Witnesses who saw it pull up

Yo CIT. I recently watched your new video and was very impressed with your field study and analysis. But then I started thinking again about your 'Flyover Theory' argument and then I wondered why it is none of these witnesses managed to see the plane pull up. I think your showing how the entire community observed the plane coming in, yet nobody seems to have witnessed it flying over head on the exit path, is what got me thinking about this. Then I began wondering how on earth the Citgo people could see everything besides the direct imact itself (so conveniently), but didnt see the plane pull up.

They were within a couple blocks-distance from the impact zone, right?

Why haven't any of your new witnesses reported seeing the plane pull up? Or why weren't they asked?

Or are you suggesting something different than the 'Flyover Theory' now? I'm unclear.

If so why haven't any reports of a plane flyong out of there surfaced, as obviously everybody seemed as being 'vigilant' that day keeping a sharp eye on everything in the sky?

[edit on 7-11-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


What video?

The PentaCon (Smoking Gun Version) was the first video we released and the Citgo employee Robert Turcios described the pull-up in detail.




He said it went right over this do not enter sign to the north of the bridge:



Lagasse admitted that he "flinched" and jumped into his car out of a "fear" so we believe that he missed the pull up and filled in the rest with innocent deduction.

Brooks was further back and didn't have as good of a view but same thing.....he was deceived by the sleight of hand.

You have to realize that you are only talking about 2 seconds but the massive explosion and fireball would be the ultimate diversion.

The brain doesn't even have enough time to register what happened and would simply fill in the gaps.


Now as far as the plane flying away..............

Planes fly over the Pentagon in a steep and fast ascent every 2 to 4 minutes every day all day long because it is right next to Reagan National Airport.

This would not be a strange sight to anyone who is been to the area.

If you go to Arlington National Cemetery this will be quite apparent.


We just came back from another extremely productive research trip and brought back tons of footage from the area that I will be uploading soon.

You see plenty of planes and will really get a good grasp of the complex topography which will give everyone a TON of insight as to how easy it would be to pull this deception off.

If you were talking about our latest release.......

"Flight 77" The White Plane

Nobody saw the plane pull up because they were too far back in the flight path and they wouldn't have been able to see it.





There is a steep decline after the Navy Annex and a row of trees behind the Citgo so only people at the Citgo station would be in a position to see the pull up close up because the plane would need to descend in a bank first.


This shot from the Navy Annex parking lot shows you how you can only see the roof of the Pentagon:


But they had the "2nd plane/jet" cover stories to take care of anyone who DID notice the plane pull up and fly away.

The real accounts of the E4B and C-130 were blended to help provide an ambiguous explanation in this regard.

Turcios said "No' about it flying over. From the new interviews it seemed clear that this plane was very hard to not notice with the sound and everything else. A plane pulling up to a out-of-sight altitude (on a totally clear day) would be extremely loud. Planes already are extremely loud. You can hear them for miles. I cannot percieve how all of these people could not clearly hear and easily notice a jumbojet still flying beyond the Pentagon. I ask you how many miles away on such a clear day that you would be able to see it?

Where did you get that snazzy geo render? Pretty.

OK, I'm not taking sides here, just looking for information. I sure as hell don't want to be part of the Grand 9/11 Argument.

But if I'm planning this thing, sitting on my can in an air conditioned office reserved for Evil Government Minions, how do I know only four people, most too far away to tell what is going on, are going to be all there is? How can they plan such a thing and not take it into consideration?

I can see it now:

Bertha and Bathsheba Butts drive over from Cleveland to see the sites the evening before. After staying in a Motel 8, they hope into their 1977 Buick convertible with the wire spoke wheels, put the top down, and start cruising the Big City.

Bertha is driving and smoking a Virginia Slim in a holder while her 'fro blows in the wind. Ever since crossing the Potomac, Bathsheba has been filming the sights with her new Sony Camcorder she got for her birthday. Not being students of politics, they don't recognize the big building ahead on the right, but Bathsheba is impressed with it's size.

"Who you 'spose lives in that big old place, Bertha?"

"I ain't got a clue Sis, but get a picture and we'll tell everybody back home we took a tour."

And so the Sony whirs, focusing in on the odd shaped building. At just that moment, our mystery plane flies overhead in front of the car, and hops over the Pentagon without touching it. A second later, as they are almost even with the building, a ball of fire erupts, along with a loud roaring boom.

Bertha, always a fast driver anyway, is startled into stomping the accelerator to the floorboards and dropping here Virginia Slim into her lap, all in the same moment The Buick's V-8 easily carries them beyond the expanding turmoil at a cool 94MPH.

Due to interesting inner city lives, both ladies have learned to never go back to something that could cause trouble. And from what little Bathsheba could see over her broad shoulder as they sped away, this was trouble with a capitol T.

Scared that they might be blamed in some way for an obvious arson job, they find the quickest route out of town, and cut their sight seeing short. Heading straight back to Cleveland, Bertha pushes the Buick, furious over the change in plans and the hole in her new red spandex pants. Since the Buick has a monster CD player, but no radio, they never hear word one of what this day has been about.

Once home, the story is told to Eugen "Big E" Ledbetter, Bertha's on again-off again significant other. He, being at least 4 IQ points brighter than the two sisters combined, immediately realizes that this picture of the plane and the explosion must be worth a weeks worth of his favorite "candy", and promptly relieves the girls of this burden.

Eventually, through a couple of hands, each one progressively smarter than the last, this tape makes the evening news on KRAP-TV live from downtown Cleveland, Ohio on 9/13. Now the cat is out of the bag, and the minions are in deep doo-doo.

Now this is how, as an evil genius, I would have to reason it out and discard this plan for becoming the American Il Duce. I couldn't be sure that this hairbrained idea wouldn't get me a room at Sing Sing. I couldn't be reasonably sure that I could control enough factors with a busy highway full of witnesses. Too much could go wrong for this to be a plan for anyone over Jr High age to hope to pull off.

Just my take so far. I'll read on and hope the plot gets less lame in this B rated re-make.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Turcios said "No' about it flying over. From the new interviews it seemed clear that this plane was very hard to not notice with the sound and everything else. A plane pulling up to a out-of-sight altitude (on a totally clear day) would be extremely loud. Planes already are extremely loud. You can hear them for miles. I cannot percieve how all of these people could not clearly hear and easily notice a jumbojet still flying beyond the Pentagon. I ask you how many miles away on such a clear day that you would be able to see it?

Where did you get that snazzy geo render? Pretty.

I have never said that nobody would notice it.

Only that it would not seem strange in any way since planes are CONSTANTLY flying over the building in a fast and steep ascent every 2 to 4 minutes of every day.

People are quite use to it.

The plane on the APPROACH to the building would seem out of place, obvious, and off the normal course of air traffic.

The plane flying AWAY from the building in a fast ascent over the Potomac would seem quite normal and would be overshadowed by the incredible explosion and massive fireball that would serve as a very effective diversion.

For the few that may have still noticed the plane flying away they had more than one back up story of a "2nd plane" or "2nd jet" that even allegedly "shadowed" the AA jet and flew over the Pentagon immediately after the explosion.

Why do you keep ignoring this fact?

It is a very important part of this deception.

The new evidence we present from our trip this weekend will make this 100% clear.

reply to post by NGC2736


None of your irrelevant hypothetical scenario changes the evidence proving a military deception.

It simply amounts to an argument from incredulity which is nothing more than a logical fallacy and therefore an invalid contribution to this discussion.

Yes there were risks when this operation was pulled off.

The fact that they haven't been busted yet does not prove their innocence.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by NGC2736

 

None of your irrelevant hypothetical scenario changes the evidence proving a military deception.

It simply amounts to an argument from incredulity which is nothing more than a logical fallacy and therefore an invalid contribution to this discussion.

Yes there were risks when this operation was pulled off.

The fact that they haven't been busted yet does not prove their innocence.

Now let me see if I understand your genius in this matter. When you put a hypothetical idea on the table, it's to be swallowed hook, line, and sinker? Because you have not proved anything, except maybe to yourself, for you too are hypothesizing.

And your illogical fallacies outweigh everyone else's are right while everyone else who uses common sense is invalid in such contributions to this thread?

I simply used common sense to show that when committing a crime where some planning is needed, only an idiot would consider such a risky way to get it done.

Now I am going to ask you nicely to not talk down to me, nor to act as if this thread is your personal playground to spew error into, and act like anyone that points it out is beneath you.

I came to this thread to see what the latest take on the Pentagon fiasco was, not to be lectured in the subject of relevance by someone that has a closed mind to any opinion except their own.

I have been known on these boards, on a variety of subjects, to have a very open mind, but you have proved only that you are wedded to a theory you dare not question at this late date for fear of losing face. You have proved nothing else.

So far you have only shown me that you are intellectually a one trick pony. Please change my mind or I will look elsewhere for answers.

[edit on 7-11-2007 by NGC2736]

reply to post by NGC2736


The north side claim is not a theory.

It is evidence.

In fact it is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and is therefore proof.

1 eyewitness account is evidence.

2 independently corroborated accounts become strong evidence.

3 independently corroborated accounts become proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have presented 4 and have a total of 6 and these accounts are directly refuted by none.



The only way that the flyover didn't happen after the pull-up that Robert Turcios saw on the north side is if the plane was disappeared with exotic weaponry of some sort or was a hologram like John Lear suggests.

I don't believe in those theories particularly because of the significant 2nd plane cover story evidence and also because there is no reason to have a hologram "pull up" like Robert Turcios saw.

I'm sorry if I offended you but this information is important enough to refuse to entertain irrelevant made up scenarios that do nothing to confirm or refute the evidence being discussed.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


I understand your passion, and I understand you have these witnesses. But witnesses are notoriously unreliable, as is proven over and over in court. These were people that in a moment of some fear, for word was out by then about the WTC, could have been unsure just what they saw.

But leaving that aside, I balk at the lack of any basic logic by the planners. My little story was to show the stupidity of such a plan by those who would have been putting all of this in motion.

It would be on par with with planning to rob a bank and expecting there to be no cameras. You might hope for that, you might think you could be fast enough, and well enough disguised, to not be photoed, but you couldn't know it.

Now consider that it's not just a bank job here; this is the crime of the century you're trying to pull off. And to keep from taking down the government of the US, and rolling the heads of some very high placed people, you cannot plan such a sloppy operation.

There either has to be a lot more to this, or it is just what the government says it was. You are using statements from witnesses, which is fine, up to a point. But when those statements describe something that is so ridiculous, from a logical point of view, then the witnesses are wrong, or there is some other element to this that we cannot yet see.

But because I am not convinced means nothing except that I am not convinced. It's your theory, and I have my take on it. that simple. I put out the reasons for my point of view to see if you had a logical answer, and now there is really nothing else for me to see.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The only way that the flyover didn't happen after the pull-up that Robert Turcios saw on the north side is if the plane was disappeared with exotic weaponry of some sort or was a hologram like John Lear suggests.

I don't believe in those theories particularly because of the significant 2nd plane cover story evidence and also because there is no reason to have a hologram "pull up" like Robert Turcios saw.

Good point Craig.

What about the discrepency in time between the 9:31 shown on April Gallops watch and the clock at the helicopter pad and the 9:43 allegedly logged by the tower as the time of the crash of the aircraft they were tracking on radar?

I appreciate your untiring and thorough efforts at finding the truth.

reply to post by NGC2736


There can be no "answer" to an irrelevant hypothetical assertion.

You assertion does not render the evidence invalid.

Of course I know that witness testimony can be unreliable.

That's where corroboration comes into play.

Eventually when something is independently corroborated enough times it becomes proof.

That's what we have here.

The north side claim is not a theory.

It is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

reply to post by johnlear


There may have been pre-detonations inside the building similar to what happened at the WTC.....but as I said before; I don't believe the clocks are definitive.

We have proof that both the radar data and the FDR are simply fraudulent.

I just checked no less than 4 clocks of mine here now, and although they were all set to the same time a couple of months ago, now there is 17 minutes between the slowest and the fastest. Two were within 3 minutes of each other and within 1 and 2 minutes respectively of the actual time.

The slowest was my PC, the fastest my wall clock, and the two that remained pretty close were my wrist-watch and mobile phone.

Regarding the pull-up after passing the Pentagon - remembering that it was traveling fast over the building, it could climb very rapidly, and if the power was brought to idle, it would be doubtful you'd hear it after a brief moment. They could conceivably pull-up at idle power, bleed off some speed, and join the missed approach for DCA, so they'd look like normal traffic to the casual passer-by. Not sure what the tower would make of it, but I understand they were busy looking at the Pentagon before the tower was cleared (can anyone confirm this?).

[edit on 17-11-2007 by mirageofdeceit]