Adam Syed discusses Pentagon anomalies and "National Security Alert" on Cincinnati TV
Adam Syed Mon, 10/26/2009 - 12:28pm
Cincinnati 9/11 Truth TV show
national security alert
official vs. eyewitness flight path
Last Wednesday evening on Cincinnati 9/11 Truth's weekly TV show, I gave a presentation, close to half an hour, on Pentagon attack anomalies and eyewitness testimonies. I explain the background as to why people were suspicious of the Pentagon to begin with, the lack of evidence for some of the early theories in the movement, the importance of the official flight and damage path. Then I present three eyewitnesses from the gas station who are one hundred percent certain that the plane did not fly that official path. This coming Wednesday: Roosevelt Roberts' and Lloyde England's testimony. Enjoy!
Starts at about the 1 minute mark on the first video.
ETA after viewing the preview of this entry: How beautiful that the third video's still image is of Lagasse saying "100% bet my life on it" !
Adam Syed's blog
Poor choice for front page material
Speculative and divisive - thumbs down
P2OG on Mon, 10/26/2009 - 1:56pm.
Show "Nothing divisive about it" by Adam Syed
Nothing divisive about it
The so called controversy surrounding this research is really just pseudo-controversy.
Everyone who takes the time to watch all of National Security Alert with an unbiased frame of mind agrees that the evidence is compelling.
The youtube video of National Security Alert has almost 115,000 views, and has an average rating of 5/5 stars.
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb
Adam Syed on Mon, 10/26/2009 - 4:02pm.
I watched it with the same openmindedness...
... with which I've watched other 9/11 material, and I didn't find it particularly convincing.
Vesa on Tue, 10/27/2009 - 3:48pm.
Show "Would you care to elaborate" by Adam Syed
Would you care to elaborate
Would you care to elaborate on why you think all those witnesses are either mistaken or lying? You've just blithely handwaved away some very compelling evidence against the OCT.
Adam Syed on Tue, 10/27/2009 - 5:00pm.
I've done that before...
One thing is that I cannot understand why they'd have painstakingly faked a flight path that is just slightly different from the official flight path.
Logical fallacy:
Argument from Personal Incredulity
I've seen doubters of controlled demolition use this logical fallacy with the comment: "I just don't see why they would feel the need to go to the trouble to demolish the buildings when flying two planes into them, by itself, would be justification enough for the war they desired."
I've seen that and similar arguments from incredulity used multiple times. It does not invalidate the scientific evidence for CD.
Your personal incredulity does not cancel out the firsthand witness accounts of Edward Paik, Terry Morin, William Middleton, Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, George Aman, Maria De La Cerda, Sean Boger, William Lagasse, Chadwick Brooks, and Robert Turcios, all of whom were in appropriate POV to see the flight path w/r to the gas station, along with Roosevelt Roberts Jr. and the people reported by Erik Dihle who saw the plane flying away immediately after the explosion.
I understand what you mean...
... but that was just one reason why I don't find flyover, in particular, a believable hypothesis.
Show "Well then," by Adam Syed
Well then,
I no longer believe in CD.
After all, if the majority of people at the James Randi Educational Foundation, a group which specializes in skepticism and critical thinking, believes CD is a bunch of hogwash, they must be right.
Show "forget about flyover, Vesa" by bbruhwiler8
forget about flyover, Vesa
Why do you dismiss the testimony of all those eyewitnesses who each gives a separate audio/video affidavit corroborating each other that they saw a large plane flying straight toward the explosion at the Pentagon, very closely timed with that explosion so much so that they each made the assumption that this was Flight 77, on a path that would make it impossible for that plane to cause the damage to the Pentagon we were told was caused by Flight 77?
With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
bbruhwiler8 on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 3:12am.
Great work Adam and Cincinattii 9-11 Truth!
Well presented Adam, including the questions from your co-anchor. The descriptions, clips and discourse were all well timed and ordered.
The corroborative eyewitness testimony in NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT is solid hard evidence. Thanks go to CIT for taking the initiative and doing the footwork. They did a great job as you said in "not leading the witnesses". Their common sense analysis with accompanied animation makes the whole case for a north of CITGO flight path very compelling if not outright obvious.
bbruhwiler8 on Mon, 10/26/2009 - 2:52pm.
Show "The censors at 911Blogger are at it again" by Cincy911Truth
The censors at 911Blogger are at it again
The censors at 911Blogger are at it again. This post was removed from the front page because the 911Blogger 'thought police' don't want to present any evidence that may not conform to their "present mindset". Controlled demolition theories at 911Blogger were once taboo by the same or similar LIHOP 'thought police' at one time.
I may not agree with everything that CIT tries to say but It seems to me that the CIT guys have done quite a bit of hard research and interviewed many eyewitnesses from the Pentagon strike who conflict with the official story. Are these eyewitness accounts 'speculative' ? Or is the shameless censoring by a select few who own this website sufficient to squash debate?
Will I now be banned from this website for my comments although I have been a member for many years?
Those who attempt to control the information are only stifling research, discussion and knowledge. Is that really the goal of 911Blogger?
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow
http://www.Cincinnati911Truth.org
Cincy911Truth on Mon, 10/26/2009 - 3:32pm.
To be fair,
Frank Legge's Pentagon paper in the Jo911S did not make the front page here either.
Though I do wish that discussion of this topic was embraced more as being front page worthy. Oh well.
Drama much?
Have the "thought police" who own this site given you any reason to actually think that you'll be banned for your opinion? Maybe if you keep calling them names you can get your wish and really be a martyr for the cause. Why do you try to make it sound like CIT only presents raw eyewitness testimony? They take that testimony and turn it into a radical hypothesis that they push as fact and then attack anyone who doesn't agree with it. That's not truth, that's show business.
Whatever the issues that others have with CIT personally, we need to figure out a way to keep the truth for use in this movement. These are solid-evidence eyewitness accounts that speak to the truth of what happened on 9-11. P2OG, what do you suggest we do to keep this evidence within the truth movement?
It's my understanding that the CIT people have been requested to release the raw footage of the eyewitness testimony and have long promised to do so but never made good on their promise. In my opinion, doing so would go a long to way to quelling some of the rancor that surrounds this topic. Separating the raw data from the speculation and hype-othesis and making it available to other researchers would actually be a benefit to the movement instead of a detriment.
Show "The interviews are presented" by Adam Syed
The interviews are presented
The interviews are presented in long-form in The PentaCon and The North Side Flyover. Have you watched them? They are quite long and extremely thorough.
The reason this evidence is so solid is because it is 100% verifiable with the witnesses directly. All accounts are on the record and all names are provided. We know for a fact that CIT has not manipulated the witness accounts because NONE of them have spoken out against CIT, and they all stand by their claims regarding the north side approach to this day, even now that they have been made aware of the implications. If CIT had lied about or in some way misrepresented what the witnesses said, this would have been exposed long ago, because none of the witnesses were pushing a conspiracy and it's clear they would be happy to discredit CIT if possible. Especially the cops!
The long versions make it perfectly clear that there is no way CIT manipulated this footage to distort their placement of the plane on the north side. Don't forget, they illustrated the paths as well.
Show "Okay so we have the unedited testimony" by bbruhwiler8
Okay so we have the unedited testimony
We have always had the unedited testimony. In fact, last year I was one of the people that suggested to Craig that he edit down the testimony for viewing by the general audience because in NORTH SIDE FLYOVER the CIT crew does not cut anything. Please take the time to watch that entire documentary. It's all there, so CIT has always been on the up and up in that regard, and they are to be commended for that.
I am not up to speed on any of the personal controversy, and I don't really care. I am concerned with truth of evidence. CIT has provided a tremendous amount toward that end.
P2OG, is there anything else we can do to move forward with this valuable evidence?
bbruhwiler8 on Tue, 10/27/2009 - 6:47am.
Show "Reread my post..." by Cincy911Truth
Reread my post...
As I clearly stated in my above post "I may not agree with everything that CIT tries to say but It seems to me that the CIT guys have done quite a bit of hard research and interviewed many eyewitnesses from the Pentagon strike who conflict with the official story."
One example: I also noticed that some of the CIT narration tended to pick and choose what some of the eyewitnesses said they saw particularly saying that someone said they saw a plane strike the Pentagon but he was obviously mistaken. That part I cringed at only because it was what one eyewitness claimed that they saw and it's discounted since it didn't fit in with their flyover theory. But many eyewitnesses said the flight path varied from the official story. Also, the flight data analyzed by Pilots For 9/11 Truth show similar discrepancies. This data needs to be looked at and not ignored because it doesn't fit some people's preconceived ideas.
We're not talking 'TV fakery' or 'Directed Energy Weapons here. Let's not stifle conversation and research.
BTW, I know of others who have been banned from this site for not agreeing with certain influential people at this site. Sorry, but it's a fact.
Great work getting this eye witness testimony on Cincinnati TV. The first time I saw the Sheriff's interview was over a year ago and it knocked my socks off. Keep up the great work!!!
Truth, Justice, Peace & Freedom
WeAreChangeLA
Katy on Mon, 10/26/2009 - 5:16pm.
Cincy 911 has a weekly TV
Cincy 911 has a weekly TV show? This is very nicely done. We know the path is a lie. I'm glad you are waking people up. I hope the show gets good coverage.
BreezyinVA on Mon, 10/26/2009 - 10:39pm.
On 9/11 planes flew into buildings
How Embarrassing. Still haven't figured out that on 9/11 planes flew into buildings? It's been nearly a decade and you're still working on that?
It was embarrassing when so called truthers edited Mike Walter to falsely try and claim he witnessed a missile, it also hurt the credibilty and honesty of a so called truth movement, you think this is better? It's not. It's worse, now the "truth" is, he witnessed a plane because he's an undercover CIA agent, and the old cabbie is well,.... he's a mass murdering accomplice. This is really disgusting. There was zero proof of a missile and zero proof of a flyover. A debate is pointless as it's all been done before. So, as you found out that promoting a missile strike on the pentagon was very UNtruthfull. You'll find out with this as well, not just UNtruthfull but more disgusting than any BS thrown around yet. At least the hologram No plane Space Beam clowns don't try and blame innocent people who did nothing but try and help what they "presumed" to be honest SANE people with their so called "research" which was nothing more than a con job to try and prove a pre-convieved idiotic theory. So as you come up with BS scenio after BS scenio to try and keep your silly and pointless "No Plane" theories alive, all you're doing is helping with the discredit and marginalizing the movement, but you still haven't figured that out either obviously. On 9/11 planes flew into buildings. It happened in broad daylight in front of lots of people.
You can pretend this book doesn't matter but the rest of the world knows about it, and while you claim "it's all fake, they are lieing" the rest of the world knows not only do you have nothing backing up this preposterous theory, but you were the one lieing about that missile, and now accusations against ordinary citizins? This is not anything a truth movement would do, so congratulations on assisting with the destruction.
"It took five years for authors Patrick Creed, a volunteer firefighter and Army officer, and Rick Newman, a writer for U.S. News and World Report, to pull together this story. Combing public records and conducting 150 interviews, Creed and Newman have done a monumental reporting job. Firefight tells the tale moment by moment through the accounts of dozens of participants and eye-witnesses."
http://www.amazon.com/Firefight-Inside-Battle-Save-Pentagon/dp/0891419055
jimd3100 on Mon, 10/26/2009 - 11:04pm.
Show "You like to babble on and" by BreezyinVA
You like to babble on and
You like to babble on and point at unrelated topics. How about spending your money and interviewing these firefighters (on film). It would be more respectful than to make jokes about 911. By the way, this book is a favorite of the OCT crowd. Does the shoe fit?
Why don't we have video of a plane hitting the Pentagon?
I want to see video and photography. We have over a dozen corroborating eye witness accounts telling us that there was a plane and it flew north of the CITGO station just before the Pentagon exploded. If the plane flew north of the CITGO station, then it did not hit the Pentagon to cause the damage we saw.
Jim, you never adequately answered my question about the tail of the plane. Where did it go? There is no damage to the facade of the Pentagon to account for the tail. You provided a suspicious eyewitness account that said the tail 'slipped' into the Pentagon magically through the wall, and the same witness said a part of the tail later somehow slipped into the back seat of her car through one of her open windows. Yikes, there goes her credibility. Where is that tail part that she gained possession of anyway? Could you contact her and get a look at it?
Where is the tail?
An embarrassment- and waste of time
"Jim, you never adequately answered my question about the tail of the plane."
Of course I didn't. I answered...but not adequately, because in "no plane" land the only adequate answer would be there was no tail. But I prefer to deal with reality.
Part of the tail came off "according to this witness" when it hit a lightpole near her.
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/pe_060509.mp3
"Where did it go?"
Do you want the exact cordinances for the biggest part or all the parts? A red herring of a question. I could show an engine but you'd just say it was planted and demand a picture of another engine. I could show landing gear, and you'd claim it was planted. If I showed a tail section you'd say it was planted as well, so let's stop playing games.
I already provided this link, to the same red herring questions.... According to this witness on the phone conversation she "clears up" and goes into more detail on what she saw and experianced but she is a liar, or in on it because she ruins a silly presposterous theory, and that is good enough to make accusations according to some of you who think acknowledging a plane hitting the pentagon is acknowledging the OCT.
"You provided a suspicious eyewitness account that said the tail 'slipped' into the Pentagon magically through the wall, and the same witness said a part of the tail later somehow slipped into the back seat of her car through one of her open windows. Yikes, there goes her credibility. Where is that tail part that she gained possession of anyway? Could you contact her and get a look at it?"
And this statement is absolute proof that as I said..."a debate is pointless" because it proves that you have no interest in truth or exchange of ideas and information but rather reinforcement of what you already conclude. Because the "suspicious" witness explains all that on the phone call I provided to you earlier and you just proved wont listen to. It's right here.....
"Yikes, there goes her credibility."
Maybe you should actually listen to her before judging her credibility, but there is no point really, it's already been shown you are not interested in what actually happened but rather "out to prove the OCT wrong"...she dosn't help much with that does she? You think someone spouting on about how a missile hit the pentagon then decides that it was actually a plane that flew over it has more credibility on the pentagon than a person who was actually there and gained nothing from it?
"Where is that tail part that she gained possession of anyway? Could you contact her and get a look at it?"
And this is why you pentagon no plane cultists are a waste of time to debate with. I also showed you this link as well which you also just proved you never bothered to look at since it shows where this piece is.....Smithsonian Institution
"Description: Penny Elgas built a patriotic box to preserve this piece of American Airlines Flight 77, the plane that crashed into the Pentagon."
http://americanhistory.si.edu/SEPTEMBER11/collection/search_record.asp?s...
jimd3100 on Tue, 10/27/2009 - 2:50pm.
Where can I listen to her Jim?
You said I should listen to her. Is she on audio or video?
P.S. your hostility is getting in the way of any discussion. please don't tell me what I will or won't do. you don't know me.
bbruhwiler8 on Tue, 10/27/2009 - 4:28pm.
Penny Elgas in her own words
From the "Supporting Materials" in the link in jimd3100's comment above. Keep in mind how fast the "plane" was alleged to be going.
Statement from Penny Elgas
Personal Experience At The Pentagon on September 11, 2001
By Penny Elgas
Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there. My first thought was "Oh My God, this must be World War III!"
In that split second, my brain flooded with adrenaline and I watched everything play out in ultra slow motion, I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes. And I remember thinking that it was just like planes in which I had flown many times but at that point it never occurred to me that this might be a plane with passengers.
In my adrenaline-filled state of mind, I was overcome by my visual senses. The day had started out beautiful and sunny and I had driven to work with my car's sunroof open. I believe that I may have also had one or more car windows open because the traffic wasn't moving anyway. At the second that I saw the plane, my visual senses took over completely and I did not hear or feel anything -- not the roar of the plane, or wind force, or impact sounds.
The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here that I closed my eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was awash in thick black smoke.
A Second Shock...
When I arrived home, I turned on every radio and TV in the house -- I'm not sure whether I was trying to drown out my thoughts or whether I was just hungry for news. I made a cup of tea to calm my nerves and called my husband to let him know that I was okay. I told him that there was a piece of the plane in my car, but for some reason, I couldn't deal with it just yet. I also called my son at college to reassure him that I was okay. Apparently, I made several cups of tea that I don't remember making because later that day I found four sopping teabags lined up on my kitchen counter. I believe now, that I was operating on "auto-pilot" and was probably in shock for much of that day. At some point I opted for quiet and turned off all the noise except the radio in my kitchen. Then I went to my car and faced that piece of the plane that was in the back seat. It appeared to be a piece of the tail. There was no metal on it and it was very lightweight -- all plastic and fiberglass. It was 22" long and 15" wide. I have no idea how it got into my car because I do not remember seeing any rubble flying around while I was at the crash site. I assume that it dropped in through the sunroof or flipped in through a window. The plane piece consisted of a layer of white paint, and layers of yellow and gray fiberglass as well as a thin brown corrugated material.
I gingerly picked up the piece and carried it into the house. As I entered the kitchen, I heard the radio announcer on WMAL state that it was an American Airlines flight and I thought to myself, "I knew that." But then the announcer said that is was Flight number 77 and he stated the number of passengers and crew and it hit me hard that the planes had been full of innocent victims. The radio announcer said that they were taking calls from people who had a personal experience to share. I dialed the station. I remember that I told them that I was "Penny from Springfield" and that I had a piece of the plane. The next thing I knew, I was on the air and Chris Core said "Penny from Springfield, What did you see?" I don't remember any of the rest of our conversation and coworkers who heard it said it was somewhat incoherent. The only thing that I remember is that at the end, Chris Core said, "How weird is that?" And I remember thinking that his comment didn't make me feel any better.
[emphases added]
BTW, that Smithsonian Collection site has other interesting artifacts, including... (descriptions are verbatim):
--Result 5 (31 total) [Ted Olson's] Department of Justice telephone
Description: Ted Olson, U.S. solicitor general, received two calls on this office telephone from his wife, Barbara Olson, as her hijacked airplane headed toward the Pentagon.
Context: Telephones affected the way people experienced September 11. Barbara Olson, a well-known political commentator, made two phone calls to her husband while onboard American Airlines Flight 77 after it was hijacked by terrorists. She learned of the other hijacked planes and discussed with her husband what to do. Despite the terror of the situation, she remained cool and focused; her husband could only console her and listen. At 9:38 am, all fifty-three passengers, six crew members, and five hijackers were killed when the plane crashed into the Pentagon. All over the world, telephones mattered to people that day, as families and coworkers connected with each other to verify their safety or express their love.
[FBI documents in the Moussaoui trial reveal that no phone call connections were completed between Ted and Barbara Olson.]
--Result 20 (31 total) Pentagon helipad clock
Description: This Skilcraft electric wall clock, which hung in the Pentagon helipad fire station, was knocked to the ground by the impact of American Airlines flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon.
Context: When terrorists flew American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon, the crash nearly took the nearby Pentagon helipad firehouse with it. The concussion caused the ceiling of the firehouse to collapse, temporarily trapping firefighter Dennis Young in the fallen debris. The blast also knocked this clock from the wall, freezing it at 9:32. The airplane actually struck the Pentagon at 9:38 am; apparently the clock was six minutes slow.
[No comment. Just think about why a clock at a Pentagon fire station would be allowed to be 6 minutes SLOW.]
USAPatriot on Tue, 10/27/2009 - 6:26pm.
Show "Has there been a discussion on this phone call already?" by bbruhwiler8
Has there been a discussion on this phone call already?
"Penny Elgas in her own words From the "Supporting Materials" in the link in jimd3100's comment above."
Yes Jim did provide link in his comment. I guess it's difficult for me to plod through a comment titled A WASTE OF TIME. Jim, if it is a waste of time, then please go somewhere else, and let those who want to waste our time with this actually have a mature discussion. Thanks.
I listened to her phone interview. Can you give me a link to where analyses and discussion of this recording has taken place already. I would hate to bring up 'old' issues.
Show "Maybe I was too subtle" by USAPatriot
Maybe I was too subtle
Bruno, I'm not aware of a discussion on the phone call. But she clearly contradicts parts of her written statement (e.g., she says she wasn't able to recognize it as an American Airlines plane), which is why I quoted it. No need to waste any more time on it.
Let me make it clear that I find her account unbelievable. I'm not accusing her of lying, and I don't doubt her sincerity. I just don't see how the physical evidence at the Pentagon, taken as a whole, squares with the impact of a 757.
So there must be another explanation. Yes, I can speculate: on everything from holograms, to pre-planted explosives (smell of cordite), to trailers full of airplane parts blown out on the lawn, to black smoke from dumpsters full of burning tires, to even a flyover -- or any combination of these.
I quit trying to figure out how it was staged long ago. But there's no doubt in my mind that it was staged. it's not my job to speculate how it was done. I have to rely on common sense, logic, eyewitness accounts, corroboration, etc. But I cannot believe a 757 struck the Pentagon. And I find the substance of CIT's work thorough, valuable and totally credible...even if I don't always agree with their style.
I like your style
USAP, I like your style.
bbruhwiler8 on Tue, 10/27/2009 - 11:11pm.
Where are ALL the alleged parts of the plane they found? Could someone gain access to them? To see them and analyze them?
Show "FWIW" by Chris Sarns
More witnesses said it was a 737 or a commuter jet than said it was a 757.
Terry Morin
Former USMC aviator
"It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities."
He later changed his story to 757. Any story changes are highly suspect.
The argument that a 757 does not fit the damage and that proves no plane hit the Pentagon is invalid.
Chris Sarns on Tue, 10/27/2009 - 5:42pm.
Terry Morin was interviewed by CIT and is presented in National Security Alert and you are incorrect by claiming that he "changed" his story to be a 757. He explained to CIT that he was not in a good position to tell the exact model because he was between the wings of the Navy Annex at the time and it flew "right over the top" of him corroborating Ed Paik and all the Arlington Cemetery employees who saw it approach from there headed straight for the north of the Citgo. Here is an animation of Morin's described POV:
Of course he couldn't tell with a view like that so using him to support the your theory that it was REALLY a 737 and not a 757 is not a valid argument.
Your claim that "More witnesses said it was a 737 or a commuter jet than said it was a 757" is patently false since most are simply not that specific at all. But the truth is only a very small amount of the witnesses say such a thing; however, a 737 is not a "commuter jet" so I have no idea why you would lump those two together anyway.
The fact is that most simply describe a large twin engine passenger jet and we'll never know if it was a modified 737, 757, or whatever. But what we DO know is that a plane on the north side of the gas station absolutely can not hit the light poles, generator trailer, or cause the directional damage to the building leading to the C-ring hole.
This is a non-controversial scientific fact that anyone who has published anything on this issue has agreed on including CIT's harshest critics - Hoffman, Legge, Caustic Logic, Arabesque, and John Farmer.
For the record here is CIT's short "Over The Navy Annex" featuring their account of north side witness Terry Morin.
Terry changed his story
Terry's original statement was: "Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5, I was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4 when I became aware of something unusual."
In the interview, Terry changes this to: "When the plane went right over the top of me I was within 10 feet of the edge of the Naval. . " Craig interrupts: "Then you were kinda between them, or were you on the outside of the edge? "Terry: "I was inside, it flew over the top of me. . . I then, . . . immediately ran to the outside. That's when I watched the airplane and I moved into a position where I could see it."
He was very clear in his original statement. He also changed his story about a 737 to fit the official story. Any change of story is highly suspect. A double change, with one change to fit the official story and the other to explain why he was "wrong" about it being a 737 is not credible IMO.
Chris Sarns on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 1:15am.
Investigation leads to discovery
I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just considering the possibilities objectively.
There's not as much difference as I thought. Someone would have to be familiar with both planes and know the differences. Even then, most people could not tell the difference in the short time they had. The 757-200 fuselage is 53 feet longer than the 737-600, and the engines are bigger. A 737-900 is only 17 feet shorter than a 757.
Wing span 124 ft 10 in
Length 155 ft 3 in
Tail height 44 ft 6 in (above ground)
Fuselage width 12 ft 4 in
Wing Span 112 ft 7 in
Overall Length 102 ft 6 in
Interior Cabin Width 11 ft 7 in
737-700 Length 110 ft 4 in
The wingspan is 12 feet narrower and the tail 3 feet lower. It occurred to me that the tail is swept back and it might have struck the wall between the windows, above where the fuselage hit, and broken off. [~30 ft to top of hole] If the top of the fuselage was 20 feet of the ground, the engines would be several feet off the ground.
Also note that what everyone has been calling a column might have been something hanging from the ceiling. It isn't there in the lower photo.
You are all over the place
You are all over the place with contradictory logic and statements while ignoring the most important, obvious, and relevant non-controversial scientific fact that has been unanimously agreed upon by all researchers, pilots, and anonymous entities (both CIT detractors and supporters) who have published anything on this issue at all: a plane on the north side of the gas station absolutely can not hit the light poles, generator trailer, or cause the directional damage to the building leading to the C-ring hole.
Despite this fact and despite the fact that you have agreed the north side approach evidence is valid, your reaction to this definitive information has been to characterize the notion of a flyover as lunacy, bonkers etc. This is exactly how OCT supporters react when realizing that CD is the only logical conclusion given the evidence of the WTC collapse. They might agree that the steel shouldn't have been quickly shipped to China, they might agree that FEMA and NIST were compromised and left unanswered questions... but they stop well short of "endorsing" CD, sometimes even calling it bonkers. Or they'll cop out with "I don't have the appropriate expertise," and "Scientists will be arguing over this for generations; screw it, it's not worth my time, etc." You are denying the implications because you don't like the result.
Just the other day in the thread about V6 of Legge's paper (http://www.911blogger.com/node/21688#comment-220413) you proclaimed: "I think Cheney did it with a 737 via the north path. That's my theory and barring new evidence, I'm stickin to it."
So, although you are required to dismiss the direct reports of a flyover presented with a hand wave, in order to assert it, you have proclaimed this as your theory that you were going to stick to BEFORE presenting any evidence for it or even looking up what a 737 looks like! Yet you have figured out a mere 2 days later simply from googling the image of a 737 that there is no basis for this claim. Don't you think it would be wise to do your google based investigation before proclaiming a theory that you are "stickin to" as an excuse to cast doubt on what all researchers who have published anything on this issue unanimously agree on? The plane can not cause any of the observed physical damage when approaching from the north side of the gas station.
Then you showed up in this thread touting Terry Morin as support for your clearly unsupported and unresearched 737 north side impact theory while making the false assertion that that there is a substantial portion of people who specifically called it a 737 even though Terry Morin was the only one you cited! Then you quickly went on to call even HIM not credible in this regard! You are not being coherent, consistent, or logical in your arguments. It seems as though you are just throwing anything out there to avoid the obvious truth......the plane can not cause any of the observed physical damage when approaching from the north side of the gas station.
So, now you have even resorted to completely changing the subject to the anomalous damage specifically regarding column 14AA by erroneously suggesting it wasn't a column at all and that it is not in the bottom image. It is in both images.
Notice how the fire repellent foam has been washed off the window as well as half the front of the facade above the hole in the bottom image. No doubt by the water hoses. Because of this it's logical to suggest it was washed off the column as well which you can see was coated with it in the upper image. The resolution of the image/level of zoom, the fact that the column is obscured by the water spray, as well as the fact that the bright white fire retardant foam was washed off simply make it difficult to see.
Listen Chris, open discovery of information is fine, absolutely; but you are behaving illogically stubbornly, BEFORE doing the research first. That indicates a desire to argue more than a desire to reach a logical consensus on the strongest evidence that exists.
Adam Syed on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 2:03pm.
The plane can not cause any of the observed physical damage when approaching from the north side of the gas station.
bbruhwiler8 on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 11:56pm.
It ain't necessairly so
This is just a rough approximation but it demonstrates how the plane could have gotten back on the pre-planned flight path. The north path in no way proves flyover.
Chris Sarns on Thu, 10/29/2009 - 10:52pm.
Clearly you are not a pilot
Clearly you are not a pilot and know nothing about how planes maneuver. IF that extremely tight S curve was possible for a fixed wing large craft at all it would have to be at EXTREMELY slow speeds.
And then once your alleged cargo full of explosives detonated on impact at bottom level it would have caused a massive crater on the ground.
You are desperately grasping at straws here. For whatever reason the definitive nature of this evidence clearly bothers you.,
Adam Syed on Thu, 10/29/2009 - 11:10pm.
Your witnesses said the plane was going slow
1/2 mile in 10 seconds is 180 mph.
Terry estimated 350-400mph.
We don't know how fast the plane was going or it's exact course so no determination can be made either way.
Chris Sarns on Fri, 10/30/2009 - 1:22am.
Show "plane going slow" by Adam Syed
plane going slow
Yes, which is what facilitated a flyover but proves your disintegrating plane bomb impossible. The plane can not slowly approach the building and then explode at bottom level while completely disintegrating and not cause a crater on the ground.
Furthermore if the plane was simply blown off course to the north side by a "breeze" as you suggest why would they have staged the light poles and generator trailer? How could they have even known they would need to? Nothing in your hypothesis makes sense or has a shred of evidence for it. You are in denial Chris.
A plane at ANY speed cannot perform the maneuvers in your wild extremely tight S curve flight path. You can't change physics just because you don't like CIT personally or the definitive implications of the evidence they have uncovered. There is no point in continuing this discussion as it's clear you have a psychological barrier regarding evidence that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon and you are "stickin to it".
I'll go with all other researchers on earth who have published anything on the subject and you stick to your magical disintegrating 737 plane bomb that doesn't cause a crater in the lawn or destroy any of the surrounding objects like the cable spools.
Adam Syed on Fri, 10/30/2009 - 2:04pm.
The spools survived 2 explosions
Neither one made a hole in the ground.
Chris Sarns on Fri, 10/30/2009 - 3:40pm.
All over the place
Yes, as I investigate one thing, I find other things of interest and share that information. This is about sharing info and ideas, not winning an argument. We are debating the pros and cons of the flyover hypothesis.
"a plane on the north side of the gas station absolutely can not hit the light poles"
Correct, I found photographic proof that the light poles were staged but it was rejected and ignored. If you are trying to prove the government is lying, why haven't you included it as part of the evidence?
"generator trailer, or cause the directional damage to the building leading to the C-ring hole."
Who said all that damage was caused by the plane?
You have not considered the possibility that a 737 loaded with explosives is consistent with all the data except the interior damage.
The hole in the C ring was not made by any part of an airplane IMO. If it was a landing gear it would have been lying in the breezeway and they would have photographed it. The engines would have been broken into many pieces upon contact so they did not make the hole. A couple people reported smelling cordite. Pre-planted explosives is the most likely explanation for the hole in the C ring and the interior damage. The light poles were staged to establish the flight path consistent with these explosives. The plane came out of the turn a little off the planed course or was moved off course by a breeze and corrected in the last few seconds the same way the plane that hit the south tower did. These planes were remotely controlled.
The assumption that the government is telling the truth about the hole in the C ring and the interior damage is a critical flaw in the flyover hypothesis.
I'll respond to the rest in another post.
Chris Sarns on Thu, 10/29/2009 - 1:45am.
your theory
So you believe in a north side approach, staging of the light poles, generator damage, AND damage to the building just as CIT asserts. In essence your theory agrees with CIT's in every way except you have dismissed the direct evidence for a flyover with a hand wave while relentlessly attacking the notion as "bonkers" and simply asserting with no evidence whatsoever that it was a 737 "loaded with explosives" causing it to completely disintegrate without leaving a crater in front of the bulding from all the bombs.
You said: You have not considered the possibility that a 737 loaded with explosives is consistent with all the data except the interior damage.
Consistent to WHAT data? Obviously not the physical evidence so please elaborate on what "data" you are talking about.
Your claim that a "breeze" could cause the plane to veer off course to the north side of the gas sation in a bank is amazing too proving you must also agree with CIT that the security video showing an extremely low, level, and fast object was manipulated.
Either way the physical damage is mostly relegated to the bottom level which means your 737 loaded with explosives would had to have left a large crater on the ground and would surely send pieces wings and the tail section flying out onto the lawn.
There is no evidence whatsoever to support your theory and much that contradicts it while there most certainly is direct evidence for a flyover that you have chosen to simply ignore. To assert such a thing while literally ridiculing a flyover is extremely illogical behavior.
And where does this come from?
"The assumption that the government is telling the truth about the hole in the C ring and the interior damage is a critical flaw in the flyover hypothesis."
I am quite certain that CIT has not assumed the govt is telling the truth about the C-ring hole! It seems you actually agree with CIT that was most likely caused by pre-planted explosives. The fact that the damage from the E-ring leading to the C-ring is directional is not "assumed" nor is it required to take the word of the govt to determine this. It is 100% established by the photographic evidence:
Adam Syed on Thu, 10/29/2009 - 5:10pm.
Hand wave
"you have dismissed the direct evidence for a flyover with a hand wave"
CIT hand waves their own witness.
Boger, Sean
"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"
Among the CIT witnesses there is 1 that says the plane hit the building and 1 who says he saw it fly away. There is one second hand account of the plane hitting the building and one who said it did not.
This is a push, NOT "direct evidence".
CIT misrepresented the second hand witness accounts by including the person who thought the plane kept going and left out the part where someone said the plane hit the building.
"The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn't even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building."
CIT hand waves all the witnesses who said they saw the plane hit the building including their own witness.
Chris Sarns on Thu, 10/29/2009 - 9:40pm.
Show "The deception was meant to fool people" by Adam Syed
The deception was meant to fool people
Chris, the deception was clearly meant to fool people into believing the plane hit. Do I really have to explain that to you? It's 100% clear that all of the north side witnesses were 100% deceived and did not know the implications of what they saw. It's clear that Erik Dihle was deceived as well, and wrote off the people who told him the jet kept on going to be anomalous or a part of the confusion. If the witnesses understood there was a deception, they would have been too afraid to talk to CIT in the first place, exactly like Roosevelt Roberts is now. Why do you think he is scared to talk, Chris? Think about that. This is why it's so hard to find "flyover witnesses". The confusion Erik Dihle was describing is EXACTLY why the deception worked so well. If Erik Dihle wrote the flyover witnesses off as anomalous it's a good sign that the same thing happened to other flyover witnesses as well. It also explains why these reports were not widespread in the media. The media was told a large plane hit the building within 4 minutes after the attack, so naturally they would report the people who corroborate this and write off the ones who said something else as anomalous. But if the plane hit there would be nobody who saw it fly away and there would be nobody who saw it on the north side of the gas station.
It is a non-controversial scientific fact agreed upon by all CIT supporters and detractors who have published anything on this issue that the plane can not cause any of the observed physical damage when approaching from the north side of the gas station.
You are not more researched or studied on the matter than any of these people, and you have absolutely nothing to support your claims. Stop denying the clear implications of this definitive evidence.
You ignored the point
You are hand waving your own witness and all the other witnesses who said they saw the plane fly into the building.
You have 1 witness who says the plane flew over the Pentagon.
You have 1 witness who says the plane hit the Pentagon.
You have 1 second hand witness who says the plane flew over the Pentagon.
You have 1 second hand witness who says the plane hit the Pentagon.
How can you claim this is proof of anything?
Show "That is not the case at" by Adam Syed
That is not the case at
That is not the case at all.
There are over 12 witnesses who corroborate a north side approach proving a flyover.
There are reports of a jet flying away corroborating the north side approach witnesses.
Why is it so hard for you to understand, and what makes you think you know more than all of these people who have clearly spent more time researching the matter?
Edit: Think about the issue of perception and memory. Given the corroborating evidence for the north side, it would be logical that the flyover witnesses are correct. The person who initially said the jet kept on going was correct. This person was "corrected" by someone who obviously needed to reconcile what was going on with the events in NYC.
If a plane really crashed into the building, NO ONE AT ALL would have remembered a plane flying away.
Adam Syed on Sat, 10/31/2009 - 6:29pm.
"I am quite certain that CIT has not assumed the govt is telling the truth about the C-ring hole! It seems you actually agree with CIT that was most likely caused by pre-planted explosives. The fact that the damage from the E-ring leading to the C-ring is directional is not "assumed" nor is it required to take the word of the govt to determine this."
". . . a plane on the north side of the gas station absolutely can not hit the light poles, generator trailer, or cause the directional damage to the building leading to the C-ring hole."
You said that a plane on the north path could not cause the directional damage and the hole in the C-ring. Now you are saying CIT believes that damage was caused by pre-planted explosives. You can't have it both ways.
"A plane on the north side of the gas station absolutely can not cause the directional damage to the building leading to the C-ring hole."
This is NOT valid argument for flyover.
"A plane on the north side
"A plane on the north side of the gas station absolutely can not cause the directional damage to the building leading to the C-ring hole." - This is NOT valid argument for flyover.
Of course it is as agreed by Hoffman, Legge, Arabesque, Caustic Logic, Pilots for 9/11 Truth and everyone on earth who has ever published ANYTHING on this issue at all.
You ignored the point again
You are using "A plane on the north side of the gas station absolutely can not cause the directional damage to the building leading to the C-ring hole."
Your theory requires that the interior damage was caused by explosives.
Therefore: You cannot use the interior damage as proof that the plane did not hit the building. That damage was the result of explosives in both theories.
Chris Sarns on Fri, 10/30/2009 - 12:09am.
Show "The fact that the interior" by Adam Syed
The fact that the interior
The fact that the interior damage can not have been caused by a plane on the north side approach and was therefore most likely caused by explosives certainly is proof that the plane did not hit.
This is getting silly Chris. I'd say you are using circular logic but you really aren't using any logic at all.
Whatever the reason it's clear that you have a psychological barrier against accepting evidence that proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon.
The interior damage and the hole in the C ring
prove nothing except explosives were used.
This does not in any way disprove a plane hit the building.
You incessant personal attacks and insults tell us who you are.
Attack the argument, not the arguer.
Show "I have not personally attacked or insulted you, Chris" by Adam Syed
I have not personally attacked or insulted you, Chris
When I speak of "not using logic," or when I speak of psychological barriers, or whatever, I am making a level headed judgement. Maybe I am wrong about your psychological barriers, but as of now it is my assessment.
I am sorry if my attempt to cut to the chase and be firm has been misinterpreted as being mean-spirited.
I have indeed insulted and attacked people on the internet over the past 10 years. When we were having dinner with Gage in DC I even alluded to such an occasion, and then promptly spilled my beer, remember? but certainly not you, and not in this thread.
Your opinion of me is irrelevant
You have been very condescending and insulting. I do not care what you think of me so just keep it to yourself. Please keep your comments to the evidence.
There is NO evidence of flyover!
CIT's own witnesses are evenly split, two for flyover, two for the plane hitting the Pentagon. Net zero.
We agree that the he interior damage was caused by explosives. The plane did not make THAT damage.
This in no way disproves the plane hitting the Pentagon.
You are not qualified to say a 737 could not make the course adjustment I proposed. You don't know the speed or exact flight path so stop making the claim that it could not happen.
When CIT's "evidence" is analyzed, there is only supposition. The witness statements, taken as a whole, favor a plane hitting the Pentagon. To claim otherwise is fruit loops.
Show "Good, we agree" by Adam Syed
Good, we agree
that there were explosives in the Pentagon, that the light poles were staged, and that the north path is true. Let's leave it there.
Are you reading this, Pentagon OCT supporters? Even Chris, who has a profound disdain for CIT on a purely personal level, agrees that explosives went off in the Pentagon in addition to the light poles being staged.
It's the logical conclusion of anyone who studies the eyewitnesses and photographs in detail.
Chris, I apologize if you feel I've been insulting. I do suffer from the "wanting to win" syndrome in debate, and sometimes need to step away from the computer and get some fresh air (as I've been doing the last 15+ hours). But please understand that when I debate someone, I am blunt and to the point, and am not afraid to call BS when I feel I see it. But it is not my intent to cause permanent division or rancor over one facet of 9/11 truth when we are united in a common cause of trying to get the word out to the masses.
No worries mate
Just leave the personal comments out and debate the issue. One person's "logical conclusion" is another person's "that's BS". ;-)
"Chris, who has a profound disdain for CIT on a purely personal level"
Now you are accusing me of bias because of my personal feelings. That is another insult. Kindly STFU about your opinion of me. >:-{
My disdain is professional as well as personal. CIT lied about there being no south side witnesses, misrepresented the facts about the ANC witnesses and made it virtually impossible for anyone else to do further interviews with their slander of people who disagree with him. The CIT "enemies list" is repugnant, divisive and extremely harmful to the Truth Movement. This is my opinion so please do not argue. It's off topic and I will not respond.
This part we can debate:
CIT has NO evidence to support flyover. The witness statements overwhelmingly support the plane hitting the Pentagon.
None of CIT's so called evidence that the plane did not hit is valid.
Chris Sarns on Sun, 11/01/2009 - 1:17am.
Show "CIT has not lied about there being no south side witnesses" by Adam Syed
CIT has not lied about there being no south side witnesses
This is a pure falsehood on your part. No one who was in an appropriate vantage point to see the gas station as in relation to the plane drew the plane on the south path. Only one individual drew the south path and that was Keith Wheelhouse, who was not only NOT in a position to be qualified to say whether the plane was north or south, but he described a second plane immediately shadowing the "impact" plane which veered off at the last second before impact. His entire story is extremely suspect and likely he is a plant for a "second plane cover story." He could not even see the gas station yet he either by chance or by design drew the official flight path of the "impact" plane right down to a tee.
Fr. McGraw also was not in a position to see the gas station, as neither was Madeline Zakhem; these have been discusssed by me at length in previous threads including 360 degree animated gifs showing exact location and hence vantage point.
NO ONE other than the dubious Keith Wheelhouse, interviewed first hand, drew a south path when presented with a marker and the aerial view.
We are also talking about confirmed eyewitnesses via first hand interview. Printed eyewitness in USA Today etc. don't count.
I'm sorry, but their claim that there are no south side witnesses still stands.
Adam Syed on Sun, 11/01/2009 - 1:11pm.
Show "Actually, I forgot. We know" by Adam Syed
Actually, I forgot. We know
Actually, I forgot. We know that it is NOT possible for a fixed wing aircraft as stated by someone qualified to know:
"A conventional fixed wing aircraft, 757 or otherwise, cannot maneuver from north of the former Citgo gas station to cause the physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, or the Pentagon without structural failure of the airframe itself. The maneuver would require G forces exceeding aircraft capabilities and that of the human body. Physics and math do not lie. If you accept the placement of the plane as independently and unanimously reported by the witnesses presented in CIT's video National Security Alert, science proves that it did not cause the physical damage at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001."
-Statement from Robert Balsamo, an FAA certified pilot and certified flight instructor with 4000+ hours total flight time
Adam Syed on Fri, 10/30/2009 - 12:17am.
Rob's calculations include hitting the light poles
That would be impossible. The path I sketched does not try to hit the light poles. We agree that they were staged. It need not even get back to the original approach angle because the interior damage was caused pre-planted explosives. We agree on that point as well. It only needs to hit the Pentagon in the same place.
Chris Sarns on Sat, 10/31/2009 - 8:18am.
I've never seen it from this angle
Great photo and red line showing the trajectory of the outer hole and the inner hole. Looking at the Pentagon from this angle reveals the absurdity that both holes were caused by a plane. Look at all the reinforced concrete that the fuselage of a plane would have had to cleanly penetrate, and yet the fuselage vanished. Preposterous.
bbruhwiler8 on Fri, 10/30/2009 - 2:45pm.
No eyewitness proof
"There are over 12 witnesses who corroborate a north side approach."
We agree on that.
"There are reports of a jet flying away corroborating the north side approach witnesses."
Your own witnesses disagree. Two say the plane flew over the Pentagon, two say it hit the Pentagon. Net zero witnesses for flyover vs. many witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
How can you say you have eyewitness statements that support, much less prove, flyover?
In all fairness
You just said he had two who supported flyover!
"Two say the plane flew over the Pentagon, two say it hit the Pentagon. Net zero witnesses for flyover vs. many witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon"
And here you are saying there are two witnesses who saw the plane hit, but then you say there are 'many' who saw it hit?
I think I agree that this is not proof of a flyover. But I'd feel a little uncomfortable saying witness statements proved anything to be honest.
The witnesses disagree, the FDR data is wrong, the impact video frames are ambiguous, a military plane was circling above, the damage is suspicious, the plane should never have hit, it's the friggin' Pentagon, and Cheney was in control after supervising the destruction of the towers. Oh yeah, the towers..
influence device on Fri, 10/30/2009 - 7:13pm.
I was referring to CIT's witnesses
CIT claims to have proof that the plane flew over the Pentagon. They have one witness who supports flyover, one second hand account of the plane flying over and one second hand account of the plane hitting the Pentagon.
They effectively call their own witness, Sean Boger, a liar. He was in the Pentagon heliport control tower and he said said he saw the plane hit. What CIT lacks in evidence and integrity they make up for in bravado and chutzpah.
Joël v.d. Reijden created the following summary of the frequencies of specific observations in the eyewitness reports described in the compilations by Eric Bart and SomeGuyYouDontKnow33.
"The amount of eye witnesses I gathered who stated they saw an object crash into the Pentagon. The vast majority of the still available ones. - 89"
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html
CIT is asking us
to accept the statements of 13 witnesses, who say the plane flew over the Naval Annex, as fact, while at the same time asking us to ignore the statements of 80 plus witnesses who saw the plane hit the building in favor of one witness who said he saw it fly away and a disputed second hand account.
Just the fact they got anybody to buy that one is a testament to their salesmanship. Perhaps it's because they lied about there being any witnesses who said the plane flew south of the Naval Annex and just didn't mention the 80 plus witnesses who saw it hit the building.
Their claim that a plane on the north path could not hit the Pentagon is simply wrong.
It's just a lot of double talk. A plane on the north path need not cause all the damage as Adam insists, it need only be able to hit the building. Explosives in the construction trailers next to the building or in the airplane could account for the other surrounding damage and total disintegration of the airplane.
I'm not saying there is proof the airplane hit the building, quite the opposite. The proof is in the videos. Until we see them, we are guessing.
Anyone who claims to have proof flyover is talking thru their hat.
No impartial person will buy it.
Chris Sarns on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 7:15am.
Incompetence or disinformation?
Three of CIT's witnesses confirm the plane did NOT fly over the Pentagon.
At 22:55 of "Security Alert". Craig says "So it flew up to go over that" [the Do Not Enter sign]
Robert Turcios "Yes"
Robert then said "The view [unintelligible] My view was . . . I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon."
Craig says "You didn't actually see it hit the Pentagon".
The subtitles on the screen leave out Robert's reply "The view was obstructed still" and skip to "I could only see the fire ball from the explosion."
At 24:20 of "Security Alert", Craig says "This is exactly where you saw the plane fly by, right?"
Robert "Yes"
The Pentagon is in the background and all but the bottom floor is clearly visible.
Robert said he did not see the plane hit the Pentagon because his view was obstructed. Only the first floor was hidden from his view. In other words, the plane hit the first floor.
Starting at 26:20 of "Security Alert": Interview with Officer Chadwick Brooks
The pentagon is clearly visible in the background. The view of the bottom floor is obstructed.
Officer Brooks:
"From this point right here we were able to see everything."
How could he miss seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon?
To borrow a quote from Craig:
"A ridiculous and virtually impossible mistake for anyone to make, let alone a federal officer who is professionally trained to observe and report."
Sean Boger was in the Heliport control tower. He said the plane hit the Pentagon. CIT believes every part of his story except the part that disproves their flyover theory.
CIT is incompetent at best and deceitful at worst.
Chris Sarns on Sun, 11/01/2009 - 11:14pm.
Some people just can't admit they have been conned. I don't have that problem. Craig conned me into thinking there were no south side witnesses even though he didn't actually say that [in the first 1/2 hour - I'll review the rest later]. The following is a masterful piece of sophistry that fooled me and a lot of other people. The argument that there were no credible south path witnesses is BS. They may not be credible but that's a matter of opinion. Craig never mentioned any south side witnesses and clearly gave the impression there were none.
From the video National Security Alert
"In the final seconds before the alleged impact, a plane on the officially required flight path would have flown south of Columbia pike, south of the Navy Annex and south of the of the former Citgo gas station at all times.
As it turned out, the eyewitnesses reported the complete opposite."
This is sophisticated sophistry. Plant the seed "the eyewitnesses reported the complete opposite" without any qualification and repeat many times with minor with qualifications but never mention the existence of the south path witnesses. The viewer is misled into thinking there were no south side witnesses. Most people don't take the time to check out the details, they trust the presenter is telling them the truth. In this case, that was a mistake.
"Thirteen eyewitnesses from the five most critical vantage points unanimously confirmed the plane crossed to the north side of Columbia Pike, flew directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station."
"The reason the exact location of the downed light poles and taxi cab is so important is because it establishes the required location and trajectory of the plane down to the foot."
He continues to talk about the poles on the bridge for a full minute, then a subtle location shift before saying "all the known witnesses".
"In this image from 9/11, both poles are downed. These 2 poles on the bridge in particular are the most important of the five because they were the furthest south, making it physically impossible for them to be downed by any type of aircraft at all approaching from the north side of the gas station as reported by all the known witnesses in this critical area."
This clever use of words left me thinking the "critical area" meant the bridge. This is not by chance. This is professional sophistry.
"There is no room for error in the official flight path at all. So these critical details should have been easily confirmed by the witnesses. But as you are about to see for yourself. they independently and unanimously reported the opposite."
"Robert's general placement of the plane on the north side has been proven to be factually accurate with corroboration from all other known witnesses at the station that day."
"It should be noted that there is not a single witness on the station's property, or anywhere in the near vicinity, who contradicts them."
All this repetition is meant to mislead the viewer into believing there were no south side witnesses.
The interview of Robert Tercios tells it all. A real investigator would have revealed the truth. Criag hid the truth and only reported what he wanted us to hear.
Craig made a big deal of "It flew up a little bit" because this seemed to support his pre-conceived flyover theory. A real investigator would ask "What happened next?" Craig did not. When Robert said "My view was . . . I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon." Craig jumped to "You didn't actually see it hit the Pentagon". The truth is, Robert saw the plane descend until it went mostly out of his sight as it hit the first floor. Note that he said "I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon.". Robert had a clear view of everything above the first floor and would have seen the plane fly over if it had done so. It did not. The same is true for Chadwick Brooks. Craig focused on the flight path and avoided asking either witness about the last few seconds before impact.
We are up against people who can't admit their beliefs are wrong yet many in the Truth Movement suffer this same disability. To be a real investigator you must have absolute respect for the facts no matter how disturbing. If careful, objective examination of the facts shows that everything you believe is wrong then simply accept the new reality and you will no longer be wrong.
Craig's own witnesses confirm the plane did not fly over the Pentagon. Robert and Chadwick had a clear view and they would have said so if it had.
It's time to throw "flyover" in the trash with mini-nukes, particle beam weapons and no planes hit the towers.
Chris Sarns on Mon, 11/02/2009 - 12:09pm.
Show "Chris," by Adam Syed
Save your diatribe for my next blog entry on the subject.
Craig Ranke has never claimed that "there are no credible south side witnesses." That was my word. And frankly, it's actually a weak qualifier.
First of all, any confirmed eyewitness has to be confirmed first hand. Unconfirmed printed eyewitness statements do not count.
There are ZERO confirmed first hand eyewitnesses who were in an appropriate vantage point to see the plane's position relative to the gas station who place the plane south of the station. Zero. Nada. Zilch. End of story.
Chris I've never ever ever in my life seen someone try to play both sides of the fence as you have done in this thread. Your attempt to reconcile a real impact with staged damage path is so nonsensical that I feel I'm banging my head against a brick wall by even talking to you.
I don't know what you're trying to prove, or who you're trying to appease, but you are the one with the chutzpah to think you're so incredibly smarter than Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, Ed Asner, Peter Dale Scott, Aidan Monaghan, Sander Hicks, and all the rest of the people who endorsed National Security Alert. Apparently those evil geniuses, Craig and Aldo, conned all those people and they can't see that they've been conned, yet you can see right through it all. Riiiight.
It is unfortunate that YOU are stooping so low as to call CIT professional con artists. If they were still members of this site, you'd be breaking the site's rules. "Calling another member of 911blogger a liar or disinformation agent won't be tolerated." But I guess it's OK to call 9/11 truth activists professional con artists just so long as they're not members of this site?
It is unfortunate and telling that you were unable to make your own points without resorting to name calling against CIT, and using terms like "trash" and "fruit loops" to describe their conclusions.
Once again, shame on you Chris. Shame on you.
Dear Adam
Diatribe this.
Address the fact that Robert and Chadwick would have seen the plane fly over.
They did not because it did not.
Can you dispute this?
Chris Sarns on Mon, 11/02/2009 - 1:37pm.
Show "Quite clearly your 9/11" by Adam Syed
Quite clearly your 9/11
Quite clearly your 9/11 truth, 20/20 hindsight makes you see things a bit too clearly.
It's quite simple. Not only did Chadwick and Robert not have a "conspiracy theorist" mindset at the time, but they were already conditioned by the news in NYC to understand that planes were flying into buildings.
If I had been on the scene and saw the plane flying away, I would perhaps be confused, or I would later convince myself that I did not really see what I thought I did. I certainly would not be like "Ah hah! THAT's the plane that the government is going to fool everyone into believing HIT the Pentagon!"
In the chance that a person would see the plane flying away and notice the anomalic nature of the event, their testimony would be dismissed or buried under the avalanche of corporate propaganda claiming a plane hit.
Plus, once they understand the implications of what they saw, they would not want to talk anymore. This is now the case with Roosevelt. He saw the plane flying away and originally convinced himself that it was a secondplane.
9/11 was one giant psyop where people were fooled into believing things, including fire induced structural collapse in NYC, and a large airliner hitting the Pentagon.
Listen Chris, I've been all over the internet and the real world, and many people, both on blogs and in real life, have said that the top two anomalies about 9/11 that made them begin to question it, was the way the buildings collapsed, coupled with the lack of airliner debris at the Pentagon.
Your attempt to defend the frankly laughable idea that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon has gotten ridiculous and is going nowhere.
So you think Rob and Chad are not telling the truth?
That's one way out.
As for the laughable idea that a plane hit the Pentagon.
Now you are calling 80 plus witnesses liars.
Maybe you are right. Everyone is lying. Robert and Chadwick are afraid to tell the truth about the plane flying over the Pentagon.
We should believe Roosevelt and no one else. <;-) GMaFB!
They're not lying, Chris.
We're going round in circles. They were DECEIVED.
As 9/11 truthers, we are well researched and understand that the official path is low and level. However, when 9/11 happened, I first assumed the plane dive-bombed down into the building.
The eyewitnesses did not know what the government was going to claim was the official flight path, nor what part of the building the plane is supposed to crash into.
They could have seen the plane fly over the roof of the Pentagon and disappear from view, followed by the huge explosion. They would reconcile what they saw with what the media tells them to think. They would assume that the plane crashed the split second after going over the roof line of the building. One eyewitness (I can't remember which) even remembered the plane going over the building and then crashing on the other side. This witness provides an ambiguous account because her mind (I believe it was a woman) was reconciling the official story (crash) with what she saw: the plane passing over the roof line of the building.
If you had been a witness to a flyover, given the mass nationalism and Bush support for the first few years after the event, would you go to the authorities or media and claim that the plane kept going after the explosion? Probably not, because you would somehow try to reconcile what you saw with the official story, as Roosevelt Roberts did when he declared that he believed the flyaway plane was a second plane. Second, even if you did suspect a MIHOP level deception, do you think the media and authorities would take you seriously? How often has the media taken the movement seriously? Even if they didn't ridicule you, don't you think they would dismiss your account as an anomaly?
This is also why the perps did indeed think of the possibility of flyover witnesses and how to spin and dismiss them. To+this+end,+they+created+the+second+plane+cover+story+with+Keith+Wheelhouse+as+the+conduit+to+pitch+this+scenario.
Plus, the existence of "80+ witnesses" have not even been confirmed. As I said elsewhere: Ambiguous, non-definitive, 2nd-hand media quotes (hearsay) can not honestly be used to refute firsthand accounts filmed on location (direct evidence).
Adam Syed on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 12:21am.
A perfect analogy
Chris:
Do you remember the revised version ("recut") of Loose Change, 2nd Edition?
Do you remember how at the beginning, there was a disclaimer that they were legally forced to put in, about how the firefighters (who reported explosions and talked about how the building collapsed as if it had been detonated) and Naudet Brothers did not endorse or support the views expressed in Loose Change? For those reading this who've forgotten, here it is; just hit play since it's right at the beginning.
So, those firefighters reported the symptoms of a controlled demolition. However, they refused to support the conclusion of controlled demolition openly, and even forced Dylan and crew to make this clear.
So, by your logic, the WTC did not collapse due to controlled demolition because those very same witnesses who reported the characteristics of demolition don't agree with the conclusion.
"Those very people that the conspiracy theorists quote to support the fruit loops notion that the buildings were blown up, themselves don't support the demolition theory!"
Your logic regarding flyover witnesses is flawed for the same reasons that it is illogical to think that the entire global structural engineering community, along with the entire FDNY, didn't all unanimously and vocally cry foul right on 9/11 itself.
I don't know how to possibly make this concept more clear for you.
Fear and propaganda have a staggering effect on the human psyche.
Roosevelt Roberts did not realize the implications of his testimony in November 2001 when he was interviewed by the Center for Military History. Now that he does understand the implications, FEAR has taken him over and he's no longer talking.
Finally it should be noted that not one single witness interviewed by CIT has gone on the record to claim that CIT has twisted or misrepresented their testimony. Indeed they all stand by their testimony. For example: the day that William Lagasse was interviewed, he went home afterwards and Googled Craig Ranke's name. He was not happy to see that Craig was a signatory of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth." But he has never retracted his testimony or claimed that it was spun out of context.
Adam Syed on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 2:24am.
Show "Turcios" by Adam Syed
Turcios
Your criticism of the Turcios interview is baseless and does not take into account the full interview from The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version. You are referencing the edited version from National Security Alert.
The narration of National Security Alert plainly states:
"The following interviews have been edited for conciseness. The complete interviews are available to view for free at CitizenInvestgationTeam.com."
All statements you quoted from the narration of National Security Alert are 100% factual.
Here is the relevant point that you can not refute:
There are no firsthand eyewitness accounts from people who were in a position to see the gas station who place the plane on the south side.
Objective scientists require evidence of greater strength to refute evidence. That would require 14 or more definitive firsthand south side witnesses from people with vantage points as good as or better than the 13 presented by CIT. To accept anything less exposes a confirmation bias against this evidence.
Ambiguous, non-definitive, 2nd-hand media quotes (hearsay) can not honestly be used to refute firsthand accounts filmed on location (direct evidence). Wheelhouse is the ONLY firsthand "south side" account you can possibly cite yet he admittedly had no vantage of the Citgo and also admitted to having no memory of it whatsoever (he does not live and work in the area as ALL north side witnesses do). Sorry but even if Wheelhouse wasn't discredited with his proven false "shadowing" C-130 claim his account is not even CLOSE to enough to refute the ANC witnesses and all the gas station witnesses who the PERFECT vantage to tell north or south of the citgo.
He can not fairly count as a south of the gas station side witness because you can't be a witness to something you can not see.
Adam Syed on Mon, 11/02/2009 - 11:04pm.
Doubletalk
The south side witnesses don't count because they were on the south side. Can't argue with logic like that. ;-)
Craig said the witnesses were unanimous. That was a lie. He did not qualify his statements with "credible" or "in the right position".
You say second hand witnesses don't count but you claimed to have witnesses for flyover. Excluding the second hand account of someone overhearing someone in the ANC, you only have one witness and no corroboration vs over 80 witnesses who say they saw the plane hit the building. Claiming your one witness is proof of flyover is fruit loops.
You cannot dispute the fact that Robert and Chadwick had a clear view of the Pentagon and saw where the plane went. It did not fly over the Pentagon or they would have said so. Craig carefully avoided asking them about the final approach because he knew they would say the plane was descending and hit the Pentagon below their field of view. Sgt. Lagasse and Tom Morin were also in a position to see if the plane flew over the Pentagon. He did not mention flyover to them or ask them about it. A real investigator would get all the information, not just that which fit his pre-conceived hypothesis of flyover. A real investigator would ask all the witnesses if they saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.
Sean Boger was in the best position to see what happened and he said the plane hit the building, but you say he is lying about that. You indicated that Robert and Chadwick were also lying. You have to call your own witnesses liars to make your baseless hypothesis possible.
Chris Sarns on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 12:37am.
Sigh...
You've gone a full 360 degrees multiple times in this thread, Chris.
NEVER has anyone called Boger a liar.
They do not claim that the eyewitnesses are lying, Chris.
They claim the eyewitnesses, Boger included, were deceived EXACTLY as the firefighters in Loose Change were regarding the detonations at the WTC.
Next you are completely wrong that CIT went into this whole project with a preconceived notion of flyover (as professional con artists, no less). They didn't ask their eyewitnesses if the plane flew over because they only came to the flyover conclusion AFTER having talked with a sufficient number of witnesses (their original 4 from Pentacon) whose testimony wildly differed from the official path. They simply asked their eyewitnesses to describe everything as they remembered, and were careful to not lead the witnesses.
For the record, there are two supposed eyewitnesses that CIT does openly speculate are likely plants (i.e. liars, either voluntarily or forced to do so against their will), disseminating false info in order to (1) sell and (2) cover for the official story. These two people are Lloyde England, used to sell the damage path and impact to the major media, and Keith Wheelhouse, whose testimony of a C-130 shadowing the jetliner immediately behind it and then veering off at the last second as the plane crashed, is likely a "second plane cover story" to spin any potential flyover witnesses who might come forward. (And indeed, on the blogs that "debunk" CIT, they are indeed claiming that Roosevelt Roberts saw the C-130 and not a "commercial aircraft" as Roberts said.) Not one single other confirmed first hand eyewitness interviewed on location corroborates such an occurrence. When a person watches the Wheelhouse interview, it is clear his testimony can not be believed on many levels.
Finally, before you take the high moralistic ground and claim that it is in poor form or bad taste to openly call a seemingly nice, innocent man like Lloyde England a liar or plant, let me remind you of our friend Mr. Richard Gage. I've seen his lecture in two cities, one in Cincinnati, one in Washington DC. In both lectures, he openly speculated that the infamous "Harley Guy" on the streets of NYC is a plant to sell the official collapse story, because he seemed so sure of it (like an actor) so early in the day when everyone else was in shock, and even the MSM was still speculating about "secondary devices." For anyone reading who has forgotten or never seen it, here is the testimony in question:
Richard does not use the exact words "I think this guy's a plant" but he does rhetorically ask "Who is this guy? And how is he so sure about the building's collapse so early on?" It is of course quite clear that Gage thinks Harley is a plant. A planted eyewitness is indeed a particular brand of liar.
My point is not that it is in bad form for Gage to openly engage in this speculation. Openly speculating that someone is a plant to get the official collapse explanation disseminated into the media and millions of homes right at the get go, is not such a bad thing if there's good hard reason to believe it --- which ironically I don't think is the case with the Harley Guy -- I think he was just fooled by the psyop like everyone else.
My point is that some of CIT's most vocal detractors have used the fact that Craig and Aldo think England is a plant as a reason to dissuade people away from looking into CIT's work, remarking on how nasty and unprofessional it is to call that nice old man a plant, followed by "move along - nothing to see here." A hard core OCT defender could just as similarly use Gage's opinion of the Harley Guy to declare: "This Mr. Gage believes eyewitnesses who contradict his views must be plants. Standard form for the typical conspiracy theorist. One must hence wonder about the scientific integrity of Mr. Gage's work." Of course, you and I both realize how ridiculous this logic is when applied to Gage, but in the blogosphere it seems to be fair game for people to attempt to discredit Craig and Aldo when they engage in similar speculation.
But anyway, it's worth reiterating one more time: They claim the north side eyewitnesses, Boger included, were deceived EXACTLY as the firefighters in Loose Change were regarding the detonations at the WTC. They do not call ANY of the people, who think they saw the plane hit, liars.
Verbiage is a con
"They do not claim that the eyewitnesses are lying, Chris. They claim the eyewitnesses, Boger included, were deceived"
Deceived? Get serious. How could Sean be "deceived" about a plane hitting the Pentagon less than 100 feet of front of him?
For that matter, how do you "deceive" 80 people into thinking a plane hit the Pentagon?
You will say anything no matter how bizarre. ROFLMAO
BTW: You were talking about impossible tight turns. This is what your one and only first hand witness described:
Show ""Deceived? Get serious."" by Adam Syed
"Deceived? Get serious."
How could Sean be "deceived" about a plane hitting the Pentagon less than 100 feet of front of him?
Just as easily as the WTC firefighters who disagree with the truth movement's claims were deceived into believing in a "structural collapse."
Adam Syed on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 12:58pm.
Why are you fabricating a flight path for Roosevelt and what is your contention regarding his account? Are you accusing him of completely fabricating his account? If not what are you suggesting he saw and if so what is his motive for lying about this?
Furthermore why are you quoting partial snippets of the interview out of context and at random for no reason?
Yes we know that the impromptu call was not very clear regarding the flight path and CIT is clearly very disappointed that Roosevelt agreed to an on-camera interview but backed out after getting scared. But think about it.....when using a landmark he said the plane banked around to "the mall entrance side" which is the NORTH side, not southwest.
So what's a more logical conclusion -- that Roosevelt was a bit confused when relaying cardinal directions over the phone or that he completely fabricated seeing this plane at all to the Library of Congress in 2001 and to CIT in 2008?
Adam Syed on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 1:53am.
The flight path is based on CIT's witnesses. I drew the flightpath as the north path witnesses described the approach and Roosevelt described it flying away. If you can show where I'm taking something out of context then post it.
Aldo: -which direction it was heading?
Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest. . . coming out.
Aldo: So like banking around; turning back around?
Roosevelt: Correct.
Aldo: Okay.
Roosevelt: Banking- banking around, coming back out, turning southwest . . .
Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around
He saw the plane as it flew away to the south-west. He is only guessing which direction it came from. Here is what he thought the flight path was:
I may have spoken too fast
I may have spoken too fast this once, Chris. ;-) I listened to the entire interview once again and his "mall entrance" comment does seem to be superseded by the "southwest," "back over 27" and "u-turn" comments. I have no idea what CIT''s or Pilotsfor911Truth's take is on the alleged Roosevelt Roberts flight path and am not qualified to comment on it before contacting the people with the expertise, i.e. Rob Balsamo of PFT.
My primary question still stands though: Do you believe Roberts is fabricating an account of seeing a "commercial aircraft" flying away from the Pentagon "ten seconds tops" after the explosion? What would be his motive for doing this in late 2001? Do you think he's a plant in order to sow discord and confusion in the up-and-coming 9/11 truth movement?
Or could the simpler explanation be correct? That he really did see a large aircraft flying away but didn't realize the implications, and honestly reported what he saw. Maybe those "impossible" plane maneuvers you speak of with Roberts' account weren't so impossible after all.
You posted a relatively compact aerial view, but go to google earth and zoom in. It doesn't look to me like such a wildly impossible maneuver.
Only once? I've done that a few times ;-)
It's easier to put the disjointed pieces together by reading the transcript [below]
Russia makes a fighter that could make that turn but you don't have to be an expert to figure out that a 737 or 757 can't. This is not rocket surgery. ;-)
It is not necessary to question Roosevelt's character. You've been hanging out with the wrong crowd. Taking his statement at face value, it does not support the flyover theory which is my only concern. I don't care if he saw a flying pig, it leaves CIT with zip, nada, no frikkin witnesses. ;-)
Did I mention I don't like those guys?
Flyover is kaput!
Roosevelt's character
Ok, good. So you agree it is not necessary to question Roosevelt's character. I agree. He would have no motive to fabricate a story of a commercial aircraft at about 50 feet above light poles just after the explosion. So then the question is: was he hallucinating? He was not only specific about the size of the plane but also the fact that it had jet engines. He most certainly did not see the C-130 as that plane did not appear in the area until 3 minutes later and it was 1000 feet in the air, not 50 feet just above light poles. Personally, I rule out hallucinating also. Not fabricating, not hallucinating. So in other words we have no reason to disbelieve the general thrust of what he's saying about seeing a plane flying away from the building. I myself would have thought the plane might have gone to land at Reagan National, but that doesn't quite seem to fit with Roberts' account; however we have no where of knowing where this plane went.
The question is "Could it make that turn?"
There is also the little problem with the plane flying over Highway 395 at less than 100 feet and no one noticing.
Nearly all the CIT witnesses would have seen and heard it.
Question for the anti CIT group
You all devote so much energy to disputing/disproving the "flyover theory." Are you aware that this is only half of the theory? The other half, of course, is that pre-planted explosives in the building went off. Why have the CIT detractors not spent so much energy trying to cast doubt on this part of the theory? Have you ever watched this interview with Pentagon survivor April Gallop? CIT interviewed her a few years ago and it is the longest interview of Gallop in the public domain.
I'm aware
that flyover is the half baked part of the theory.
April Gallop is credible, Roosevelt's story is not and there are 80 witnesses that counter his story, unless you think there were two planes as he did.
"80 witnesses"
You're intellectually dishonest by your tired refrain about "80 witnesses."
I am quite disappointed in your intellectual rigor if you even THINK that printed quotes, unverified, carry anything like the weight that the first hand, interviewed on location.
Yes, the witnesses were deceived into thinking a plane hit. Don't forget it is not a "half baked" notion. Most people in the movement agree that a large jetliner did not crash into the Pentagon and many people cite the lack of wreckage as what got them questioning the events to begin with, right along with the nature of the WTC collapse.
Talk to yourself much?
By your measure, the only valid statements are those recorded by CIT.
That is not only intellectually dishonest, it's absurd.
The statements recorded by CIT have no more validity than statements made to the press. You seem to think Craig and Aldo are superior interviewers and their interviews are more valid than others. You then use this to hand wave 80 witnesses who saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.
Your subject shift to south path witnesses is also intellectually dishonest. We are not discussing north side/south side, we are talking about witnesses who saw the plane hit the pentagon.
This proves once again you will use any bullshit reason you can think of to deny witnesses who disprove your flyover theory.
It is a tactic of the denier community to accuse the opposition of exactly what they are doing. With the long verbose subject shift posts and accusation of intellectual dishonesty while being intellectually dishonest, you are now using the entire denier playbook. CIT's tactics and now your tactics have no place in the Truth Movement.
I have had a belly-full of your mindless insults. I asked you politely to cease and desist but you continue unabated. If you relentlessly insult your friends, you will destroy that friendship. Last time, stick to the evidence and keep your opinions of me to yourself. Clearly we are no longer friends. Your relentless personal attacks have demonstrated your disrespect for me and they have destroyed the respect I had for you.
80 witnesses
Not only are most of them printed out of context media reports but NONE of them definitively place the plane on the south side of the gas station. Even the north side witnesses all believed in an impact so obviously no other witness who also believes in an impact refutes the north side.
Plus many of those listed like Lee Evey, Tom Hovis, and others have been shown to NOT have been witnesses to the event at all while many others have been shown to not have a view of the Pentagon at all and only saw the plane from far away.
This is why firsthand confirmation is so important.
You are accusing me of only accepting witness interviews done by CIT but that is not my point at all. The point is that ANY firsthand witness interview is stronger evidence than media reports regardless of who conducted the interview. It's not CIT's fault that they are the only independent entity who has bothered to take the time to interview witnesses in person and publish the accounts. But there are plenty of other firsthand accounts from the media yet NONE of them specifically place the plane south of the citgo. None.
In fact here is Mike Walter standing on the north side of the citgo describing the plane banking on the north side!
The number one OCT impact witness also describes a banking north side approach. Go figure.
As long as we're wasting column space with verbiage, let's have a look at the prowess of the "Investigta" and CIT's one and only first hand witness.
Roosevelt Roberts interview with CIT
Aldo Marquis: Hello, Roosevelt?
Roosevelt Roberts: Yeah. Yeah.
Aldo: Hi. Than- thanks for taking my call. Um-
Roosevelt: Okay.
Aldo: -Yeah- yeah, just- uh, uh, we- b- had been listening to the uh. . . the uh recordings that. . . I guess Jennifer Brennan, which is the daughter of one of the other police officers there. . . uh, what-
Roosevelt: Right.
Aldo: -he- what he had. . . uh, what. . . I guess she had done with you guys. . . Um. . . if I can really quick. . . just, uh- if you can just tell me your story.
Roosevelt: Oh! Ho- hold on one second, uh, you caught me driving. Um. . .
*00:33
Aldo: Okay. Well you know what, let me- let me just ask you a couple of quick questions. There's- there- there is mainly a- a couple specific things. When you- you had mentioned, uh. . . right as you hung up the phone. . . you- you ran outside- what which parking lot- which dock were you at?
Roosevelt: I was in south parking, and I was at the east loading dock when I ran outside and saw the low-flying aircraft above the parking lot.
Aldo: Okay. . . Was it a- was it a- a jet or was it a- do you remember what kind of plane it was?
Roosevelt: Uh, it looked like to me at that time, uh, uh, uh, large, uh, aircraft-liner.
Aldo: Like a-
Roosevelt: It wasn't a- it wasn't a jet; it was a commercial aircraft.
Aldo: Okay. Did it have propellers, or did it have jet engines?
Roosevelt: It looked like jet engines, at that time.
Aldo: Jet engines. Okay. Um, uh- so- uh- y- how close were you to running outside 'cause this seemed to be pretty qui-eh- at least from what your account sounded like; it sounded like literally the explosion happened, and then you ran outside.
Aldo: I mean do you remember how many seconds it was when you heard the explosion and then saw that plane?
Roosevelt: From the time the explosion hit, 'til. . . I ran outside and saw- it's a loading dock, and you can run right out to the. . . look-out, and look off.
Aldo: Uh-hum.
Roosevelt: And then uh. . . you see the flickering lights. . . uh, and saw the area, and then. . . uh, real quick I realized that it was some sort of attack, and there was going to be a counter-measure with it.
Aldo: Right. So, how many seconds-
Roosevelt: Uh. . .
Aldo: -would you guess?
Roosevelt: Maybe, uh. . . ten seconds tops.
Aldo: Ten seconds tops?
Roosevelt: Ten seconds tops.
Aldo: So you- you heard the explosion and ten seconds later you were outside and you were able to see that plane?
Roosevelt: Correct. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn't miss it.
Aldo: Wha- what color was it; do you remember?
Roosevelt: Uh, it was- to me at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.
Aldo: Like silver in color; but you saw it over the south parking lot.
Roosevelt: Right; around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the, uh, light poles like.
Aldo: Okay. And ho-
Roosevelt: Had to been no more than- had to been no more than fifty feet or less than a hundred feet.
Aldo: Wow. And s- ho- do you remember how many engines you saw on it?
Roosevelt: Uh, couldn't tell for the engines.
Aldo: And it was- was it moving fast?
Roosevelt: Oh, it was moving extremely fast. It was like, uh. . . maybe you saw the aircraft maybe for like, uh-a quick five seconds.
Aldo: For a quick five seconds. But you definitely- and you saw it over the south parking lot. . . over lane one?
Roosevelt: In the south- in the south parking lot over lane one.
Aldo: Okay. Do you- do you remember which direction it was headed?
Roosevelt: Uh, coming from the, uh 27 side 27 heading, uh. . . uh, east towards DC; coming from that area, uh, there's a highway.
Roosevelt: If you were to come up 395. . . uh, north heading towards the Pentagon, and you got off in south parking. . . you were like right there, 'cause 395 went right into 27.
Aldo: So from where- from where it had headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading?
Roosevelt: From the w- uh, can you repeat that one more time, please?
Aldo: Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this- this second plane,-?
Aldo: -wh- do you remember which-
Roosevelt: Banking- banking around, coming back out, turning southwest. . . and going straight across.
Aldo: Okay, so-
Roosevelt: And that was-
Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around?
Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around; because you've got. . . the mall there, and then- where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon.
Aldo: Sou- southwest away from the Pentagon, okay; so kind of doing a U-turn, in a way?
Aldo: Okay. Okay.
Roosevelt: 'Cause it banked out, and it was like U-turning and coming around and coming out. It looked like, uh. . . for those brief seconds it looked like it- it- it, um. . . uh, how do I want to say this, uh. . . it missed the wrong target, and it was going, like. . . out of the way, like back to the airport, or something like that.
Aldo: Oh, like- so it was headed towards the airport, it looked like.
Roosevelt: Well, no, not heading towards the airport; it's almost like if a. . . if a pilot misses good he'll try to do a banking and come around, because he missed the target: he missed the landing zone.
Aldo: Got it. Got it. And you're, you're- are you a hundred percent sure it was a jet: an actual jet plane?
Roosevelt: Commercial aircraft.
Aldo: Commercial aircraft. Okay. So there was another-
Aldo: -so there was another commercial aircraft in the area as- as the, uh. . . the plane hit then, basically. Is that what you think?
Roosevelt: Yes, sir, that's not what I think: I saw it. It was two aircraft. That's for sure.
Craig Ranke: Now where- where did it seem like it came from?
Roosevelt: It seemed like, uh- when I saw it, by the time I got to the dock, it was already in the parking lot at lane one. And it was so large, you couldn't miss from seeing it.
Craig: Right, but from what-
Roosevelt: And that-
Craig: -direction did it seem like it came from?
Aldo: He said it came f-
Roosevelt: It seemed like. . . that it came from, um. . . it- hold on a second.
Roosevelt: It seemed like it came from, um. . . southwest-lookin- the same way it came in, or appeared that it came in, it seemed like it was southwe- (indistinguishable) came in. . . uh. . . almost like where that ne- that first plane had, um. . . flew into the, um, Pentagon right there. It- it- di- it looked like it came from that direction.
Craig: So from the same direction as- as- as the f-
Aldo: -From the impact side, basically, from that direction.
Roosevelt: Everything- right.
Aldo: Got-
Roosevelt: Exactly.
Aldo: -got it.
Craig: Okay.
Aldo: A- okay. So- an- an- but- would- now how long would- I mean would you be sure that it was about ten seconds that it would take you to run from the phone to the outside, or would you think it was less than ten se- ten seconds?
Craig: Or a little bit more?
Roosevelt: It would've t- it would've taken about ten seconds, because after impact I stepped out the little, uh, booth that I was in. And the distance between. . . that booth and the edge of that dock is about, maybe, I don't know like. . . seven steps away from there.
Aldo: Wow.
Roosevelt: So, they're extre- extremely close.
Aldo: Got it. Got it.
Craig: You were right there.
Aldo: You were right there. Okay.
Aldo: Woul- um-
Roosevelt: Yeah.
Aldo: -would it- w- I'll let you get going there, um, would it be possible to get a- an email from you so we could s- even get, um, like you to draw on a map exactly where you saw everything, where you were standing, 'cause. . . I'm trying to gage everything, and it's kind of hard without seeing it on a overhead. Would that be possible?
Roosevelt: Oh, sh-. Yeah, that's not a problem, um. . .
Aldo: Oh-
Roosevelt: My email address:
Aldo: Yeah. Or- yeah, go ah-
Roosevelt: .mil
Aldo: .mil. Okay.
Roosevelt: And now I've, uh, switched from, uh, being (inaudible) service to, uh, special- to a-uh special aid, and I work for the Anti-Terrorism Force/Protection Directorate now.
Aldo: Okay. Alright, excellent. Wou- um, would- y- we definitely would love to- what- when's an- another good time to get in touch with you where we could speak more at length with you?
Roosevelt: Um, I'm going to be back in the office. . . uh, no later than two o'clock.
Aldo: Okay. We'll, uh, we'll try to give you a buzz back later then, and- thi- I'm assuming this is your cell phone, or it transfers to your cell phone?
Roosevelt: Uh, yes, sir; it's my cell phone.
Aldo: Okay, great. Um, you'll definitely be hearing back from me a- and uh- I appreciate you taking the time to talk to us, Roosevelt.
Roosevelt: Hey, no problem; any time.
Aldo: Alright, buddy, we'll te- talk to you soon.
Roosevelt: Okay, stay-
Aldo: Y-
Roosevelt: -safe.
Aldo: You too, man, bu-bye.
Roosevelt: Out.
I don't agree...
With everything in this (9/11 being a dead issue for instance), but this especially stands out.
"More than five years ago I completely and unequivocally divorced myself from the 9-11 Truth Movement. I did that because it had been co-opted and hijacked by people offering arguments and theories about 9-11 that were deeply flawed and absolutely inadmissible in a court of law."
Keep up the good work, and thanks for helping to destroy any legitimacy this cause may have had. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Jon Gold on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 9:50am.
Could be worse
We are on the 3rd page here, and it's not like everyone is using this as their best evidence.
I looked at the UK truth forum site the other day. They were going on about UFOs. Yeah, as in aliens.
influence device on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 9:07pm.
"it's not like everyone is using this as their best evidence," and I say it doesn't matter so long as it exists. As long as it exists, it gives our enemies ample ammunition to make us look like fools at their convenience. So again, those who promote these ridiculous theories, and have for years should ALL be ashamed of themselves.
Jon Gold on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 9:06am.
You might get more traction on the Pentagon issue if you weren't so openly hostile to CD. Your attempt to censor that will fail.
Might I suggest a sticky page with everything you find ridiculous on it? It could say at the top something like 'This stuff has destroyed the movement, I don't understand, bigots, charletans etc..' and go on to 'shame' with abandon.
Sometimes I wonder if you're stuck in the past with lasers and holograms. Today there is no need to be so hostile, if there ever was, and I watch with interest when your extremely self similar attacks get voted up.
influence device on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 12:45pm.