Why fake the SoC path?

[Alt+F4]

The topic isn't the CIT film, it's why the government would need to fake a flight path.

Yes, why not use a truck bomb? Why the complication of a airplane? Who murdered all those people on the plane, including five children?

 

[nicepants]

The only possibility for what Roosevelt saw was the flyover.

Bias noted.

Here's another possibility - Roosevelt's statements are inaccurate.

 

[bje]

The only possibility for what Roosevelt saw was the flyover. The NOC flight path is also evidence for a flyover.

You already know that is patently false by Roberts own statements so why do you insist on repeating a lie, TLB?

The jet Roberts saw "flying around the south parking lot" had nothing to do with anything because the only jet he saw flying around was a full one-half hour before AA77 hit the Pentagon. So stop the nonsense, TLB.

It's amazing that you guys are so desperate that you continue to misrepresent Robert's own statement to push your fantasy fairy tale.

 

[Bell]

Actually, no, I don't fail.
Let's see, what was the question again?

Why fake the SoC path?

According to CIT/PfT:

1.) The NWO flew the plane NoC.
2.) All the wittnesses must therefore have seen the plane fly NoC.
3.) Then the NWO faked the SoC path, by knocking over some lightpoles and staging the cab scene.
4.) Then they plant fake wittnesses to further convince the real wittnesses and the rest of the world that the plane flew SoC.

???

You may have noticed I striked out step 4 now.

To sum up, CIT/PfT claim that all the wittnesses who saw the plane, saw it fly NoC. That is to be expected with the NoC theory. That is also what the NWO would have expected before they pulled (it/up?) this stunt.

So why fake the SoC path?

???

???

 

[jaydeehess]

For someone who claims CIT/PFT are "frauds", you don't seem to know even their most basic claims.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
The CiT/PfT contention is;
that an airliner was commandeered, spirited away to parts unknown, the aircraft and persons on board killed and all disposed of,

True or false?

False.

So Flight 77 had to either fly towards the Pentagon and then disappear or it flew elsewhere and then disappeared. If CiT/PfT has no claim to make about where it went they still obviously are claiming it did not end its flight by crashing into the Pentagon. Ipso facto that leads to the logical conclusion that CiT/PfT must be asserting that the aircraft and all on board went somewhere else. The aircraft and all on board were never seen alive again. Again then if this is not because they were in the Pentagon then CiT/PfT is effectivly asserting they were forced to go elsewhere and have either been killed and disposed of or this is an episode of the old program "The Prisoner".


The evidence is that it flew to the Pentagon and then impacted that building resulting in the deaths of all on board. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Quote:
a second aircraft sent to fly over the Pentagon and drop a bomb with pin point accuracy and timing

True or false?

False.

Either Flight 77, a 757 hit the Pentagon and caused the damage or explosives caused it. CiT/PfT flatly asserts that a 757 did not cause the damage and thus they are asserting that explosives did.
We do know for a fact that no explosives were planted inside the Pentagon to do the damage seen since the 90-100 feet of missing front wall is not on the ground in front of the Pentagon. We do know that there was no crater in front of the Pentagon so we also know that no explosives were planted in front of the Pentagon.
Shall I look for the references made by members of CiT/PfT to bombs/missiles being used, or will you concede that these statements have been made?

Quote:
to not only cause damage consistent with a large fast mass impacting the building and tearing through it, but also exploding such that it would create a fireball to mask the travel over the building,

True or false?

False.

Shall I search for the quotes by Lyte Trip in this very forum in which Craig asserts that Turcois was stating that the fireball 'obscured' his view of the aircraft?

Quote:
while allowing the aircraft to fly low enough to fool people into believing that it hit a ground floor,

True or false?

False.

I'll give you this one. CiT/PfT ignores this aspect entirely.

I note that no one at CiT/PfT has bothered to explain how an aircraft flying at least 35 feet higher than the roofline of the Pentagon fooled anyone into believeing that the aircraft impacted the ground floor, but that was reported by witnesses. Furthermore no witness who stated that the plane hit the Pentagon (of which there are a multitude) seemed surprised that it did not hit an upper storey instead.

Quote:
but not causing damage to this aircraft by its passage through such a fireball/debris cloud,

True or false?

False.

As stated above I know that Craig has asserted that the fireball hid the flyover. To do so the plane would have to fly into the fireball. The fireball caused by explosives would neccessarily throw dense material up with that fireball. therefore, yes, CiT/PfT is effectively asserting that the plane managed to avoid all of the debris thrown up by the explosives.

Quote:
nor cause any vortex action to that fireball that would give away the fact that it flew through it,

True or false?

False.

In order to have the fireball hide a flyover the fireball must occur before the plane gets to the location of the Pentagon and any large aircraft flying through, or even near such would, of neccessity, cause a tell-tale vortex within it.

Quote:
and then having a third aircraft in the air nearby to allow for media reports of such an aircraft near the Pentagon to deceive all and sundry witnesses, from any angle, of the actual fly over, into thinking that this thrid aircraft is what they saw fly over the Pentagon.

True or false?

False.

Really?
You wrote;

CIT has uncovered a significant amount of evidence for a deliberately planned 2nd plane cover story.

See presentation here.
The gist of it is that the decoy jet was meant to fool most people into believing that it hit the building but the 2nd plane cover story would be out there as an explanation for the people who actually saw it fly over or away from the building.

So it would be close enough to the damage to fool people but also a bit off track to more easily be written off as a "2nd plane".

Stories of a "2nd plane" shadowing it and flying away at the time of the explosion were floated in the media and reinforced with a few planted witnesses. We know for a fact there was no "shadowing" plane but we also know that a few dubious accounts and media reports quite explicitly floated this notion within the first days of the event

Are you now saying that you misreprersented the CiT/PfT position?

Quote:
During all of this 'agents' are scrurrying about downing lamp posts which are not on the path of either of the two aircraft near the Pentagon


True or false?

False.

Ladies and Gentlemen, LoneBeduoin now states that the position held by CiT/PfT is that Lloyd England is no longer considered to have been an agent or to have planted a broken lamp post on his car, and that no one was 'planting' broken lamp posts anywhere.

Quote:
No one at all, from any vantage point, notices these people downing these lamp posts and some people who see the posts go down somehow are deceived into believeing that they were downed by the passage of a plane that was high enough to fly over the Pentagon in a 45 degree bank (which requires the fuselage to be at least half again higher above the ground than the roofline of the Pentagon) and thus would have been easily three times the height of the lamp post.

True or false?

False.

I suppose that follows from the CiT/PfT position that no one was 'planting 'broken lamp posts.

Quote:
Other 'agents' scurry about planting aircraft parts consistent with the 757 that was caused to disappear. No one sees them do this.

True or false?

False.

I see I kind of asked two things so,,,,,
Someone saw it or it didn't happen?

Quote:
Furthermore the DNA of those on board is sent to the lab with the claim that it comes from investigations taking place at the Pentagon.

True or false?

True, more or less.

Do you also know any women who were more or less pregnant?

Quote:
or should we include an FDR that was planted even though it supposedly describes yet another flight path inconsistent with either of the two aircraft that were flying towards or near the Pentagon nor, supposedly, consistent with the path described by the downed lamp posts, on 9/11/01?

Yes, or no?

Sure. There are many reasons this may be (whistleblower, deliberately planting false and confusing information, etc.),

Glad to know that CiT/PfT agrees that there are now 4 different flight paths , the decoy plane, the second plane, the lamp posts damage and the FDR. Wow, were those gubmint guys ever incompetant. Amazing that they managed to deceive anyone into stating that the plane HIT the building.

but PFT refuses to speculate on why it is inconsistent.

Sure they do. The PfT site is chock a' block with speculation concerning elements of the gov't that were responsible for arranging all of this. Perhaps not in the press releases or the PfT's official writings but I can find many posts by Rob, Craig or Aldo in which they do.

Would you say that CiT/PfT consider it likely that human or machine error is the cause of these supposed differences?
Is there another choice other than errors or deliberate deception?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

So Flight 77 had to either fly towards the Pentagon and then disappear or it flew elsewhere and then disappeared. If CiT/PfT has no claim to make about where it went they still obviously are claiming it did not end its flight by crashing into the Pentagon. Ipso facto that leads to the logical conclusion that CiT/PfT must be asserting that the aircraft and all on board went somewhere else. The aircraft and all on board were never seen alive again. Again then if this is not because they were in the Pentagon then CiT/PfT is effectivly asserting they were forced to go elsewhere and have either been killed and disposed of or this is an episode of the old program "The Prisoner".

PFT does not speculate on what happened to Flight 77 or its passengers.
See this thread.

Either Flight 77, a 757 hit the Pentagon and caused the damage or explosives caused it. CiT/PfT flatly asserts that a 757 did not cause the damage and thus they are asserting that explosives did.
We do know for a fact that no explosives were planted inside the Pentagon to do the damage seen since the 90-100 feet of missing front wall is not on the ground in front of the Pentagon. We do know that there was no crater in front of the Pentagon so we also know that no explosives were planted in front of the Pentagon.

See thread below.

Shall I look for the references made by members of CiT/PfT to bombs/missiles being used, or will you concede that these statements have been made?

Please quote where CIT/PfT claims bombs were dropped on the Pentagon, or missles were used.

Shall I search for the quotes by Lyte Trip in this very forum in which Craig asserts that Turcois was stating that the fireball 'obscured' his view of the aircraft?

CIT no longer believes the plane flew directly over the impact due to Roosevelt's testimony, as well as the description of a right bank.

I'll give you this one. CiT/PfT ignores this aspect entirely.

I note that no one at CiT/PfT has bothered to explain how an aircraft flying at least 35 feet higher than the roofline of the Pentagon fooled anyone into believeing that the aircraft impacted the ground floor, but that was reported by witnesses. Furthermore no witness who stated that the plane hit the Pentagon (of which there are a multitude) seemed surprised that it did not hit an upper storey instead.

Ok, well, it obviously did fly low enough to fool people, but that doesn't mean it flew level with the damage. Everyone reports it being much higher.

As stated above I know that Craig has asserted that the fireball hid the flyover. To do so the plane would have to fly into the fireball. The fireball caused by explosives would neccessarily throw dense material up with that fireball. therefore, yes, CiT/PfT is effectively asserting that the plane managed to avoid all of the debris thrown up by the explosives.



In order to have the fireball hide a flyover the fireball must occur before the plane gets to the location of the Pentagon and any large aircraft flying through, or even near such would, of neccessity, cause a tell-tale vortex within it.

Cit no longer believe the plane flew directly over the explosion.

Really?
You wrote;


Are you now saying that you misreprersented the CiT/PfT position?

Taken together with the rest of the sentence, it is false. Also, CIT does not claim that all witnesses were necessarily fooled, but clearly the objective was to confuse as many people as possible.

Ladies and Gentlemen, LoneBeduoin now states that the position held by CiT/PfT is that Lloyd England is no longer considered to have been an agent or to have planted a broken lamp post on his car, and that no one was 'planting' broken lamp posts anywhere.

No, CIT has hypothesized that the light poles where cut the night before the attacks.

I suppose that follows from the CiT/PfT position that no one was 'planting 'broken lamp posts.

See above, the light poles were planted at night.

I see I kind of asked two things so,,,,,
Someone saw it or it didn't happen?

See this thread.

Do you also know any women who were more or less pregnant?

Well, the "DNA" itself wasn't necessarily sent. More likely the "remains" were examined.

Glad to know that CiT/PfT agrees that there are now 4 different flight paths , the decoy plane, the second plane, the lamp posts damage and the FDR. Wow, were those gubmint guys ever incompetant. Amazing that they managed to deceive anyone into stating that the plane HIT the building.

You're argument from incredulity is noted.

 

[A W Smith]

You're argument from incredulity is noted.

my see saw analogy makes calculations moot.

Craig, You're argument from incredulity is noted

the light poles couldn't have been hit by a plane and land right near the base

Craig, You're argument from incredulity is noted

the plane left too small an impact hole

Craig, You're argument from incredulity is noted

Lloyd could not have extracted the light pole from his windshield

Craig, You're argument from incredulity is noted

The plane left little to no wreckage on the lawn in front of the pentagon

Craig, You're argument from incredulity is noted

the exit hole at C ring is far too small for the plane

Craig, You're argument from incredulity is noted

the lamp post bases had to have been cut with a plasma torch, the bases just don't break that cleanly

Craig, You're argument from incredulity is noted
and you don't even know what an argument from incredulity is, Or even pronounce it correctly.

 

[dtugg]

Gee, TLB it seems that you know everything about Ranquis' deluded position. It almost seems like you are Ranquis. Hmmmmmm.......

Oh and how did the plane get from the NoC path to the south parking lot per Roosevelt, Ranquis? Please draw a flightpath for that so I can laugh at you.

 

[Baylor]

Oh and how did the plane get from the NoC path to the south parking lot per Roosevelt, Ranquis? Please draw a flightpath for that so I can laugh at you.

Done

 

[beachnut]

PFT does not speculate on what happened to Flight 77 or its passengers.
See this thread.

Balsamo, p4t terrorist loyalist fearless leader, has no clue what happen on 9/11 and is ill-equipped to come up with any theories! The only truth Balsamo gets right!

That is ironic. He adds senile members who have no clue Balsamo is a fraud that manufactures implied lies so fools can repeat them.

Please quote where CIT/PfT claims bombs were dropped on the Pentagon, or missles were used.

Did you get something right due to the fact p4t have no theories, no clue, yet the best failed physics on the planet reflected with the 11.2 G failure? Yes, we understand Balsamo has no theories; he is too challenged in flying procedures to have a clue how the terrorists can fly better in real life than he in a simulator. How much experience does Balsamo have in the left seat (as in Captain) of a heavy jet?

CIT no longer believes the plane flew directly over the impact due to Roosevelt's testimony, as well as the description of a right bank.

Roosevelt's testimony? What a joke. You need to listen to it; his time line is complete garbage. I like Boger, he saw 77 hit the Pentagon, as did many others.

Ok, well, it obviously did fly low enough to fool people, but that doesn't mean it flew level with the damage. Everyone reports it being much higher.

You are making up your own lies now? Remember, don’t forget, p4t have no theories so you are off the reservation now making up theories. Why not ask some people who saw 77 on 9/11.

the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball.

Yep, this guy said it was much higher, he said LOW, so LOW. LOL it gets worse. He saw it impact the Pentagon. Now that is much higher! Do you know what higher means? Much higher?

felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. "Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball

oops it hit the Pentagon.

"I saw the plane that hit the Pentagon. It went behind some trees."

trees, kind of low.

We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn’t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon.

hit the Pentagon. Much higher?

Then the plane flew right over my head.
looked up, and I saw this airplane coming, heading straight down toward the ground.

Right over my head is much higher?

I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building. It
and was on my way to work, in my car, sitting on a bridge, and saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

much higher? Are you sure you understand much higher?

because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down."

Oops, much higher seems to be just low enough to knock down the lampposts.

"I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire."

oops, this is low, not much higher than low; did you mean low, not much higher than low?

I noticed a large aircraft flying low

low? Is much higher defined as low?

I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower
it flying at just above treetop height at full speed headed for the Pentagon."

This is not looking good for, "much higher".

flying in real low,

oops, this person said real low, not exactly like much higher. You lost this debate; better run and look up these guys next time instead of the idiots at CIT who spew lies 24 hrs.

It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming

it come right over the Navy annex

The jet was 40-feet off the ground speeding toward the Pentagon.

a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles.

'That plane is too low

It hit some lampposts on the way in

a plane flying very low and close to nearby buildings

American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd

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 the Pentagon. A huge fireball exploded with thick black smoke

Wow, it seems the plane was low! It even hit the Pentagon. Better try to find some real investigators and not kids using drugs to make up your mind on an event that makes your post look like lies and apologies for murderers, known as terrorist, the guys who did 9/11.

Cit no longer believe the plane flew directly over the explosion.

Oh, where did it fly? Oops, it impacted the Pentagon, this is a proven fact, backed with evidence; stuff you don't have.

Taken together with the rest of the sentence, it is false. Also, CIT does not claim that all witnesses were necessarily fooled, but clearly the objective was to confuse as many people as possible.

What a bunch of junk.

No, CIT has hypothesized that the light poles where cut the night before the attacks.

The lamppost are breakaway posts, they are how they would be when a jet going 460 knots hits them. It is basic phyiscs.

See above, the light poles were planted at night.

Big lie. You have to have evidnece to accuse people of this one. You don't.

Well, the "DNA" itself wasn't necessarily sent. More likely the "remains" were examined.

The DNA is for real, your disrespect for the dead is noted by your complete lack of evidence and preference for hearsay, lies, and fantasy.

You're argument from incredulity is noted.

Your lack of evidence is noted. You never had any support for your failed ideas, no theories and failed flight paths.

So far you have proven the actual flight path was not faked. If you understood the FDR, you would not be a truther who spews the implied lies of Balsamo.

Why fake the SoC path? There is no need, the facts and evidence are not fake; 9/11 truth is fake.

 

[Reheat]

CIT no longer believes the plane flew directly over the impact due to Roosevelt's testimony, as well as the description of a right bank.

 

[uruk]

CIT and TLB can't answer the OP question because there is no rational reason to fake the SOC path if you are going to fake a plane impact. It is an unecessary complication. Most people would expect a plane to do a steep, Kamakazi style dive into the building. So ground path damage would be unecessary.

As matter of fact doing a flyover serves no pourpos when it is easier and simpler to just crash the plane into the building for real.

Minimising damage to the building would be cointerintutive to a false flag mission. More destruction means more fear. look at the WTC towers.

All you would have to do is make sure the people you wanted safe be elsewhere and information can be easly destroyed at anytime in secret by a shredder or incineration or a hitting the delete button.

A fly over make no sense what so ever.

 

[uruk]

CIT no longer believes the plane flew directly over the impact due to Roosevelt's testimony, as well as the description of a right bank.


Cit no longer believe the plane flew directly over the explosion.

So then it flew above or below or infront or behind the explosion.

How is that supposed to fool people?

 

[Baylor]

So then it flew above or below or infront or behind the explosion.

How is that supposed to fool people?

It's not. They're just trying to weasel their way out of the impossible flight path problem. The whole "witnesses were fooled" hypothesis was dead even before they moved the impact point. As I already explained, even if every witness was blindfolded, he or she would still be able to tell us what happened. The efficiency of Lyte trip's "explanation" of how the witnesses could've been "fooled" is so low it makes us smile, if not laugh.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Like every other supposed government conspiracy it requires the government to be simultaneously brilliant and incompetent.

 

[Hokulele]

CIT no longer believes the plane flew directly over the impact due to Roosevelt's testimony, as well as the description of a right bank.

I thought CIT believed the plane was meant to act as a cover for the explosion, and the fireball in the explosion was to mask the fact that the plane didn't crash, and all of this was supposedly the point of the faked SoC path in the first place.

If the plane and the explosion are no longer believed to be synchronized, what the hell is the point of all this?

The world's most fruitcake theory just got fruitier.

 

[dtugg]

You guys, I have a great new theory! Maybe there was no actual American Airlines Flight 77 on 9/11! They just made it up for the psyops mission! American Airlines, the FAA, Dulles International Airport, the allegedly dead crew/passengers and their families, they are all in on it! $2.3 trillion dollars can pay off a lot of people! That is why Ranquisamo cannot explain what happened to AA77! It never existed! Damn, the NWO is clever!



(And now if you excuse me, I am off to take a shower because I feel disgusting.)

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

CIT no longer believes the plane flew directly over the impact due to Roosevelt's testimony, as well as the description of a right bank.

I thought the explosion was meant to hide the plane as it flew away. If the plane no longer flies directly over the explosion, what's to conceal the plane from view within the few seconds immediately after the explosion?

 

[dtugg]

I thought the explosion was meant to hide the plane as it flew away. If the plane no longer flies directly over the explosion, what's to conceal the plane from view within the few seconds immediately after the explosion?

Oooh, can I answer?


The NWO has a cloaking device which can make a plane seem to vanish with the flip of a switch!

 

[Baylor]

Oooh, can I answer?


The NWO has a cloaking device which can make a plane seem to vanish with the flip of a switch!

You're also forgetting the doppler effect cloaking device. Lyte Trip forgot to mention this too.