The north side evidence validated to the point of redundancy

[TC329]

Pardon me, but TLB and TC329 I know your busy, but how do your new witnesses in this earthquake rending new set of witnesses get around this little gem?

How did the aircraft end up on the far North side of the Navy Annex? You call that corraborated in view of the other witnesses?

The path described by these witnesses is even more impossible than those described by the CITGO group. Then we add the "flyover witness" to the gaggle we have a triple impossible feat.

Yea, it's corraborated all right. A corraborated bunch of crap by a gaggle of wankers!

yawn....

call the eyewitnesses a "gaggle of wankers" and post some mathematical equations in which you can choose and pick all your variants to receive the desired outcome....

youre fellow brethern aren't even mentioning your "work" anymore as it has been rendered moot and pointless.

need a tissue mr. anonymous armchair researcher?

not one of the eyewitnesses you refer to as a "gaggle of wankers" hides their identity and yet you do. i don't find that coincidental at all.

 

[WildCat]

The slower speed is also corroborated by Morin, who estimates that it took "13 to 18 seconds" to pass from the Navy Annex to impact.

Now you're claiming the "north of citgo" plane was travelling 130 mph!?

 

[~enigma~]

I prefer the west side of the CITGO theory myself.

Oh, and ask me about the flyunder! Flyunder makes more sense because it explains why no one saw a plane fly away.

Yes but northside story has better dancing and that girl Maria...she is HOT

 

[TC329]

where's the government operative russell pickering and his videos at today 16.5?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

last i recall after convincing dylan avery that a plane hit the pentagon for loose change final cut and delivering a major setback to this movement russell "retired" saying he had "accomplished all of his goals in regards to 9/11 research" and now sells real estate.

aldo & craig haven't "retired" and russell pickering doesn't know anyone who has videos of anything.

fascinating that a crew had 3 camera's set up filming the pentagon and yet not one of them noticed a massive loud airplane approaching and turned their camera's toward it but all of them left it on the area that would prove a plane didn't fly over.

if such video's existed they could have been filmed on sept 11 2005 for all you know.

pickering is a fraud and was exposed as such and ran away with his tail between his legs. expect john farmer and adam larson to follow his lead very shortly and that arabesque bozo as well.

 

[WildCat]

Not at all.
You posted a pick of a tree which appeared to have been flattened horizontally at the top- since the official story doesn't have the plane leveling out at that altitude your post does not support the official story.

Sure it supports the universally accepted flight path, no one doubts the plane hit tho poles and the tree except irrational dvd salesmen.

(BTW the tree's shape appears normal to me, but this is what you posted).

It's not. It was pruned by the starboard engine of a 757.

 

[realitybites]

Furthermore, so long as the plane is behind the fireball, it would have been hidden, regardless of heading.

This would be true only in a two-dimensional world where people only existed on one side of the fireball.

Unfortunately for CIT, the real world is 3D. It is all around us.

..... And a lot of people live on the eastern bank of the Potomac.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

You hopeless dunce! Hundreds of survivors were clustered in lifeboats--not floating on planks in the North Atlantic!

And this changes things how? Those in lifeboats were scrambling to save their families or at least asking about the fate of their families. You had to fight to even get in a lifeboat and even if you did, some people were thrown overboard!

Here comes a really profound concept: if they were clinging to planks in the freezing waters (hint: iceberg), they would not have been survivors.

Unless they were saved by the people in the lifeboats.

Yes, the analogy is perfect. I was an English/Philosophy major.

Then you need to retake "Analogy 101" since your analogy is idiotic.

We have hundreds of people who saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Wrong.

The number that witnessed a flyover is zero.

Wrong- the number is unknown but no less than one.

Most people describe a flight path consistent with the enormous amount of physical evidence.

Absolutely wrong. Did you do your own investigation? Did you go to Arlington, Pomeroo? If not, will you admit you're talking out of your ass (rhetorical question).

A tiny handful describe--or were browbeaten into describing by the unscrupulous cretins of the CIT--a different flight path (We will soon find out what they really describe).

Minimize the witnesses as much as you want- you don't change the fact that all those in a position to see, saw the NOC flightpath. You like to claim that CIT manipulated the witnesses- but post no evidence. You haven't even watched the video you're criticizing, but continue to call yourself a 'rationalist'. Everyone's imperfect, but it's fascinating from a psychological point of view to see someone who is completely incapable of seeing their own hypocrisy.

 

[nicepants]

Of the 100+ eyewitnesses who said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, how many have you guys (cit) interviewed?

A sizable portion. [snip]

"A Sizeable portion" is not a number. (Note the wording of the question..."how many".)

Express your answer in the form of a number, or explain why you are afraid to do so.

 

[Mangoose]

you haven't explained what knocked those light poles down because not a single eyewitness saw it happen.

"I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant." -- Wanda Ramey

"I knew it [the plane] was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." -- Mark Bright

"It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts." -- Afework Hagos

"I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first... It hit dead center on the side... It was not completely level but it was not going straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down... It knocked over a few light poles on its way." -- Steve Riskus

"The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car." -- Stephen McGraw

"First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon and crashed on the lawn near the west side of the Pentagon." -- D. S. Khavkin

"I was right underneath the plane. I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles. It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion." -- Kirk Milburn

"Its downward angle was too sharp, its elevation of maybe 50 feet, too low. Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass. The thought that I was about to die was immediate and certain. This plane was going to hit me along with all the other commuters trapped on Washington Boulevard." -- Mary Ann Owens

 

[Reheat]

call the eyewitnesses a "gaggle of wankers" and post some mathematical equations in which you can choose and pick all your variants to receive the desired outcome....

I expect you to intentionally misinterpret my reference. The "gaggle of wankers" are CIT and pffft, d*** ass.

youre fellow brethern aren't even mentioning your "work" anymore as it has been rendered moot and pointless.

Many of them are not comfortable debating those issues, just as you are (not).

need a tissue mr. anonymous armchair researcher?

Hehehe, I didn't need to do much except watch your movies and then use my knowledge and experience to defeat your delusion. Not much effort at all and I didn't do it from an armchair either. I did it while in my hot tub.

 

[realitybites]

"I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant." -- Wanda Ramey

"I knew it [the plane] was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." -- Mark Bright

"It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts." -- Afework Hagos

"I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the
ground first... It hit dead center on the side... It was not completely level but it was not going straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down... It knocked over a few light poles on its way." -- Steve Riskus

"The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car." -- Stephen McGraw

"First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon and crashed on the lawn near the west side of the Pentagon." -- D. S. Khavkin

"I was right underneath the plane. I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles. It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion." -- Kirk Milburn

"Its downward angle was too sharp, its elevation of maybe 50 feet, too low. Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass. The thought that I was about to die was immediate and certain. This plane was going to hit me along with all the other commuters trapped on Washington Boulevard." -- Mary Ann Owens

Mangoose, those eyewitness accounts are void because they are not on video. They didn't say these things in front of a camera. So their words cannot be uploaded to YouTube.

Hell... odds are these people aren't even REAL.

 

[~enigma~]

I will come back to your first explanation in a little bit. Let's start with your second contention, that it was a "mistake."

Before I go on to this, I have a question about the flyover theory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bombs set up in the Pentagon were set to explode in just such a way (timing, angle, etc.) to hide the plane from view as it flew over? So in other words the bombs were set to hide a plane flying over the Pentagon from a North of Citgo path, correct?

And the explosion would NOT have been physically able to mask the plane unless it flew through the fireball and the problem there is it isn't what ANYBODY saw.

 

[LashL]

These people do not leave anything to chance.

Who are "these people" of whom you speak? Please be specific.

 

[realitybites]

And the explosion would NOT have been physically able to mask the plane unless it flew through the fireball and the problem there is it isn't what ANYBODY saw.

Not only would it have to enter the fireball to be hidden, it would've had to have slammed on its air-breaks so as not to pop out the other side.

I've never understood how CIT can be so nonchalant in dismissing the folks who live across the river not having reported seeing any low flying plane screaming away from the smoking Pentagon.

 

[GregHouseMD]

its freely available.
as for "selling" it, i can assure you no one is making millions of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
hotel rooms, accomodations, airline tickets, etc all drains your bank account.

as for the major media......

lets look at how CNN impeachable allegations against this administration as example a.

(I had to take the link out so I could post my reply.)


Nice excuses but you are still selling what you claim to be "proof" of serious crimes. I cannot think of a single good reason that would justify selling evidence of crimes that resulted in the murder of Americans.

If you truly are doing this to get the truth out, to bring the guilty to justice, have the same sense of honor and dedication as the founding fathers did.

Risk your life, your fortune, your family, the future of your children on your beliefs; don't argue that you are just "making expenses".

Considering the quality of the "interviews" and the so called investigation, I'm sure no one is making much money from the videos.

True investigators interview people in controlled settings, one on one, not while they are distracted by work and standing outside with a co worker. I did it for enough years to recognize a hack job when I see it.

Considering the delusional nature of your beliefs, I'm not surprised you can justify to yourself that making money from "The Truth" is acceptable.

 

[~enigma~]

so where's those arlington 911 tapes at?

What does that have to do with CIT withholding evidence (if it is evidence)?

 

[beachnut]

there are many variables....

One is too many for you to understand. You take witness statements and mangle them with ease. If I need a fictional account, I just let you talk about an event. Look how bad you have mangled 77 flight path. So bad you can't even agree on a single path, but have many impossible paths.

for example had there been a pilot of hani hanjour's true ability it could crash way before the target or way after the target.

Wrong, the only pilots in the world who can't hit the Pentagon are from p4t, they tried to hit building in the safety of a simulator and failed! Terrorist pilots - 3, p4t pilots -ZERO. Hani had this, do you?

OMG, he is a commercial pilot! Ouch! Darn! Let me explain reality. Hani did not need to land a Cessna, he needed to hit a building! A building is easier to hit than landing, I know, I have landed thousand of times! I have let non pilots fly a 4 engine jet in the 300,000 pound class, the non-pilots fly for the first time good enough to hit a building, gee, good enough to land and crash on the runway! I put kids in a simulator, they were about to hit what Balsamo and his pilots can't. So the only pilots who fit your lies are in p4t. So sorry. I got more, but it will not take.

taking a 757 and slamming it into the pentagon is a lot harder than some armchair researchers would leave you to believe.

WRONG, you have not paid attention to reality. Flying a 757 and hitting the largest office building there is, is easy. Even Hani can do it! Looks like hani almost screwed up. Gee, the terrorist on 93 even hit a big STATE! Bet p4t would have a problem hitting a target as big as PA? It is easy to fly, you are proven wrong! This is extremely funny, you make up lies proven wrong over 6 years ago.

the target was specific. hani can't fly this into donald rumsfelds lap for example he must hit the exact target with military precision.

Are you okay?

so there are many many variants for what could actually go wrong which is why the original drills regarding such an attack were deemed "too unrealisitic".

What? Oh, many many. Ah, yes… I see now…

the day before the attacks rumsfeld announced trillions of dollars was missing. the day after he did so the people tracing that info were dead and all the records in regards to all of these taxpayer dollars were destroyed by hani hanjour and company.

Liar, what a big one. This tops it all!

you always look to see who benefits in any investigation. time has showed us who has benefitted.

No one? Not one person has benefited! OOPS No one did it. Unless you think UBL running and hiding is a benefit for the one who did it? Gee, the 19 terrorist, oh joy we are dead? NUTS, seems the terrorist are smarter than TC on 9/11 and CIT.

go read pnac's rebuilding america.

Oh, gee, you have too many nut case ideas to contain in one brain, you are leaking junk ideas in this post. America?

look where we are.

We are in CA! And u r not? ... you are one paranoid biased political maker upper of lies?
Ask not to look where we are, ask where are you! u b in fantasy land of CIT, p4t, dumb ideas on 9/11ville.

 

[WildCat]

It takes a special kind of paranoia to think that anyone who doesn't buy the ridiculous CIT flyover nonsense is a government agent.

 

[T.A.M.]

Testimony from people literally dieing in sub-zero ocean water, trying to muster the last ounce of energy to clasp on to a floating plank so as to avoid drowning, differ with regard to how the Titanic sank.
vs.
Unanimously corroborated testimony about a simple placement of the plane in relation to everyday physical references from people engaged in the mundane activities of life who haven't talked to each other about what they saw (which rules out witness bias).

Were you an english major, Pomeroo? No mere mortal could produce an analagy of such startling accuracy.

Out of over 100 witnesses, you have testimony about an event that took 2-4 seconds, tops, from 13 people, whom upon being interviewed MANY YEARS LATER, have misremembered small details about where in the sky they think they saw the plane. You have taken these few mistakes, and put them together, claiming they are corroborating some new flight plan for AA77.

This versus all of the other witness testimony, the Physical evidence, etc...

Do you really think anyone in the legal/justice system will EVER take you seriously? really?

TAM

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin View Post
No, not necessarily. The timing could depend on detection of the plane over the Pentagon, which is independent of flight path.
Evidence? Why should I believe this? Because you say so?

Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin View Post
If the main purpose of the explosion is to distract, aircraft angle would be irrelevant.
Evidence? Why should I believe this? Because you say so?

Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin View Post
Furthermore, so long as the plane is behind the fireball, it would have been hidden, regardless of heading.
Evidence? Why should I believe this? Because you say so?

You should not believe any of it because it is all speculation, just as your speculation about specific aspects of planning shouldn't be believed.

Still haven't gotten to the heart of the question. Why not avoid the South altogether, fly it to the North, and be done with it? Why fake south side damage?

Again, if they needed to destroy targets that could only be destroyed at a precise angle. Another reason could be to add verisimilitude to the psy-op by faking interaction with physical objects (ie the light poles).

And anyway, don't leave anything to chance? Your conspirators leave an INCREDIBLE amount to chance.

What are the chances that people on nearby roads and in nearby buildings see the flyover from the other side, as clear as day? VERY HIGH

Indeed- thus the sequestering of the 911 calls and the introduction of the second plane story.

What are the chances someone notices people planting physical evidence on the South side path? VERY HIGH

No that section of road was controlled immediately after the explosion by the FBI.

What are the chances that one or two or three of the hundreds involved in the conspiracy whistleblow? VERY HIGH

Indeed that's possible. Ever heard of Sibel Edmonds?
It is, however, not necessary. "Massive" conspiracies have existed for years- e.g. the Manhattan Project, MKULTRA, Operation Gladio, CIA operations in Guatemala, Iran, Cuba, Indochina, etc. People in such conspiracies choose not to speak in order to avoid punishment (ie they know they have committed a crime and simply don't want any possible punishment), they believe what they are doing is 'right' or for the good of humanity/ country, etc.

What are the chances many things could go wrong, blowing their cover, and revealing the conspiracy to the world? VERY HIGH

Not in our current society. You may want to read about 'conspiratorial' conditions of Soviet Russia and/or Communist Poland. Further resources at:
ponerology.com.