Ah, i read the first half page of that thread now, Achim. I was clearly mistaken - you are not deceived.
Correct me if i'm wrong when i count you on Option 3.
1)
apathoid
BCR
beachnut
DGM
funk de fino
2)
-
3)
achimspok
Caustic Logic
4)
Algebra34
Childlike Empress
mudlark
5) CIT is a disinfo campaign
achimspok
No, thanks. I'll pass. Know what, Achim, among us twoofers? If the truth movement is not a cult, i'd suggest you stick to topics like WTC you are well informed about and try to get something done, instead of ignorantly accusing people of being liars who have done more than their fair share to investigate 9/11. You base your opinion on deceptive 2nd hand material.
No, the problem is a bit more difficult. See, I was at P4T, helped Rob with the WTC thing, alalyzed the UA175 flightpath from the videos, all those weird things... Some day - out of nowhere - two clowns appeared on the scene. Accidentally at the very same time when the whole No Plane nonsense fell appart. However...
I used the "first hand" material like the CIT videos. And if you do so then you will see how the Zackham testimony was "erased" because the CIT clowns KNEW that she must lying because she had a suspicous jewish name wearing a crucifix.
They put Sucherman behind trees against his testimony. They had shown that old cab driver a picture with their own and wrong flightpath. That old cabby saw that path, knew he was somehow beneath the plane and these clowns record him saying "no I wasn't on the bridge I was more over there" and he probably meant "underneath the plane".
Morin states (in the CIT video) that he was "inside" looking "outside". In other words, he was between the wings of the Navy Annex looking south. CIT simply turned him 180° to make the statement fit.
CIT never asked Lagasse about his initial statement and early emails and the contradicting testimonies he gave back then. Lagasse and Brooks took the same after work shower cabin for years and never talked a word about that? ...but Brooks should have heard Lagasse on the radio immediatly after.
The Citgo surveillance shows that the employees there ran to the south. No collective attention (due to a loud noise may be) at any time points towards north. All these cemetery workers saw a big plane right above the Annex and probably had no scale in the sky.
One of them describes himself beneath the wing. His college saw it behind a tree south of him. Simply put both together and you get an impossible situation.
You have Storti interviewed by these clowns. Storti virtually drew the official flight path south of the Annex. CIT decided to not trust him until they "will have inspected his balcony". Even Roberts statement fits exactly to a south path where the plane indeed looked like flying over the parking until it disappeared behing the building and crashed. His view to the east was totally blocked. He wouldn't have seen a "fly away" plane even if it would have been there. So CIT decided to turn the plane above the roof in some real crazy maneuver. The turned plane now headed straight for International Airport and no one saw it???
Btw, the turn above the roof requires a velocity that slow that the plane would have dropped right on top of the Pentagon. ...same for the CIT interpretation of the Boger interview (12 seconds from the Annex to the roof).
Dear CE, I discussed that nonsense at P4T but these clowns were not able to answer one single question. The only Aldo post in the whole thread was "I dunno LOL".
On the other hand I went through the entire FDR. I had the paper half a year earlier and I had - I think - some real bad questions for Warren Stutt and Frank Legge. They answered all questions and the answers were 100% satisfying.
May be a tiny result of my questions is that the actual paper doesn't mention that the FDR recorded rapid deceleration (at least I didn't found that earlier statement) because I suggested that the cockpit was destroyed including the sensor and a "zero" output of the sensor resulted in -1.08333 "longitudinal acceleration" due to the interpretation of "zero" for the FDR (Format is y = m*x + b: m = 0.002036, b = -1.08333). So it is possible that -1 was recorded in the back of the plane while the front already was gone.
Of course I doubted that deceleration because I previously studied the WTC crashes and the deceleration due to cockpit impact wasn't worth to mention.
Why do I tell you that? Because I really dealt with all sides of arguments regarding the Pentagon.
I don't know why any terrorist should have chosen the difficult and dangerous path above the VEDOT and down into that hollow ground while the south entrance was wide open.
I don't believe that Hanjour was able to do that and to pull that plane out of dive some feet above ground.
I don't believe that 3 cessna pilots endangered their mission by flying those planes near some unknown limit while knowing that they probaly either lose control or lose the plane in mid air. It's simply makes no sense.
But I know that the CIT guys lie. That's why I call them liars.
a huge, complicated, hopelessly complex and unneccessary Rube-Goldberg device-like conspiracy employs more NWO operatives and allows various departments to inflate their annual budgets.
