Why fake the SoC path?

[Seymour Butz]

Why don't you ask April Gallop- she was right next to the impact and saw no jet fuel, no plane parts, no passengers.

If she was right next to your alleged explosion, how'd she survive THAT? SPreston likes to say that she was 30' from the impact area... how'd she survive being torn to shreds and/or having all her internal organs turned to jelly?

Are you saying that the NWO picked an area of the Pentagon that had just been specially reinforced to resist blast damage to pull this off?

 

[dtugg]

Actually, my post answered it perfectly, you just dont like my explanation. and i cant help you there.

Nope you didn't answer the question at all. You said how you "know" the "official path" was faked and why they might fake that damage and how you "know" the NoC path is what happened but you didn't answer why they would fake the "official path" but actually fly NoC.

You fail yet again.

 

[DGM]

Why don't you ask April Gallop- she was right next to the impact and saw no jet fuel, no plane parts, no passengers. She doesn't believe a plane hit the building, but she's just a stupid truther, right?

Just a quick aside, Do you happen to know when she plans to give American Airlines their money back? She seemed to think there was a plane when she sued them.

 

[Horatius]

Actually, my post answered it perfectly, you just dont like my explanation. and i cant help you there.

No, it didn't answer it perfectly.

The question is:

I really, really, want to know why they would fake the "offical path" but actually fly NoC. What possible purpose could this serve?

You answered the first part, but that answer is obvious. If you're going to plant explosives, but claim plane impact, you'd have to fake some sort of flight path.

The key question you, and all the other CIT fanbois keep ignoring, is why would they fake a path that was fundamentally inconsistent with the path that their "decoy plane" flew?

Back in the thread that initially raised this question, I opined:

I think their point is that the NWO screwed it up: They meant to fly the SoC path as set up by the light poles and the damage to the Pentagon, but they missed the approach.

Of course, this leaves the problem of how the rest of the set up (flyover at just the right time and place to be hidden by the "explosion") still worked out well enough to fool every single witness. But I don't expect the CIT boys or the PfTers to address this issue.

To which SPreston responded in part:

No. Not necessarily a mistake. The FBI was on-site primed to grab all videos and cameras. The light poles were scripted with the taxi and driver. Scripted media witnesses were ready to go. Explosives were ready in the construction trailers at the wall and inside. Perhaps the NOC decoy aircraft flew exactly where planned. Perhaps not.

So, we have a devious evil plan that intended to fly the plane along path that inherently contained the evidence needed to prove that the whole thing was, in fact, fake. Why would the NWO, or whoever, set themselves up for failure like that?

I'm willing to accept "They ****ed up" as an answer, but that's not the answer any of you twoofers have offered. You're so caught up in the idea of a Vast, All-Powerful Conspiracy, that you can't even admit the possibility of their failure, even when such an admission would strengthen your own argument!

 

[roundhead]

Nope you didn't answer the question at all. You said how you "know" the "official path" was faked and why they might fake that damage and how you "know" the NoC path is what happened but you didn't answer why they would fake the "official path" but actually fly NoC.

You fail yet again.

My statements were all prefaced by my saying they were my OPINION

There is no fail or not fail.Everybody on this site offers nothing but opinions, some based on belief of the OCT, some based on belief of another version of events.
Until or unless more data is made available regarding 9/11(video, etc)it will remain that way, opinions being supported by varying degrees of data.


Regarding why they would "fake" the official path common sense would dictate that impacting light poles inbound might possibly affect the integrity of the plane's ability to acually hit the Pentagon. There as an excellent example of a single lightpole taking down a sizable plane on the record, flown by an expert.

IF the intention was to have an actual plane appear to impact the Pentagon, and survive to fly away, it makes sense that not hitting anything inbound would greatly increase the chances of the above being sucessful.

 

[dtugg]

My statements were all prefaced by my saying they were my OPINION

There is no fail or not fail.Everybody on this site offers nothing but opinions, some based on belief of the OCT, some based on belief of another version of events.
Until or unless more data is made available regarding 9/11(video, etc)it will remain that way, opinions being supported by varying degrees of known truth.

You didn't even offer an opinion addressing the OP.

There is a fail or no fail. Of course, you fail.

 

[roundhead]

You didn't even offer an opinion addressing the OP.

There is a fail or no fail. Of course, you fail.

I addressed, perfectly, my opinion regarding the OP.

I didnt address, nor do i intend to, your apparent inability to comprehend that i did.

 

[chillzero]

Perhaps we could stop bickering over whether or not the topic has been addressed, and address the actual topic?

 

[roundhead]

Perhaps we could stop bickering over whether or not the topic has been addressed, and address the actual topic?

who is WE??

 

[chillzero]

Get back on topic please.

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

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

What about my answer in post 15 doesn't answer the question?

@Horatius
Actually, it was initially thought that they had screwed up. But upon discovery of the C130 and E4B flightpaths, it became clear that it was delibertately planned. This question is answered in detail in the The Second Plane Cover Story- doesn't it bother any of you pseudoskeptics that you haven't even taken the time to view the evidence?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Perhaps we could stop bickering over whether or not the topic has been addressed, and address the actual topic?

I'll play devil's advocate and make an argument that goes against my understanding. Hopefully it'll help catalyze an answer from the audience on which the question is being asked. My answer is that there is no need to fake any path. If the objective is to create the illusion of a pane crash then you are looking to act based on the available perspectives, such conspirators should be unconcerned from what direction their craft comes from, only that it achieves the same ends.

If I believed in the purpose of faking a plane impact then I would have no problem acknowledging which path the plane took, in particular if it achieves the same outcome as is postulated by CIT and other no-planers. In all honesty even taking the side of CIT I can see no logical reason to fake one path and take another that completely deviates from what is offered up unless the conspirators, in all of their planning either screwed up, or are fans of incredibly unnecessary complexities.

That position is still demonstrably false due to the mountains of evidence available, but even that sounds more credible than anything I've been told to believe by CIT.

 

[Bobert]

The NWO has magic technology that can cancel the sound of jet engines!

AND BRAINWASH witnesses into seeing what they thought they saw BUT IN FACT was not what they really saw!
WOW THE AMAZING NWO!

 

[Brainache]

What about my answer in post 15 doesn't answer the question?

@Horatius
Actually, it was initially thought that they had screwed up. But upon discovery of the C130 and E4B flightpaths, it became clear that it was delibertately planned. This question is answered in detail in the The Second Plane Cover Story- doesn't it bother any of you pseudoskeptics that you haven't even taken the time to view the evidence?

I think the problem you are having convincing people here is not because they haven't taken time to view the evidence, they have viewed the evidence, but no one is interested in looking at another assemblage of distortions and cherry-picked witness statements compiled by a couple of brainless loonies.

 

[roundhead]

The reason they MAY have faked a path that doesnt square with the decoy has several ways to look at it..

As i said in my original post in this thread, knocking over the lightpoles, and staging the "cab scene" creates and has created a great "op" in that it paints a picture to casual observers(who by far constitute the largest and thereby most important segment of the country)that the dots can be connected in a most elementary and visual way..IE: Plane is highjacked, plane flys toward Pentagon, plane knocks over lightpoles, plane hits building. A quick little simplistic map can line up on the poles and point toward the burning Pentagon, and Walla, the sheeple can go back to regularly scheduled programming.

Here we are 7 years later, and were it not for the work of CIT and others, this apparent OCT truth might not have been questioned, and have been allowed to go unchallenged.

Regarding why fly the attack jet on a different path, the light poles are one reason for sure. As i have already pointed out, a perp couldnt be confident flying through those poles wouldnt in and of itself down the plane.

With zero inbound damage, and the lack of plane debris and other issues regarding the OCT, it wouldnt have been as simplistic and swallowable to the casual observer as the actual plan seemed to be.

In other words, a car with no cigatette burns in it and no smell of cigarette smoke is easier to pass off as a non smoking car, than one which shows evidence of either.
To equate this to the above Pentagon/OCT...CIT and others have actually bothered to in fact pull out the car's filtration system, and note the symptoms of the car having been smoked in, rather than assume it to be the truth.
Unfortunately, The Govt has the history of missrepresenting cars , so a further inspection is ALWAYS warranted.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

I think the problem you are having convincing people here is not because they haven't taken time to view the evidence, they have viewed the evidence, but no one is interested in looking at another assemblage of distortions and cherry-picked witness statements compiled by a couple of brainless loonies.

No you haven't, because the answer to the OP is in the presentation! None of you have watched it, or you wouldn't be asking this question. Calling CIT "brainless loonies" without viewing the evidence only demonstrates your bias.

 

[Horatius]

What about my answer in post 15 doesn't answer the question?

I'd say, almost all of it:

Great question!

The fact that you are even asking it is indicative of 2 things...

1. Your noggin is working over-time now that you've realized that you lost the "math" debate.

Backhanded compliment meant to imply our brains usually aren't working.

2. Despite your daily obsession with ridiculing CIT you really haven't paid much attention to what they have said or the evidence they present as this has been addressed quite thoroughly.

Straight up veiled insult.

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.

Still doesn't address the issue of why use such a radically different "real" path vs. the "fake" one.

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".

The only point that even tried to address the question. But it still ignores the fact that the flight path was so different that it inherently contained all the evidence needed to prove the "official" path was a fake. Why wouldn't their "a bit off track" be a bit less off track, so that it was at least conceivable that the plane as reported by CIT's witnesses was the same plane as that which supposedly hit the light poles?

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.

This originally came mostly from a series of articles written by Terry Scanlon for the Daily Press about the C-130. If you read them it's clear that he deliberately has the plane in the airspace at the same time as the explosion but of course we know from the Tribby video and the ANC witnesses that it wasn't there for about 3 minutes later.

Of course this is finally confirmed by the pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien's statement that he was too far away when he first saw the explosion to even be able to tell if it was coming from the Pentagon!


The Pentagon is massive compared to a commercial airliner. Obviously he was too far away to see an impact or flyover but virtually ALL media reports erroneously either imply or flat out state that he did witness an impact. By the time he turned around to try and "follow it" it was too late.

But the 2nd plane cover story was very ambiguous at first and not limited to false reports of the C-130.

Indeed talk of any "mystery plane" at all in the skies would ambiguously serve as cover to anyone who saw the plane flying away.

That's why even talk of the E4B would be effective in this regard and now of course we know that proven dishonest conspiracy theorists like 911files blatantly used it for this very purpose only a few months ago in Gaffney's book.

...and back to nothing that addresses the central question of the thread.

So the planners obviously wanted complete control of the damage to their own building and clearly this would be achieved most efficiently with pre-planted explosives. This is the obvious reason why they would "fake" the damage. The plane was a psychological tool and while most believed it hit the building, others were quite deliberately fooled into thinking it was a "2nd plane". Roosevelt Roberts Jr. is a prime example.

..and more speculation based on nothing but you own alrady speculative notions of what the plane actually did.

@Horatius
Actually, it was initially thought that they had screwed up. But upon discovery of the C130 and E4B flightpaths, it became clear that it was delibertately planned.

...and so, we're back to the Central Question, which aside from your lame bit of handwaving above, no one has addressed. I mean, seriously, you've added in all this nonsense about the C130 and an alleged E4B, which actually weakens your case. Why can't you see that?

 

[Bobert]

I know you are, but what am I?

 

[Bell]

Here is a chronological order of events at the Pentagon on 9/11:

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.

???

 

[Horatius]

No you haven't, because the answer to the OP is in the presentation! None of you have watched it, or you wouldn't be asking this question. Calling CIT "brainless loonies" without viewing the evidence only demonstrates your bias.

So, if you've watched this video, you know what their explanation is. Why don't you summarize it, and tell us where in the video it is?

Or would you prefer to keep trying to score cheap points against us in hopes we'll decide to subject ourselves to another annoying 34 minute presentation?