Merged Lloyd England: Eye of the Storm

[beachnut]

Oh really? What Video?

What CIT Time might this be?

It is time for you to do your own research. There is a video of the Pentagon at impact time, showing all the airspace where the fantasy flyover would take place. Your failure to find the video clip is not my problem. Your lie of 77 not impacting the Pentagon is not amusing.

 

[Turbofan]

It is time for you to do your own research. There is a video of the Pentagon at impact time, showing all the airspace where the fantasy flyover would take place. Your failure to find the video clip is not my problem. Your lie of 77 not impacting the Pentagon is not amusing.

The only video I'm aware of is that of a C-130 flying around the Pentagon
minutes after the explosion as indicated by the black smoke.

Nothing to relate to your claim however. If you have a video to prove the
CIT flyover fake, then post it.

 

[twinstead]

I wouldn't go that far. Who's to say a flyover would be noticed, or perceived
due to the OGCT?

At the time of the event, would you say most people were swayed by the
media? Now many years later, you have people coming forward and looking
at independent evidence.

With the airport not far from the Pentagon, and planes flying around and over
the Pentagon, maybe someone did see the flyover plane but didn't know it.
Now, years later after putting it all together, could they positivey ID the
suspect plane?

We do know there was more than one aircraft involved. There are just too
many unknowns to say 'nobody saw a flyover'.

If I were you, I 'd be much more concerned about the NOC witnesses because
that is a total contradiction of the official story.

Lloyd's story is also not credible at all, and he was in the media forefront
pushing the story.

Is this a joke? This is one of the most humorous pieces of spin I've ever seen.

I'm not concerned about the NOC witnesses because they are in the MINORITY. You'd have something if the majority of witnesses saw what you say happened, but what you are doing is trying to shove a standard anomaly concerning eye witness accounts of ANY event of this magnitude down our throats as the truth. You have NOT dealt with the fact that the preponderance of witnesses and the preponderance of physical evidence CONTRADICTS your theory. All you do is spin.

 

[Turbofan]

Is this a joke? This is one of the most humorous pieces of spin I've ever seen.

I'm not concerned about the NOC witnesses because they are in the MINORITY. You'd have something if the majority of witnesses saw what you say happened, but what you are doing is trying to shove a standard anomaly concerning eye witness accounts of ANY event of this magnitude down our throats as the truth. You have NOT dealt with the fact that the preponderance of witnesses and the preponderance of physical evidence CONTRADICTS your theory. All you do is spin.

I have yet to see a SoC witness come forward.

I mean come on, even Lloyd thinks he wasn't on the bridge that day.

 

[double_o]

With the airport not far from the Pentagon, and planes flying around and over
the Pentagon, maybe someone did see the flyover plane but didn't know it.
Now, years later after putting it all together, could they positivey ID the
suspect plane?

We do know there was more than one aircraft involved. There are just too
many unknowns to say 'nobody saw a flyover'.

This is just pure speculation, you've nothing solid here.
To this day there over 150 published eyewitness accounts. There are over 100 people who saw the plane hit the pentagon and 0 who saw it fly over the pentagon.
There are people who were near the pentagon's wall and can tell if a plane hit the wall or flaw over, they say it hit the pentagon.
There are people who were looking at pentagon from high building and could have seen a flyover, they say the plane hit the pentagon.
There are people who were on the other side of pentagon and could have seen the plane flying away from it, although some of them saw the plane approaching the pentagon, none of them saw it flying away.

Not to mention that the crew and passenger remains and the plane debris were found at the pentagon.

We say that nobody saw a flyover because to this day, seven years after the attacks, there is not a single eyewitness who say he or she saw a flyover.
Your suggestion that maybe some saw a flyover, only they just don't know it, is nothing but a desperate attempt to overcome your lack of evidence.

 

[Turbofan]

This is just pure speculation, you've nothing solid here.
To this day there over 150 published eyewitness accounts. There are over 100 people who saw the plane hit the pentagon and 0 who saw it fly over the pentagon.
There are people who were near the pentagon's wall and can tell if a plane hit the wall or flaw over, they say it hit the pentagon.
There are people who were looking at pentagon from high building and could have seen a flyover, they say the plane hit the pentagon.
There are people who were on the other side of pentagon and could have seen the plane flying away from it, although some of them saw the plane approaching the pentagon, none of them saw it flying away.

Not to mention that the crew and passenger remains and the plane debris were found at the pentagon.

We say that nobody saw a flyover because to this day, seven years after the attacks, there is not a single eyewitness who say he or she saw a flyover.
Your suggestion that maybe some saw a flyover, only they just don't know it, is nothing but a desperate attempt to overcome your lack of evidence.

Like I said, I have yet to see any of these people come forward and give
a separate conclusive interview.

The fact that CIT have gathered several NoC witnesses which include on-duty
police officers is enough evidence to show me something wasn't right on 9/11.

Besides the witnesses we have FDR data, and photo evidence supporting
AA77 did not hit the Pentagon as per NTSB.

 

[funk de fino]

The only video I'm aware of is that of a C-130 flying around the Pentagon
minutes after the explosion as indicated by the black smoke.

Nothing to relate to your claim however. If you have a video to prove the
CIT flyover fake, then post it.

The security video shows the pentagon before, during and after the impact from an angle that if there had been a flyover it would have been captured. The people in the video would have seen it also.

If the aircraft had been too high then the CIT witness' would not have placed it just above the annex would they?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Sorry, but there is no photo evidence supporting a fly over. And these notions that all these people saw a fly over but because of news reports claiming otherwise, somehow they don't recall it that way? Well, that;s as crackpot as it gets.

 

[twinstead]

In fact, until a witness who saw a flyover is brought forward, it is indeed exactly right to say that NO witness saw a flyover.

 

[Turbofan]

You are commenting from opinion.

With the NoC witnesses coming forward, this already puts a nail in the
official theory coffin.

There's too much against the official story to sweep under the rug.
The OGCT does not make sense, especially having all of this contradicting
evidence around.

 

[dtugg]

There is no evidence contradicting the fact that AA77 hit the Pentagon at all. That Beavis and Butthead found some people that years later think that the plane flew on one side of a gas station (but that it still hit the Pentagon) means nothing to anybody except for an extremely small group of terrorists apologists.

 

[twinstead]

You are commenting from opinion.

No. I am commenting from FACT.

FACT: There are no witnesses to a flyover.
FACT: The preponderance of witnesses DON'T support NoC
FACT: The preponderance of witnesses support the plane hitting the Pentagon
FACT: The preponderance of physical evidence supports the plane hitting the Pentagon

FACT: Were you to take your 'evidence' and witnesses into a courtroom that has ALL the available evidence at its disposal you would be laughed out of the building.

 

[beachnut]

Like I said, I have yet to see any of these people come forward and give
a separate conclusive interview.

The fact that CIT have gathered several NoC witnesses which include on-duty
police officers is enough evidence to show me something wasn't right on 9/11.

Besides the witnesses we have FDR data, and photo evidence supporting
AA77 did not hit the Pentagon as per NTSB.

You are basing your failed ideas on the interview by CIT. Witnesses who clearly point to the "official" flight path to the south! FUNNY you can't even view a video and see the lies pushed by CIT dolts who are too dumb to know they are twisting testimony to make up stupid ideas with flight paths of 50 Gs cause they can't do the math.

All the flight paths in the CIT videos are impossible for many reasons you are ignoring and can't calculate anyway. Everyone has seen p4t flawed physics with the 11.2 G lie and the 34 G idiot maneuver. What next for CIT and p4t show so stupidity.

You base your opinions on the flawed investigation techniques, the worse in the world, of CIT.

All the witnesses of CIT say 77 impacted the Pentagon; Gee, Sean Boger saw 77 go into the Pentagon! BUSTED! Your myth is, BUSTED.
Watch the CIT video as the witnesses point to the south flight path, the CIT guys, the CIT guys with idiot conclusions, make up the NoC.

Which lamppost, show it, hit Lloyd's car? Please try to present of evidence instead of talk, and when will you be giving the guys who showed you wrong the million dollars?

Turbofan, you use hearsay to make up false information. You present pure talk, no evidence or information to support your failed opinions on this topic.

 

[uruk]

You are commenting from opinion.

With the NoC witnesses coming forward, this already puts a nail in the
official theory coffin.

only 13 out of over a hundred wittnesses claim the NOC. There is no physical evidence whatsoever to support thier recollections. The fact that the CIT boys went and recorded thier recollections four years after the fact does make them anymore correct now than it did four years ago.

There's too much against the official story to sweep under the rug.
The OGCT does not make sense, especially having all of this contradicting
evidence around.

Quite the reverse is true. There is more eyewitness accounts and physical evidence that support the NTSB than it does for the CIT boys.

Otherwise the CIT boys would be taken as serious rather than the laughing stocks that they are now.

Nobody outside these few forums even care what they say and if it wasn't for the few here who respond to the tripe it would get no attention at all. Loose change is all but dead so is RfT and the Pentacon site is not even a contender.

In addition the few media outlets that have given the CIT boys any air at all have done so for laughs.

So give it up already. The truth movement is well on it's way to conspiracy palooka-ville like the moonhoax and Elvis sightings.

 

[Mangoose]

The only video I'm aware of is that of a C-130 flying around the Pentagon minutes after the explosion as indicated by the black smoke.

Nothing to relate to your claim however. If you have a video to prove the CIT flyover fake, then post it.

Obviously, he was talking about the Pentagon security CCTV video which should have captured the flyover itself, had such an impossible thing ever happened, but of course you will dismiss this as a faked video.

Your characterization of the Tribby video is misleading. Yes, it shows the C-130 almost exactly two minutes after the explosion. But this was not when Tribby began filming. If you synchronize the Tribby video with the Doubletree video and the two security CCTV videos, you can easily see that Tribby began filming about 22 seconds after the explosion. So the question becomes ... where was the plane 22 seconds after the explosion, if it flew over the Pentagon?

Of course, the answer to that is totally dependent on what CIT reconstructs the actual speed and trajectory of the flyover jet to have been -- and as far as I know, they have never tried to establish this. In point of fact, Tribby could not have captured a flyover plane from that view 22 seconds after the explosion -- unless the flyover jet was flying slower than 45 mph (as Tribby was about 0.48 miles from impact site when he began filming and his view covered only the sky over the Pentagon and between and building and himself, a maximum flight distance of about 0.27 miles). The real question however is why Tribby pointed his camera at the stationary column itself when he would have seen a low-flying 757 over the Pentagon at the moment when the explosion captured his attention, and he would have seen and heard it fly directly in front of him (***about 5 seconds after the explosion if flying at 500 mph, or 9 seconds after the explosion if the plane flew at 300 mph, using Reheat's best-case scenario of a flyover flight path and extending the curve to I-395 at 38°52'14.21"N and 77° 2'47.02"W after flying about 0.75 miles from the Pentagon***) and heading away from the explosion. The natural reaction would have been to capture this escaping threatening object that looked like was responsible for the explosion at the Pentagon (e.g. did it just drop a bomb on the building?). The smoke column wasn't going anywhere.

The plane should have also been visible on the Doubletree video. While it is admittedly low-resolution, it did pick up a helicopter over the Pentagon South Parking Lot about ten minutes before the explosion. If the video picked up a helicopter, I think a much larger 757 would have been visible as well.

 

[double_o]

Like I said, I have yet to see any of these people come forward and give
a separate conclusive interview.

So you haven't looked enough. There several interviews available. In fact even CIT interviewed some of them.

The fact that CIT have gathered several NoC witnesses which include on-duty
police officers is enough evidence to show me something wasn't right on 9/11.

Of course something wasn't right that day, terrorists hijacked airliners and slammed them into buildings. This is supported by the NoC witnesses because they saw the plane hitting the pentagon.
The fact that some people several years after the event don't remember where exactly the plane flew means nothing except that the human memory is prone to errors.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

What is interesting is PFFFT's cartoon showed a flight path totally different from where he (edward paik) was pointing:

 

[TexasJack]

So you haven't looked enough. There several interviews available. In fact even CIT interviewed some of them.


Of course something wasn't right that day, terrorists hijacked airliners and slammed them into buildings. This is supported by the NoC witnesses because they saw the plane hitting the pentagon.
The fact that some people several years after the event don't remember where exactly the plane flew means nothing except that the human memory is prone to errors.

Welcome to the forum. Be prepared for dodges and goal post moving, or ignoring your argument altogether. The fact that CIT proponents can't resolve why the scientific and eyewitness accounts overwhelmingly support A77 hitting the Pentagon, is a mystery to many on this forum.

 

[Turbofan]

Obviously, he was talking about the Pentagon security CCTV video which should have captured the flyover itself, had such an impossible thing ever happened, but of course you will dismiss this as a faked video.

Are you kidding me? The Pentagon video doesn't even show AA77 HITTING
the building!

Mr. Herbert, that's a nice way to spin the CIT witness account. If you had
watched that portion of the video, the man is then point to the direction
the plane came from.

If you continue to watch, he then points to the direction of flight over the
Annex (north side).

 

[dtugg]

What proportion of Beavis and Butthead's witnesses say that the plane flew over the Pentagon rather than into it?