The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by discombobulator
This guy isn't even trying anymore.

But you're still trying, aren't you, Mr. Discomboobulator?

Still not a member of ATS for one full day and you've already made 50 posts to 1 thread.

Congrats -- you've won the gold medal and set a new world record!

How do you know the bolts were cut?

Originally posted by jakyll
reply to post by discombobulator

 

It is well known which five light poles had been knocked over, and there is plenty of photographic evidence showing these poles laying on the ground ON THE DAY.

I'm not arguing that.
As i said i'm talking about the lampposts that are within the grounds of the Pentagon,ones that were close to the building itself.They were still standing.

those lampposts were not in the flight path. See above posts. That is why there were still standing.

reply to post by discombobulator



I don't reply to GF very much, I know the routine.

Another member and I went through the same routine regarding the passenger manifests a couple of weeks ago. After having his argument completely destroyed, he came back a couple of days later repeating the same argument.

That's par for the 9/11 denialism course. You already knew that, though.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by discombobulator

 

Another member and I went through the same routine regarding the passenger manifests a couple of weeks ago. After having his argument completely destroyed, he came back a couple of days later repeating the same argument.

Yeah, I noticed that he did just that in this very thread. He brought up the Jamie McIntyre comments around page 22, got smashed, and then came back with it again a few hours ago and got smashed again.

Originally posted by Boone 870
Another member and I went through the same routine regarding the passenger manifests a couple of weeks ago. After having his argument completely destroyed, he came back a couple of days later repeating the same argument.

I love how Boone 870 claims victory and complete destruction. The boy has an active imagination.

So what's the real story behind these mysterious passenger manifests that only surfaced five years after 9/11?

Passenger Lists
Victims Lists, Passenger Manifests, and the Alleged Hijackers

According to the official story, teams of four and five Islamic hijackers took over Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93. Victims lists for the four planes published by CNN and elsewhere are free of Arab names. 1   2   3   4   This fact has been highlighted as suspicious by some researchers describing the lists as passenger manifests. However, these lists are not passenger manifests, but lists of victims, and hence include an implicit rationale for excluding alleged hijackers. In a different part of the CNN.com website not directly referenced by the abovementioned flight victims pages -- that entitled "September 11: A Memorial", CNN describes its criteria for including persons in its memorial in a pop-up window labelled "About this site":

• CONFIRMED DEAD Includes victims who have been confirmed dead by a coroner's office or the Defense Department. It also includes those a court has declared legally dead, even if no body has been recovered. Once the court has made such a finding, a death certificate can be issued.

• REPORTED DEAD Includes those whose deaths have been reported by family, employers, mortuaries, places of worship or by the airlines that listed them as aboard one of the four flights. Includes people for whom memorial services have been held, even if their bodies have not been recovered or positively identified. (Those identified by federal authorities as the hijackers are not included).
[emphasis added] 5  

Moussaoui Trial Exhibits

In July of 2006 a large collection of documents was published on a website containing prosecution and defense exhibits for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. 6   Included in the prosecution exhibits are a set of Flash presentations detailing the government's account of the passengers on all four commandeered jetliners. 7  

The following table contains a snapshot from the Flash presentation for each of the four flights, providing a list of passengers and seat assignments.

American Airlines Flight 11
United Airlines Flight 175
American Airlines Flight 77
United Airlines Flight 93

Faxes of Alleged Flight Manifests

At around the time that the Moussaoui trial exhibits appeared, a seven-page set of faxes purported to be the original flight manifests was published on a weblog claiming that they were from the Moussaoui trial exhibits. If the faxes are in the exhibits, they are not easy to find: the prosecution trial exhibits number 977, and include many huge, uninformatively-described files requiring media players such as Flash to view. 8   According to the 911myths.com website the fax images were obtained from the FBI by Terry McDermott while researching his book Perfect Soldiers. 9   The faxes, reproduced below, include the names of the alleged hijackers.

911research.wtc7.net...

More obfuscation, non-disclosure and outright lies, courtesy of your government.

Oh yeah, you've got to read the story of "The Perplexing Puzzle Of The
Published Passenger Lists:" www.rense.com...

Like every other aspect of the 9/11 official fable, it's absurd to the extreme.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by Boone 870
Another member and I went through the same routine regarding the passenger manifests a couple of weeks ago. After having his argument completely destroyed, he came back a couple of days later repeating the same argument.

I love how Boone 870 claims victory and complete destruction. The boy has an active imagination.

How do you know the bolts were cut?

reply to post by GoldenFleece

I'm not going to take the bait.

If you feel it necessary to prove that you won the debate, post a link to the thread so that other members can judge for themselves.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Put the faxes to the side if you must.

The Boston Globe got the flight manifest. (flight 11)Can you dispute that?

[edit on 12-8-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

Sorry this manifest was released a long time before the trial. Try again.



www.boston.com...








[snip]

Mod Edit - removed uncessary picture.

[edit on 13-8-2008 by elevatedone]

I like how anyone can consider winning an off topic debate a victory to begin with, especially considering the amount of work that went into this.

Congratulations, you're the coolest guy at Shenanagins.

Please respect the OP and his thread.

Originally posted by jprophet420
Please respect the OP and his thread.

Respect the OP and his thread? My what an honorable request.

Tell me, when will the OP with his deluded BS respect the thousands of people he accuses of mass murder on the flimsiest evidence imaginable that is not even possible according the witnesses he touts as corroborated?

[edit on 13-8-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 13-8-2008 by Reheat]

It's all in jprophet420's hands now.

Originally posted by jprophet420
I like how anyone can consider winning an off topic debate a victory to begin with, especially considering the amount of work that went into this.

I guess it's now down to you. Craig, Aldo, SPreston have abandoned the thread, each unable to provide eyewitnesses, a flight path away from the Pentagon, or show how the "attack plane" could possibly survive the g forces needed to execute a turn toward the Pentagon on CIT's proposed attack path.

So, CIT has left you to provide the necessary evidence, jprophet420.

Here you go:

1. We need the eyewitness reports of those who saw the plane fly away from the Pentagon.

2. We need the flight path away from the Pentagon, any of which you propose would be flying within visibility of thousands of people out of which there would necessarily be eyewitnesses.

So, it's all in your hands now, jprophet420. When will you provide this evidence to us?

Gentlemen, Please.

I've asked nicely, warned, yelled and jumped up and down.

Pleaes take this on topic and continue the discussion in a civil manner.
There's no need for the silly bickering that has taken place in this thread.

You're all above behaving in that manner.

reply to post by jthomas


No, all you have to prove is the plane was not on the official flight path to prove it didn't hit the Pentagon, flyover witnesses would just be icing on the cake.
Unless you could draw us a diagram of how the plane could have flown on the North side of Citgo AND hit the light poles and made the damage to the Pentagon.
(If you could somehow prove that the plane was on the official flight path, then you still have the FDR putting the plane too high to have hit the Pentagon but that is topic for another thread.)

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by jthomas

 

No, all you have to prove is the plane was not on the official flight path to prove it didn't hit the Pentagon, flyover witnesses would just be icing on the cake.
Unless you could draw us a diagram of how the plane could have flown on the North side of Citgo AND hit the light poles and made the damage to the Pentagon.
(If you could somehow prove that the plane was on the official flight path, then you still have the FDR putting the plane too high to have hit the Pentagon but that is topic for another thread.)

What proof is there that the plane flew in from a different trajectory other than folks said? A small handful of witnesses? Again, there is a much LONGER list of people said they saw an AA passenger flight fly into the side of the Pentagon. They saw it HIT THE BUILDING.

Why are these folks that were interviewed as part of this conspiracy thread more reliable than the ones who saw it flying into the Pentagon?

You can't simply dismiss all the other data out there, as if it doesn't exist, because a few folks said it flew in from a different direction. People can be and are, often mistaken. There was not iffyness about those who saw it hit the Pentagon. They saw a passanger jet fly into the building.

Did these witnesses get pictures? Video? Solid proof of any sort? I'm sorry, but some guy banking a tiny toy airplane in a video doesn't solid proof make.

And try as you like, you can not simply dismiss all the other evidence. People who saw bodies, the forensic evidence, the personal effects, the debris on the lawn that Fleece for some reason, is unable to see in clear photos (or chooses not to see), the dozens of witnesses that saw it flying at the Pentagon and HIT the Pentagon. And I'd never believe that in a highly populated area, that dozens did not see a jumbo jet flying away from the Pentagon. That's ludicrous in the extreme. Doesn't anyone use common sense any longer?

Originally posted by fleabit
Doesn't anyone use common sense any longer?

You don't have to copy and paste either photos or statements for that one. The evidence is in the 38 + pages of this thread.....

[edit on 13-8-2008 by Reheat]

reply to post by fleabit

What witnesses are you refering to? Do you know for a fact that these witnesses that you say saw the impact, actually saw the impact? Did the links where the "eye witnesses" where broken down not sink in?

And thanks CIT,
For showing real people on the ground with street creds -(pentagon police, Arlington workers etc)

Real folks on record telling us they saw the plane on the NORTH side
while 'on video' filling their gas tanks on the North side.

Obviously broken south-side light poles where caused by something else.

reply to post by Boone 870


Since you discussed the C130 departure with CIT before, just wondering what you thought about this??
It seems to fit the witnesses and C130 pilot's account more than the RADES data does.