The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

reply to post by jthomas


Why do "we" only care about CIT's flight path? The evidence in this thread is about proving the official flight path wrong. Proving that one or several of CIT's possible flight paths is wrong does not prove the official one true.

reply to post by discombobulator

You're finished? I've heard that before. Save the indignant rhetoric and please note it was you who sidetracked this thread with minutiae like numbers of confiscated videos in your zeal to prove me wrong. But I'm glad a foreigner like yourself is such a serious and staunch defender of the BushCo regime's lack of involvement in 9/11. Here in America, two-thirds of the public thinks the government was somehow involved and the vast majority of us are counting the days until these murderous war criminals leave the White House and become eligible for the Big House -- that is, if they don't pull another false flag and declare martial law.

When they're done destroying America's freedoms, civil liberties, military, economy and international reputation -- all based on 9/11, maybe they can come liberate wherever you live.

But don't let me interrupt -- you've still got hundreds of posts to write attacking America's patriots like CIT and myself who are simply trying to discover the truth.

I'm sure your spirited defense on behalf of the Cheney/Bush/Neocon/Globalist Lords of Darkness is much appreciated by all Americans.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
You know it's really funny you guys are so scared of CIT and the NofC witnesses. It is really very simple and easy for anyone to see.

GoldenFleece

Yep, fear is definitely in the air. CIT must really be on to something. Unless there's another reason several brand-new debunkers have been assigned 24/7 duty to try and discredit him.

"You can measure success by the quality of your enemies."

Not to mention an astonishing 159 flags, with partial credit going to the debunkers for keeping his thread bumped!

These 'pseudoskeptics' swarming in here and at other forums are apparently dedicated to stopping the CIT investigators who they claim are accomplishing NOTHING, convincing NOBODY, and getting NOWHERE. It appears to be an obsession with them and simple common sense and deductive reasoning is never allowed to get in the way. Therefore CIT must be accomplishing SOMETHING, convincing SOMEBODY, and getting SOMEWHERE, and these 'government loyalists' seem as frightened and desperate as can be.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by jthomas

 

Why do "we" only care about CIT's flight path? The evidence in this thread is about proving the official flight path wrong.

You still do understand that the title of this thread is "The North Side Flyover." CIT has not provided the necessary evidence to prove a flyover took place.

Proving that one or several of CIT's possible flight paths is wrong does not prove the official one true.

And I'll repeat for the umpteenth time that the subject matter is not proving that AA77 hit the Pentagon, it is CIT's obligation to prove a flyover took place.

CIT and you are avoiding providing the required eyewitnesses to a flyover no matter what flight path CIT wants to use.

Now, PplVSNWO, WHEN are you going to provide us with the flight path of the jet flying away from the Pentagon and WHEN are you going to provide us with the necessary eyewitness accounts?

How long are you and CIT going to evade providing the evidence, PplVSNWO?

Originally posted by SPreston

These 'pseudoskeptics' swarming in here and at other forums are apparently dedicated to stopping the CIT investigators who they claim are accomplishing NOTHING, convincing NOBODY, and getting NOWHERE.

LOL. I've consistently asked CIT when it plans to continue its incomplete investigation. When will YOU provide the flight path of the jet flying away from the Pentagon? When will CIT provide the statements of the eyewitnesses who necessarily saw the jet fly away from the Pentagon?

I keep asking and all we get are you CIT groupies whining that you don't want to.

What a hoot!

reply to post by Reheat


Adam Larson/Caustic Logic posted this image at The Frustrating Fraud:



The purple text and box is where he believes the video was taken from.

The redline is where he believes the C-130 flew. This was made before the more detailed Rades data was known. As you can see, he didn't miss it by much.

reply to post by Boone 870


Yes, that's pretty close. Although, I'd place the camera position a little further North along I-395 when the C-130 is in view.

Also, in the close-up video the C-130's visible Flight Path is longer. There needs to be an arrow indicating the direction of the C-130 Flight Path going to the Northwest.

I just started a new thread. Perhaps this graphic might be posted in that thread. Although it would be better if it shows the extended Flight Path of the C-130 according to the close up view video.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Reheat

 

Adam Larson/Caustic Logic posted this image at The Frustrating Fraud:

The purple text and box is where he believes the video was taken from.

The redline is where he believes the C-130 flew. This was made before the more detailed Rades data was known. As you can see, he didn't miss it by much.

He didn't? He missed the entire faked RADES C-130 15 mile long straight flight path to the southwest. That is a tremendous difference from the actual C-130 flight path coming in to the north over Arlington Cemetary testified to by bonafide eyewitnesses. The RADES was manufactured and presented to the constantly lied to American public over 4 years after 9-11 because CIT and other investigators were ripping the official flight path and the phoney Flight 77 FDR to shreds.

C-130 RADES Data flight path 15 miles to the southwest apparently headed for Arkansas instead of Minnesota (shown with blue stick pins) The yellow line is the actual C-130 path west. The red stick pins are the faked RADES data representing the faked Flight 77 FDR flight path loop southwest of the Pentagon.


The approximate actual C-130 flight path flying west, just after leaving Morningside One DP, just below the Washington Mall, and then turning to follow the decoy aircraft from about 12 to 15 miles behind. The RADES data and Flight 77 FDR are dead.



[edit on 8/14/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by jthomas
I repeat: we don't care about an "official" flight path. We care about CIT's flight path. It is not "either-or".

I beg to differ WE do care about the official flight path and CIT flight path. It seems to be an either or.

Poles are down on the south side (offical path) by passenger jet - so what passenger jet as revealed by eyewitnesses statements flew to the north of CITGO - just prior to explosion.

This situation really isnt that hard to conceptualize folks.



[edit on 14-8-2008 by Pawnhaus]

Confiscating tapes after a criminal act is common. It does not mean in any way that there is a coverup, that is an assumption only. Why would they release the tapes? It's no different than any other investigation.

It's sort of like the FOIA stuff that gets retrieved on UFOs. Some folks flip out because of all the censored data. But most of the stuff that is blacked out is nothing at all. Just perhaps names, businesses, or information that by law, they are not allowed to give out.

So taking tapes would seem rational to me. Not releasing them also seems normal. It certainly doesn't in my eyes, make this a huge coverup.

This is the problem imo, when biased people investigate anything. Both pro and con. Ridiculous allegations fly, astounding theories are concocted, biased interviews take place, and so on. Like that list I read, and like this investigation.

I wish more people would take an utterly nuetral stance and go from there. Intead of working from the "they are guilty!" mindset. I've been completely nuetral as I've looked this stuff over. I'm very willing to believe in a coverup or conspiracy, if the facts are there. But I don't see any in this case. I see a few folks that are misquoting or taking quotes the wrong way, making assumptions on this case based on someone's bias of agencies, flat out ignoring some data, and using very incomplete data to say they've proved something.

There is no doubt that a large passenger jet was seen flying close to the ground. From that point on, I cannot believe that not a single person did not see where it went, as would be the case in your study. No one saw it hit OR miss the Pentagon. This makes absolutely no sense to me.

So failing that, either people saw it hit the Pentagon, or they saw it fly away. There have been many eyewitness accounts of it hitting the Pentagon. Yes, some of them ARE probably bunk. There has been none I've seen that reported is missing, and flying away. This really boils down to common sense at this point. To me at least, it's fairly obvious the given story is the true one. There is wreckage, bodies, luggage, a black box, witnesses.

On the side of it NOT hitting, you have: a flight path issue.

Not a very strong case imo. Those who purport that is missed the Pentagon, cannot explain anything I've asked. Why no witnesses? Apparently no one saw the jet after a certain point, absolutely every person around the Pentagon lost sight of a large jet on a clear day. Witnesses that saw it hit: A less than half completed list is given to "prove" they didn't really see it hit. Where did the bits of wreckage on the lawn come from? Are forensic results faked? Where is the proof of this?

Finding a flight path issue does not prove your case. Making claims that there is a coverup because the FBI confiscated tapes is ludicrous. That isn't invesitgation, that's wild guesswork. Saying there were not any witnesses to the passenger jet hitting the Pentagon because you talked to less than half of the people listed as eyewitnesses, and some of those seemed "dubious" to you, so you dismissed them, does not prove no one saw it hit the Pentagon. That's shoddy investigation. Making definitive claims based on half-baked investigation.

Claiming someone committed mass murder, and then providing a case so full of holes, it would serve well as swiss cheese, with half-completed research, and wild guesswork, does not proof make, I'm sorry.

And to be honest, if you dig up some proof for the other issues on this accusation, and they are solid, I'd be quite happy to jump on the bandwagon you have there. I believe in proof and facts. Provide those, I'll give kudos all around.

But again, the initial research, even if I don't agree with the end results, was nice to see. I wish more folks would do this with other cases, to help reveal the truth. And I actually thank you for your case, because with it, I did more research, and I now firmly believe that what was stated, actually happened. So perhaps the opposite result of what you intended, but thank you all the same.

I get it now.

CIT used paid actors dressed as Pentagon cops and Arlington grounds crew to give false testimony supporting the North side passenger jet.

CIT is CIA, and thus the cruelest deception. BRILLIANT.

reply to post by SPreston


Good point, I would have expected the C130 to be in view the entire time this guy was filming if it were on the RADES path. You should have seen it approaching the Pentagon from the SW. Instead, it looks as though it was hidden behind the smoke on it's way toward the Pentagon.
If I am not mistaken, this jives with O'brien's account of heading west until he was contacted 3 times to follow the plane, then by turning around to go after the plane, he would be heading east about directly accross from the Pentagon, not heading North-East from south of the Pentagon as RADES shows.

Leo Strauss

However strong EVIDENCE was presented supporting a North of Citgo flight path. Not conjecture, not strident argument but EVIDENCE independently corroborated in several instances which in and of itself demands a new investigation!

talisman

I agree, that there is corroborated evidence that suggests a flight path North of Citgo. I feel this is an important piece of this puzzle, for this is what it truly is, a puzzle. How it fits into the picture is what I want to know.

The 85+ confiscated Pentagon area videos and the confiscated AC 911 call-ins and transcripts were critical to preserving the "Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity". From their record of refusing to testify under oath to gagging witnesses and whistleblowers to destroying and censoring papers and evidence to bald-faced lying to firing Federal prosecutors to actually betraying undercover intelligence agents, this corrupt Bush Regime has proven they will stop at NOTHING to protect themselves.

The videos would have shown what was happening in the air and on the grounds surrounding the Pentagon. The Pentagon westside roof videos with their imagery stored in the security room might have shown aircraft arriving and what was really happening over at Lloyd's cab and with the other light poles. (perhaps already positioned on the ground) The 911 call-ins might have demonstrated what people saw in the air arriving or departing. In how many crime scenes are the professional investigators not interested in what potential evidence might be discovered in any direction and in any portion of the local area? OUR wonderful FBI intimidates eyewitnesses and suppresses and falsifies evidence.

GoldenFleece

Of course it would, if it were allowed. As soon as those 85+ videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI just minutes after whatever really hit the Pentagon were subpoenaed, it would be an open-and-shut case.

But as we already know, any lawsuit or criminal charges would be thrown out before it got to that point, as former Bob Dole aide Stanley Hilton discovered when he tried to bring 9/11 conspiracy charges against the Bush regime:

It's interesting to note the ruling was based on the "Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity". "In other words, the suit was not dismissed because of lack of evidence, but rather because the judge reasoned that U.S. citizens do not have the right to hold a sitting President accountable for anything, even if the charges include premeditated mass murder and premeditated acts of high treason."

Yep, fear is definitely in the air. CIT must really be on to something. Unless there's another reason several brand-new debunkers have been assigned 24/7 duty to try and discredit him.

reply to post by Pawnhaus


May I offer an opposing view? The flight path (north, south, east or west of Citgo) is irrelevant unless you, the royal you, dismiss the impact.

I understand the desire to analyze the so-called 'official' flight path; no quibbles there. However, it's a pointless argument unless you are contesting the impact of Flight 77 with the Pentagon. By virtue of the nature of the discussion, this is an implicit claim with the NOC flight path "controversy".

What NOC proponents simply dismiss is the massive amount of evidence that clearly leads to to the entirely reasonable conclusion that Flight 77 did impact the Pentagon.

How do they do this? Through Quote Mining, Special Pleadings, Calls to Perfection, Non Sequitors and finally liberal use of the Inflationary Model (as related to CTs).

A couple of very valid points concerning Cts in general and 9-11 Cts in particular:

1. The Inflationary Limit of Conspiracy Theories is reached when it requires those questioning the conspiracy theory to be a part of the conspiracy. This final excuse occurs because any alternate hypothesis, no matter how well it fits the known facts, is viewed as a threat to the conspiracy hypothesis. No further inflation is possible because, when this point is reached, any criticism is considered suspect -- thus encompassing the entire world outside the conspiracy hypothesis.
   
2. The Inflationary Limit of Conspiracy Theories is reached when it requires those questioning the conspiracy theory to be a part of the conspiracy. This final excuse occurs because any alternate hypothesis, no matter how well it fits the known facts, is viewed as a threat to the conspiracy hypothesis. No further inflation is possible because, when this point is reached, any criticism is considered suspect -- thus encompassing the entire world outside the conspiracy hypothesis.
   

The two points I refernce above are not argumenative techniques. They are what's happening in this very thread.

Simple, basic questions are asked and the response is always, yet another conspiracy. Light poles knocked down? They were planted! Bodies found within the Pentagon, positively identified by DNA as being from Flight 77? They were planted and the DNA evidence is faked!

Ask these obvious questions? You're in on it! You're a 'dis-info' agent!

[edit on 14-8-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

I've seen that already, it's fairly amusing. I just like to discuss this sort of thing, with a main interest in the study of the UFO phenomenon. I've been called an "agent" twice already, which I find hilarious. Apparently if I have a differing viewpoint, I'm a government agent.

And I agree completely. If it can be proven that Flight 77 did indeed strike the Pentagon, then the flight path is a moot issue. And so far, I've not seen anything to indicate that it did not happen. There was positive IDs done based on dental records of almost all the passengers. The black box was found (and been reviewed). There is indeed wreckage, on the lawn. There are eyewitness reports (that in no way has been disproved), of it striking the Pentagon.

With all this, I'm puzzled why people are wasting time over the flight path. That seems like something you would do after you proved that it did not in fact crash into the Pentagon, as you figure out what really happened. You know, after you disproved ALL of the eyewitnesses. And explain the luggage, the forensic ID of passengers, the wreckage on the lawn, and find some witnesses that saw it flying off. Why is this investigation bass ackwards?

Why can't anyone supporting this theory, answer the simple questions we are asking? I mean, you may not have the answer, but you should at leave have a reason why you don't have them.

-CIT evidence of north CITGO jet.

-Official story 'jet’ south of CITGO.

A solid (Pentagon Cop) witness at the North side pumps at the time of fly-over - as shown on the gas station’s own in-house video. This coupled with witness ability to use the station's overhang as a plane referencing point corroborates his testimony. CITs new Arlington witnesses further support a second passenger jets north of CITGO.

Excluding all other points,

The North side jet can not account for downed light pole damage attributed to the official 'jet' flight path.


[edit on 14-8-2008 by Pawnhaus]

[edit on 14-8-2008 by Pawnhaus]

Originally posted by Pawnhaus
-CIT evidence of north CITGO jet.

-Official story 'jet’ south of CITGO.

A solid (Pentagon Cop) witness at the North side pumps at the time of fly-over - as shown on the gas station’s own in-house video. This coupled with witness ability to use the station's overhang as a plane referencing point corroborates his testimony. CITs new Arlington witnesses further support a second passenger jets north of CITGO.

Excluding all other points,

The North side jet can not account for downed light pole damage attributed to the official 'jet' flight path.


[edit on 14-8-2008 by Pawnhaus]

[edit on 14-8-2008 by Pawnhaus]

That same pentagon cop also claims he saw the plane hit the lightpost. Which would have been impossible if it flew north of citgo.

Legasse Claims

The interviewer then explains that “the official story says that the plane came on the south side and hit the light poles here [pointing].” Legasse responds:


“No Chance.There’s no chance. If… as a matter of fact [emphasizing strongly], there was a light pole here [where Lagasse claims the plane flew] that was knocked down, and there was [another] here, that was knocked down—not any over here…none of these light poles over here were knocked down… I’ve never seen anything that was on the south side of that gas station—ever.”

Absolutely false! Lagasse is wrong.

Lagasse continues, “I don’t have eyes in the back of my head.”

This assumes he was facing in the direction he remembered.This is a possibility as Lagasse misremembers where he was standing at the gas station.He claims with confidence:

“This is where the taxi cab was.Right here.Not over there. Nothing happened over here!”

Wrong again.So much for “100%—I’d bet my life on it” certainty (which the filmmakers exploit with slow motion replay for manipulative effect). Lagasse is 100% wrong about the taxi cab and the light pole location.

This shows that Laggase’s entire testimony about the flight path is in doubt.If he cannot determine where the real lamp poles and the taxi cab were, we have strong reasons to doubt his testimony about the flight path.If he does not know where these objects were located how could he remember which direction the plane flew?Especially noteworthy is the fact that he claims that the flight path was approximately where he thought the light poles and taxi cab were—is it reasonable to think that the plane flew where the real lamp poles were—not where he thought they were?This example vividly illustrates why testimony years after the event is less reliable.Although some details are clearly remembered, others are not.Even the interviewer admits, “everyone knows people’s memories—it’s hard to recollect things sometimes.”[250]

Read more here about the whole problem with CIT's Investigation

reply to post by tide88


He never said he saw the poles get hit, he just said the poles were knocked down. Anyone could say that after seeing the poles on the ground, including people who didn't see the plane at all.

Originally posted by Saidin
reply to post by tide88

 

He never said he saw the poles get hit, he just said the poles were knocked down. Anyone could say that after seeing the poles on the ground, including people who didn't see the plane at all.

Regardless he misindentified where those lamp posts were knocked down and where the cab was. What makes you so sure he also didnt get the flightpath of the plane wrong. Again physical evidence trumps witness testimony, especially 5 years after the event. So whether or not he saw the actual lamp posts getting hit makes no difference, since he agrees they were in fact hit, therefore the plane had to come from the official flight path.

Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that
day, I was on duty as a pentagon police sgt. I was refueling my vehicle at
the barraks k gas station that day adjacent to the aircrafts flight path.
It was close enough that i could see the windows had the shades pulled down,
it struck several light poles next to rt 27 and struck a trailer used to
store construction equipment for the renovation of the pentagon that was to
the right of the fueselage impact point. The fact that you are insinuating
that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris
is...well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you
people piss me off to no end. I invite you and you come down and I will walk
you through it step by step. I have more than a few hours in general
aviation aircraft and can identify commercial airliners. Have you ever seen
photos of other aircraft accident photos...there usually isnt huge amounts
of debris left...how much did you see from the WTC?...are those fake
aircraft flying into the building. I know that this will make no diffrence
to you because to even have a websight like this you are obviously a
diffrent sort of thinker. source

The interviewer to Legasse explains that “the official story says that the plane came on the south side and hit the light poles here [pointing].” Legasse responds:


“No Chance.There’s no chance. If… as a matter of fact [emphasizing strongly], there was a light pole here [where Lagasse claims the plane flew] that was knocked down, and there was [another] here, that was knocked down—not any over here…none of these light poles over here were knocked down… I’ve never seen anything that was on the south side of that gas station—ever.”

Absolutely false! Lagasse is wrong.

Lagasse continues, “I don’t have eyes in the back of my head.”

This assumes he was facing in the direction he remembered.This is a possibility as Lagasse misremembers where he was standing at the gas station.He claims with confidence:

“This is where the taxi cab was.Right here.Not over there. Nothing happened over here!”

Wrong again.So much for “100%—I’d bet my life on it” certainty (which the filmmakers exploit with slow motion replay for manipulative effect). Lagasse is 100% wrong about the taxi cab and the light pole location.



I’ve never seen anything that said it was on the south side of that gas station.Ever [looks upwards in bewilderment].These were the light poles.This is where the taxi cab was [pointing to the same incorrect location].Nothing [emphasizing] happened over here.I can’t be any clearer about it.”

100% false!We know that Lagasse is definitely wrong about the location of the light pole damage and taxi cab.We know that he thought the plane flew in the location where he believed these objects were.The PentaCon ignores the possibility that he saw the plane where the light poles and taxi cab were actually located.

Seems like somebody is confused.

Based on CIT’s newly presented witness testimony, I am willing to consider the possibility that two passenger jets attacked the Pentagon on 911.

Are you?