Army Center for Military History FOIA Complete

[dtugg]

I don't get it either

Also, why would there be a C-130 in the Pentagon airspace in the first place? It is not as if they had to track a hijacked airplane, right TLB?

Well, their was a C-130 in the area at the time. I think that ATC asked him to follow AA77. But it was at a much higher altitude and probably a mile behind. Perhaps the Complete Idiot Team and their handful of followers are the exception, but absolutely nobody is dumb enough to see a plane pull up and over the Pentagon and then just write it off as the C-130 just because they heard some vague story about it on the news.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

What presentations do you think are relevant to this discussion, and why? I'll tell you if I've watched all, some, or none of them. Otherwise, you're diving further and further off-topic. This is ridiculous.

When considering the 2nd plane cover story:

1. The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off
2. "Flight 77" The White Plane
3. The 2nd Plane Cover Story

But also please answer whether or not you have watched (and how much) the most critical pieces about the north side approach:

1. The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version
2. The North Side Flyover (Officially Documented Independently Confirmed)

 

[BCR]

TLB, the topic is the CMH FOIA release, NOT CIT NoC foolishness. Please avoid derailing threads.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Tell it to Mackey, Farmer. He's the one who asked the question.

 

[bje]

Tell it to Mackey, Farmer. He's the one who asked the question.

You haven't answered the questions. You can't.

 

[BCR]

Tell it to Mackey, Farmer. He's the one who asked the question.

And doing an advertisement for CIT fantasy cartoons is answering Mackey's question? I don't think so.

 

[tsig]

Obviously the massive body of evidence CIT presents proves they are perfectly capable of locating and getting a hold of witnesses.

But I have never interviewed witnesses nor do I intend to. I prefer to read and discuss the information anonymously online. Surely there isn't a reason for you or anyone else at this forum to fault me for that.

Anyway it's great to see that one of you is finally going to actually make the effort to gather first-hand witness accounts to support your faith and/or counter the north side approach. As far as I know jhunter1163 & bje are the only other members here who boldly claimed they would take on this task but have utterly failed to provide a single interview to date while keeping utterly silent about even having said this in the past.

Even 911files hasn't provided any interviews other than a single account (that has since been deleted along with his website) from somebody too far back to even be able to see the fireball!

But keep in mind just because you think you MIGHT have found a name for this witness it doesn't mean that you have. But even if you have found the right name you don't know if you'll be able to reach him. And even if you reach him you don't know if he will talk.

Good luck!

We haf ways.

 

[BCR]

Even 911files hasn't provided any interviews other than a single account (that has since been deleted along with his website) from somebody too far back to even be able to see the fireball!

Darn, I missed this comment earlier. Two points. My website was NOT deleted, it still exists, AAL77.COM. I deleted my commentary blog and brought it here. I posted audio on two of the interviews I have done, one known to CIT and the other not. I have dozens of others, but see no reason to expose them to the public character assassination you and CIT are exhibiting. There are plenty of eyewitness accounts, including the one's that CIT has documented that claim the plane hit the Pentagon. But the two I did post are still there, available for download, along with the ACPD dispatch audio which they support.

 

[R.Mackey]

When considering the 2nd plane cover story:

1. The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off
2. "Flight 77" The White Plane
3. The 2nd Plane Cover Story

But also please answer whether or not you have watched (and how much) the most critical pieces about the north side approach:

1. The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version
2. The North Side Flyover (Officially Documented Independently Confirmed)

So I'm watching "The Second Plane Cover Story" for the first time (no, I hadn't watched or even heard of that one), and it does seem to have some speculation about what happened, but it's confused as all hell. Even three minutes in, they're not talking about two planes, but three planes -- your boys are working the E-4B in as well!

As for "evidence," I see an interview with Kieth Wheelhouse who clearly states that he saw AA 77 hit the Pentagon, and he states the C-130 was quite a ways back. This clearly doesn't help you.

-- on second thought, let me stop it here in deference to 911files. My apologies, Mr. Farmer. This isn't on topic and it certainly has nothing to do with me. To TheLoneBedouin, if you want to continue this, let's do it elsewhere... but so far, you're only hurting your case...

There's like eight hours of video up there. This is ghastly inefficient.

 

[BCR]

-- on second thought, let me stop it here in deference to 911files. My apologies, Mr. Farmer. This isn't on topic and it certainly has nothing to do with me. To TheLoneBedouin, if you want to continue this, let's do it elsewhere... but so far, you're only hurting your case...

Oh by all means continue. TLB derailed it long ago and I think most folks have given up on the OP by now anyways.

 

[beachnut]

I don't have to go back and get time stamps because the proof is in the presentations I mentioned earlier and I know this for a fact because I watched them.

So if you did watch them and simply "missed" the elaborate details they go into regarding the 2nd plane cover story then fine.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and take your word for it.

I didn't believe that you had because your posts indicate to me that you haven't.

But let's put all the cards out on the table so I'll know what information you have viewed and what you simply "missed".

Please list all of the presentations from CIT that you have watched IN FULL from beginning to end. Also indicate the ones that you only partially watch and indicated at what point you stopped.

A chronological list of all their presentations is located here.

Thanks.

All the CIT videos are crap. Watched them all; 100 percent pure junk.

If you have something that is not crap please list it by time stamp, and full explanation in text form, or we will accept you agree all the videos are 100 percent junk.

Save your time, it is like listening to Gage, or Jones for 5 hours! It makes you sick so you have to spread manure on the roses and trees and chop up all the yard refuse while you listen to thermate, thermite, oh my. Videos would not be so bad if you did not have to watch the pure stupid as well as listen to it.

But in this case you get to see videos, which seem to be produce by people on drugs (meth?) or mentally unbalanced making up delusions and ignoring the facts and evidence; that is what you get; delusions and more junk ideas on 911.

I could not find anything of value to support TLB delusion of a flyover, the lie of 77 not impacting the Pentagon, or a NoC.

They ignore the FDR, RADAR data, and spew junk ideas based on hearsay, lies and fantasy. I don’t think I have missed anything. If I had zero education I might fall for some of CIT junk; but I actually finished first grade and we learned cause and effect, a concept not used by CIT and this is proven in their videos and by their delusional conclusions.

You need to go back and find one thing on the videos that is worth mentioning, you failed to bring up a single thing. You know why?; because they are 100 percent garbage and you can’t refute that fact.

What do delusional videos full of junk have to do with ACMH? Oh, ACMH testimony refutes the delusional videos! Cool

Boger was what number? TLB avoids Boger like the plague. Looks like they have a hole in the complete CIT delusion when they confront the fact they confirmed Boger story and it refutes their entire world; they have to lie about Boger, or ignore him.

The best eye witness for the impact, is put under the bus.

 

[Bell]

Well, their was a C-130 in the area at the time. I think that ATC asked him to follow AA77. But it was at a much higher altitude and probably a mile behind. Perhaps the Complete Idiot Team and their handful of followers are the exception, but absolutely nobody is dumb enough to see a plane pull up and over the Pentagon and then just write it off as the C-130 just because they heard some vague story about it on the news.

Yes, I know that. But to further CIT's fantasy... AA77 was not hijacked, it was not even near the Pentagon. So what is that C-130 doing over the Pentagon? The government could just as well have kept the C-130 on the ground. It's all just one more illogical step in the overly complex inside job.

 

[R.Mackey]

Oh by all means continue. TLB derailed it long ago and I think most folks have given up on the OP by now anyways.

Thanks. I do apologize for my part in the derail. I've found your FOIA results interesting, occasionally enlightening, but nothing that really changes the game... that's how real investigation usually goes.

Anyway, I was also going to comment on the Citizens's Investigation Team's older production of "Flight 77" The White Plane, which I had seen but forgot about. What a disaster that piece of speculation is! AA 77 was polished aluminum, and could easily appear white from some vantages. And there was a white plane -- the E-4B. Ooh! What a mystery! (Actually, as you uncovered, two E-4B's, I hadn't known that.)

You can even see it in the CNN video they include, the profile is absolutely unmistakable. The only other aircraft that looks remotely like it is the SOFIA observatory, and it was grounded that day.

Anyway, I completely fail to see anything but utterly rampant speculation. To TheLoneBedouin, if there's something particular you want to use in your discussion, just write it down for me. If there's something you want me to go back and verify, fine, I'll do that. But specifics. Just throwing a hatful of videos at me is like me telling you to read the entire NIST report over some obscure detail. I'd give you page references. You should do the same here. Standard technique.

 

[dtugg]

Yes, I know that. But to further CIT's fantasy... AA77 was not hijacked, it was not even near the Pentagon. So what is that C-130 doing over the Pentagon? The government could just as well have kept the C-130 on the ground. It's all just one more illogical step in the overly complex inside job.

Oh OK.

It does make zero sense. According to the Complete Idiot Team, the C-130 is necessary to provide a cover story for the flyover jet. The C-130 pilot and ATC are probably in on it in the minds of those idiots. How the hell this would work is anybody's guess.

 

[Bell]

Oh OK.

It does make zero sense. According to the Complete Idiot Team, the C-130 is necessary to provide a cover story for the flyover jet. The C-130 pilot and ATC are probably in on it in the minds of those idiots. How the hell this would work is anybody's guess.

The C-130 is necessary to provide a cover story for the flyover jet and the flyover jet is necessary to provide a cover story for the C-130.

Circulair reasoning much? Where's TLB's picture when you need it?

 

[beachnut]

The C-130 is necessary to provide a cover story for the flyover jet and the flyover jet is necessary to provide a cover story for the C-130.

Circulair reasoning much? Where's TLB's picture when you need it?

CIT has to say the RADES data is faked so you have more people on the cover-up, The FAA tapes have to be fake because they match exactly the RADES data so all the FAA people are in on the cover-up. The C-130 pilot is telling the truth, but CIT can’t figure out he support the RADES data because to them west is 280 degrees not 270 degrees and taking off to the north, and flying west as the RADES data shows, is not flying right next to the Mall where you can’t see anything because the Mall is under your floor! You could see the beautiful TWO MILE LONG Mall from the departure depicted on the RADES data and described by the C-130 pilot and confirmed by ATC tapes, but CIT made up a flight path of stupid. ???

So the C-130 pilot is telling the truth? Or is he telling a lie to because he flew west, 270 degrees, not 280 degrees like CIT puts on their truth north map, the C-130 pilot flew magnetic headings. Darn, 10 degrees make CIT delusion scientifically wrong; triple confirmed wrong!

So CIT has all the people involved with RADES in on it, all the FAA ATC guys in on it, the C-130 crew is in on it, and we have even more RADAR verified paths, so more RADAR people! Add the DNA people, maybe one hundred more. Add firemen who had to plant evidence cause they own the scene; hundred more, and then FBI, and lots of military. WE have over a thousand people who CIT say helped kill Americans on 911. Does CIT know their idiotic delusions blame thousands?

What do ACMH witnesses say?
I want to look up some more witnesses to refute CIT. The physical evidence proves CIT wrong, it is ironic all the witnesses do the same.

But can you get through to delusional people like Balsamo and CIT; they have no clue they are spewing delusions, and they fail to be skeptical and use evidence. Balsamo does get mad if you question his delusion, he threatens death when he takes over. Balsamo never took down his 11.2G failed physics. He can’t delete his failure or fix the math on his page of stupid. I think he said they work through their errors to build bigger and better delusions. Makes sense to leave up a your failed physics cause other dolts in math, like Balsamo, will not know what the errors is, but the fact Balsamo says he works through his errors may fool some gullible people who see the 11.2Gs and have no clue this is the error. Balsamo is stupid like this; no wonder he does not have a ATP, he keeps repeating his failed math. I like his no theory policy so he does not stand for anything or have anything on 911 save implied lies to sell on DVD for 16.95.

I want to look up a few more witnesses when I have time.

 

[BCR]

Anyway, I was also going to comment on the Citizens's Investigation Team's older production of "Flight 77" The White Plane, which I had seen but forgot about. What a disaster that piece of speculation is! AA 77 was polished aluminum, and could easily appear white from some vantages. And there was a white plane -- the E-4B. Ooh! What a mystery! (Actually, as you uncovered, two E-4B's, I hadn't known that.)

If you watch the CIT interview with Steve Chaconis, you'll hear Craig calling a plane on approach to Reagan a "white" jet. When I was there, they all looked like "white jets". I'm amazed that they don't even consider that at the time of the attack, Reagan was still open and planes were taking off to the north at a regular pace, and approaching from the south. Quite frankly, there were planes everywhere you looked around the Pentagon/Potomac area. But, only one flew in at tree-top level and smacked into the Pentagon. I would suggest that most people can distinguish between it and a C-130 at around 3-4,000 feet (or an E4B for that matter).

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

So I'm watching "'The 2nd Plane Cover Story" for the first time (no, I hadn't watched or even heard of that one), and it does seem to have some speculation about what happened, but it's confused as all hell. Even three minutes in, they're not talking about two planes, but three planes -- your boys are working the E-4B in as well!

So please respond to WHICH of the listed presentations you HAVE watched and how much of them.

You seem to be avoiding this question.

Thanks.

As for "evidence," I see an interview with Kieth Wheelhouse who clearly states that he saw AA 77 hit the Pentagon, and he states the C-130 was quite a ways back. This clearly doesn't help you.

There is a lot more than that so please let me know which presentations you have already viewed if any.

But no. Wheelhouse says that BOTH AA77 and the C-130 were "quite a ways back" yet there is no way he could see any further back then the Navy Annex from his vantage point.

You are mischaracterizing his words.

He specifically says it was "right over the top of it" and that it was "shadowing" it.

He even says that it had to be a bit higher or the the jet wash would have affected it!

There is a longer version of his interview in "The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off" that you clearly have not viewed.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Anyway, I was also going to comment on the Citizens's Investigation Team's older production of "Flight 77" The White Plane, which I had seen but forgot about. What a disaster that piece of speculation is! AA 77 was polished aluminum, and could easily appear white from some vantages. And there was a white plane -- the E-4B. Ooh! What a mystery! (Actually, as you uncovered, two E-4B's, I hadn't known that.)

Sarcasm does not address the information.

CIT presented independent evidence that the plane did not look like an AA jet to most of the people they talked to. CIT has not cited this as PROOF as they have the north side approach evidence (that you are deliberately avoiding) but the first-hand witness interviews in "The White Plane" most certainly are evidence of this. Furthermore if the official flight path was true Jamal would not have seen the plane fly over the driving range at all.

Do you believe Jamal saw the plane over the driving range?

Anyway, I completely fail to see anything but utterly rampant speculation.

The first-hand on-location interviews provided are not speculation.

To TheLoneBedouin, if there's something particular you want to use in your discussion, just write it down for me. If there's something you want me to go back and verify, fine, I'll do that. But specifics. Just throwing a hatful of videos at me is like me telling you to read the entire NIST report over some obscure detail. I'd give you page references. You should do the same here. Standard technique.

YOU were the one who demanded answers regarding their "hypothesis" as means to avoid discussing the north side approach evidence that you STILL haven't admitted to viewing.

The north side approach evidence is the proof of a deception. The exact color of the plane is completely irrelevant to this and NOT cited by CIT as proof.

YOU were the one who made an issue and wanted me to go back and get "time stamps" regarding all the complex details of the 2nd Plane Cover Story as if this hadn't been discussed by CIT. Wheelhouse's account is patently false and you know it whether or not you believe the north side approach plane was white.

But AGAIN....it's not required for you to accept any hypothesis in order to accept the north side evidence which is the ONLY thing that CIT cites as proof of a deception. So please answer the question....have you viewed the north side approach evidence IN FULL? Have you viewed/heard all 12 first-hand recorded north side accounts in The PentaCon and The North Side Flyover?

Stop trying to pick apart every little aspect of their entire hypothesis as a means to avoid viewing the hard evidence of a deception.

 

[beachnut]

If you watch the CIT interview with Steve Chaconis, you'll hear Craig calling a plane on approach to Reagan a "white" jet. When I was there, they all looked like "white jets". I'm amazed that they don't even consider that at the time of the attack, Reagan was still open and planes were taking off to the north at a regular pace, and approaching from the south. Quite frankly, there were planes everywhere you looked around the Pentagon/Potomac area. But, only one flew in at tree-top level and smacked into the Pentagon. I would suggest that most people can distinguish between it and a C-130 at around 3-4,000 feet (or an E4B for that matter).

I wonder if Steve gets money from CIT? Was it staged?

The funny part if he did see a plane, it was the C-130, but CIT says it was Flight 77, but 77 never went over the River. But the C-130 did, and then the C-130 turned to go to the Pentagon.

CIT delusions are massive; TLB must be on the payroll, because I can't find anyone who believes this junk but SPreston and some real stupid posters at the 911Truth forums. ATS has some nut case believers. Balsamo must believe this tripe, he is selling the same for 16.95.

It would be sad if Craig and CIT believe in their own lies; they act dumb enough.