[Moderated] So What Would You Think If This Were True?

[Gravy]

Well, all I can say is the Pentagon is right on the flight path and less than a mile from a very busy airport.

The Pentagon is near Reagan's approach path, not on it. Airliners don't skim over the Pentagon and its surrounding roadways and buildings at any speed, much less with wheels and flaps up at 530 mph.

 

[JimBenArm]

Craig Renke, CIT? Oh, that's funny!

You da' man, Craig! Go get 'em Scooby!

 

[chillzero]

Despite my previous warning I see that the bickering continues. This thread is now going on moderated status. You can check the Forum Rules section for guidance on this, if required.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[CurtC]

The flight path we propose is not impossible. We will prove it.

I'll point this out in case anyone missed it. Because a flight path going over your Edward witness, then to the North of the Citgo, then to the damage point on the Pentagon, is impossible under the normal assumptions. If the plane were going super-slow, and if it banked its wings at a severe angle, then maybe it could just manage that flight path, but then you would have the double problem of your story contradicting all the witnesses who said it was going fast, and all the witnesses who didn't mention that it was flying sideways.

We can talk about which witnesses had better vantage points all day long and get nowhere, but this one point is the achilles heel of your argument. It is physically impossible.

Maybe if Lyte posts those same pictures for the 100th time they will finally convince everyone.

No, he has to mention "QUADRUPLE CORROBORATED" each time too.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

B----nut, your own forum comrades don't even respond to you.

You are better off feeding pigeons in a park.

I sense you are feeling very frustrated about something recently Lyte.

Demonstrated in the way you ressurect a dead thread, and subsequently go on to insult all of us.

I know this has to pass through a moderator, but make clear I am not having a go at Lyte, mearly pointing out that his frustration isn't best put to use resorting to 'No life' insults.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

There is not a sane person on earth let alone a critical thinker who can watch the testimony of Lloyd England and then the citgo witnesses (without bias) and suggest that Lloyd is more correct or believable.

You are in denial and your critical thinking hearts know it.

ETA: I say hearts because you are clearly not using your brains.

Have you taken an accident investigator course at any university? Then perhaps you can back up your claims?

I guess you will not answer this.

 

[pomeroo]

Edited by chillzero: 

Moderated thread

Why don't you take your sensational findings to a newspaper (any major daily will do) and ask them why they can't find a story worth printing? Try the N.Y. Times--they despise Bush. At least, you won't be able to accuse them of a cover-up.

 

[Lyte Trip]

So that shot from across the potomac would have been an ideal vantage point from which to witness the flyover.

Sure although with not much detail obviously.

HOWEVER....you are forgetting the facts: there WERE other planes reported in the area.

Even one that allegedly "shadowed" the AA jet and "veered away" over the Pentagon immediately after the explosion by people like Kelly Knowles, Keith Wheelhouse, Joel Sucherman, and Vin Naranyan.

So did a plane really fly over the pentagon after all or does the fact that this wasn't more widely reported prove that these people are lying?

 

[Lyte Trip]

Oh and Lyte, yes you have stated who was responsible for the 911 ct. You do so as soon as you accuse everyone concerned of being in on a coverup.

Not "everyone concerned" needs be involved.

Workers can't have innocently planted the lightpoles and then never thought more of it as the tv news broadcasts that they were hit by the plane flying south of CITGO

Very true. It had to be complicit operatives who planted the poles in advance and helped stage Lloyd's scene just after the explosion/road block.

Rescue workers can't have arrived on the scene, scratched their heads at the supposed lack of wreckage and then just kept quiet about it

Not only could they do this they DID do this. We have talked to many and while most simply convinced themselves the plane disintegrated but we have talked to at least one fire captain who doesn't believe for a second that the plane hit. How many first responders have you talked to?

Air traffic controllers didn't see the plane continue past the pentagon on their screens and then just said "Oh well" and kept quiet about it.

Nope. But "the plane" was lost from 8:56 until alleged impact time and even Mineta says that Monte Belger reported a "down river approach" flight path on radar which contradicts the NTSB flight path 100%.

MINETA: So then someone came in, the same person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, it -- the plane's 30-miles out." So I said, "Monte, can you see it, and where is it in relationship to the ground?"
He said, "Well, that's difficult to really determine. I would guess it's somewhere between Great Falls and National Airport, coming what they call the DRA, the down river approach."
And so then the person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, the plane's ten-miles out," and so I said, "Monte, where is it?" and he said, "Well, I'm not really sure but I'd be guessing somewhere maybe between the USA Today building and, and National Airport."



"HAGER: Now coming over to the White House and you're down there in the bunker, and that third unidentified blip is coming down the Potomac.
For one thing, had you thought about the possibility that it might be -- I mean you're at the White House. That's the center where everything is going on. Is that something that would have gone through your mind?
MINETA:Well, the question was where is it coming. And so as I was asking Monte, it was following pretty much the DRA, the down river approach, and it had not crossed over towards the White House or towards the Capitol. It was staying on its line towards what would normally be the traffic pattern into National Airport.
And in fact, later on, in looking at the radar track, the plane had actually over-passed the Pentagon, then turned around and then came back into it, and it never took a wide sweep to cross over to the east side of the White House.


MINETA:Oh, absolutely, it's something like that, but at least at the time the track of the radar was following what would be considered the down-river approach and it never came over to cross the east side of the Potomac River and it just followed the river all the way in.

So who is lying/confused/incorrect? ATC or NTSB?

The engineers who examined the damaged building didn't just say "Oh well, we'll just say a plane did it" if they didn't believe this to be true.

Well, not unless they were all in on it.

Some were fooled by the simulated damage, some kept their mouths shut, and others were no doubt involved.

Along with the planted witnesses

Most were duped some were involved.

The tv news crews

Most were duped like everyone else.

The whole bloody world!!

Chemtrails and NWO lyte.
Your judgment is very suspect.

Regardless of your straw man attacks the evidence speaks for itself. How do you account for the wild discrepancy between ATC and NTSB?

 

[Lyte Trip]

lyte trip, have you gone to the authorities with your evidence or not? This is a simple yes/no question. ~7 weeks ago you promised to do so, and that it would lead to action; where is the action?

Yes we certainly have and we will continue to pressure them into action.

We have never "promised" it would lead to action.

That is a direct lie that has been perpetuated by TAM and others here.

We knew full well this information would be dismissed, ignored, and then demonized as much as possible.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The Pentagon is near Reagan's approach path, not on it. Airliners don't skim over the Pentagon and its surrounding roadways and buildings at any speed, much less with wheels and flaps up at 530 mph.

Claiming that the Pentagon isn't on the flight path is really splitting hairs. The flight path is over the Potomac, the Pentagon is on the Potomac. No, planes don't skim it. But they flight at low altitudes very near by. The people who work there are very used to loud airplanes near by. I lived in a high rise in Rosslyn, the planes are noisy even there where they are flying higher.

 

[gumboot]

Claiming that the Pentagon isn't on the flight path is really splitting hairs. The flight path is over the Potomac, the Pentagon is on the Potomac. No, planes don't skim it. But they flight at low altitudes very near by. The people who work there are very used to loud airplanes near by. I lived in a high rise in Rosslyn, the planes are noisy even there where they are flying higher.

Have you ever had a 757 fly over your head at 400 MPH, 100ft off the ground, after you thought it had just flown into a building?

-Gumboot

 

[Lyte Trip]

which was my point when i posted it. he saw the plane dive and the collision, but no pull up and flyover. Debunked craig.

1. It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for him to see a plane on the official story flight path.

2. Does the fact that he did not report a plane flying over the building prove that all the other people who report a "2nd plane" that "shadowed" the AA Jet and "veered away" over the Pentagon immediately after explosion are lying?


What makes this guy more credible than them?

 

[TjW]

Haha!

Is this a gift for me?

Thanks for a PERFECT example of how bad witness statements are skewed.

There is no way James Robbins saw the plane at all from across the Potomac!

This is Scott Cook's view but he was pretty much as close to the Pentagon as you can get from across the river.

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/065a.jpg[/qimg]

Think about it. The plane was allegedly a foot above the ground on the OTHER side of the Pentagon.

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/potomac2.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/130g.jpg[/qimg]


Sure he may have seen the explosion but there is no way he saw the plane at all (especially coming in at an unrecoverable angle which means dive bombing and contradicts the official story 100%) let alone if it was on the north or south side of the citgo!

If he was on the opposite shore of the Potomac, then the critical part of his testimony for your theory is indeed what he didn't see. He didn't see the aircraft climbing out after overflying the explosion.

Why not?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

No, why do you ask?

 

[pomeroo]

Lytetrip wrote: "we have talked to at least one fire captain who doesn't believe for a second that the plane hit."

Who is this person? Let's have a name.

 

[Lyte Trip]

If he was on the opposite shore of the Potomac, then the critical part of his testimony for your theory is indeed what he didn't see. He didn't see the aircraft climbing out after overflying the explosion.

Why not?

You aren't reading my posts.

How do you know he didn't see it?

Did you ask him?

Just because he didn't report that detail in an article he wrote for the purpose of "debunking" missile theories doesn't prove he did not not see what he would be told was "another plane" fly over the building.

Does the fact that he did not report a plane flying over the building prove that all the other people who DID report a "2nd plane" that "shadowed" the AA Jet and "veered away" over the Pentagon immediately after explosion are lying?

Does the fact that this was not widely reported prove they are lying or that no plane flew over the building?

Or do you admit that it's possible for a plane to have flown over the building without it being widely reported?

Which is it? It has to be one or the other.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Lytetrip wrote: "we have talked to at least one fire captain who doesn't believe for a second that the plane hit."

Who is this person? Let's have a name.

Ummm no.

You'll get the name when everyone else does.

You can choose not to believe me if you want but we have proven that Citizen Investigation Team bases our research on first hand on the record testimony.

I will simply tell you that this first responder fought fires in the building and did not see any debris at all other than tiny unrecognizable pieces the size of a quarter. He did say that other responders reported seeing the landing gear.

He was right at the c-ring exit hole and saw no pieces of aircraft that he believes could have caused the hole so he believes it was a missile.

He OFFERED to US the hypothesis that a plane was flown over the building based on the fact that other first responders originally reported that it overflew the building in crashed in Crystal City/14th street bridge area.

You guys really ought to try talking to people that were there.

 

[CurtC]

So who is lying/confused/incorrect? ATC or NTSB?

Mineta said that he was in the bunker when AA77 was approaching, but we know that's false. He said AA77 was approaching down the Potomac, but we know that's false. And he said that it flew over the Pentagon, then circled back and hit it, and we know it never flew over it on the first pass.

Why are you even quoting Mineta as a source? We know the picture you posted of the view from the other side of the Potomac is only two miles from the Pentagon, and it's easy to see a plane in the air from two miles away. Plus, the flight path of the plane, had it flown over, would have taken him right towards the point your picture was taken from. Just a few more seconds, and the plane would have flown right by at 500 mph! Do you honestly think someone wouldn't notice that?

Also, you've completely failed to address the problem with the impossible flight path that you maintain the plane took (Edward - N of Citgo - Pentagon). This issue is not going away, I'm going to keep reminding you about it with every post.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Mineta said that he was in the bunker when AA77 was approaching, but we know that's false. He said AA77 was approaching down the Potomac, but we know that's false. And he said that it flew over the Pentagon, then circled back and hit it, and we know it never flew over it on the first pass.

Why are you even quoting Mineta as a source? We know the picture you posted of the view from the other side of the Potomac is only two miles from the Pentagon, and it's easy to see a plane in the air from two miles away. Plus, the flight path of the plane, had it flown over, would have taken him right towards the point your picture was taken from. Just a few more seconds, and the plane would have flown right by at 500 mph! Do you honestly think someone wouldn't notice that?

Also, you've completely failed to address the problem with the impossible flight path that you maintain the plane took (Edward - N of Citgo - Pentagon). This issue is not going away, I'm going to keep reminding you about it with every post.

Why would Mineta lie?

Plus Mineta is quoting Monte Belger then Deputy Director of FAA about the radar track. Is he lying too?

And what about the witnesses who report this down river approach flight path?

We were watching the airport through binoculars, Ford said, referring to Reagan National Airport, a short distance away. The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National. Then it turned back toward the Pentagon.”
-Ken Ford

“which had come up the river in back of our building, turned sharply over the Capitol, ran past the White House and the Washington Monument, up the river to Rosslyn, then dropped to treetop level and ran down Washington Boulevard to the Pentagon.”
-Scott Cook

“They saw the plane hovering over the Washington Mall Area at an altitude lower that the height of the Washington Monument.”
-Bob Hunt

“About 10 minutes ago, there was a white jet circling overhead. Now, you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House. That is restricted air space. No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky.”
-John King

“I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon.” Joseph Candelario

“I did see, myself a plane, about half hour ago, circling over the Capitol.”
-Kate Snow

Or how about this?

Colin Scoggins at Boston flight control calls NEADS to report a low-flying airliner he has spotted six miles southeast of the White House. He can offer no details regarding its identity. The plane is reportedly Flight 77, but as it has its transponder turned off, no one realizes this at the time. The news of the plane “sets off a frenzy.” Major Kevin Nasypany orders Major James Fox, head of the NEADS Weapons Team, “Get your fighters there as soon as possible!” Staff Sergeant William Huckabone says, “Ma’am, we are going AFIO [emergency military control of the fighters] right now with Quit 2-5 [the Langley fighters]. They are going direct Washington.” [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006] The Langley fighters will arrive over Washington some time around 10 a.m. (see (9:55-10:15 a.m.) September 11, 2001).

Are all of these people lying just like Mineta did?





The north of citgo flight path is not "impossible".

You are wrong.

you don't have the necessary values (speed, altitude, decline) or even the exact type of plane it was so you can not make that statement definitively.

We will prove to you that it is possible for a twin engine passenger jet to successfully maneuver the flight path we report.

You saying over and over that it is impossible does not make it so.