!

Yes, you are 'assuming'.

My my. You pseudoskeptic Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) defenders sure get caught up in your denial don't you? If the light poles got stuck on the 535 mph HAMMER, then at almost 800 feet per second, they would not be lying by their bases would they? With less than 2 seconds flying time, they should be stuck on the Pentagon wall instead, shouldn't they?

What kind of physics do you use? Pseudoskeptic physics? (Pseudo = fake - phony - fraudulent)

How another OCT defender represented the 535 mph HAMMER striking the light poles using pseudoskeptic physics
Pole 1 Frame 1 - - Pole 1 Frame 2 - - Pole 1 Frame 3
Pole 3 - - Pole 4 - - Pole 5 knocked down in alignment with flight path
Actual picture of light pole 5 lying across flight path and with the undamaged plastic cable spools directly in line with the alleged 757 fuselage

If your 100 ton HAMMER struck the light poles at 535 mph, broke several heavy 247 lb poles in two. then how could they stand there and fall over later? Do you realize how ridiculous that concept is?

All five of the light poles in their final resting places


Your brand of pseudoskeptic physics sucks.

If the poles were just knocked over by the wind of the alleged 757 flying over them, then how were some torn in two without tearing up the ground, and why weren't the cars allegedly below the 757 also rolled over? If the aircraft wake turbulence could tear down the light poles, then why didn't it tear down the trees or branches?

Approximate locations of where light poles allegedly ended up after being hit with a 535 mph HAMMER.
Red dot is base location.
Final light pole positions

Do you see why your pseudoskeptic physics is so stupid and illogical?

Here are the standard light pole dimensions for the Pentagon area:
Standard light pole

reply to post by discombobulator



I am calling BS on this one. First off if he was working for the NSA, like he claims or is in possession of this document, he sure wouldn't be able to talk about it. That would be against policy. And it is not like he is anonymous, he has posted his identity on this and other boards on the internet. Hell, it is against NSA policy to tell people you work for them and he is posting his name all over the place. And seeing how there are government agents watching ATS posts, I am sure he would have been fired or at least silenced by now.

Originally posted by SPreston



My my. You pseudoskeptic Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) defenders sure get caught up in your denial don't you?

SPreston... Are you working on that flight path yet?

The world waits.