The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Originally posted by discombobulator
What is this Government document you keep referring to that would supposedly support your case?

Can you enlighten me, and perhaps produce it please?

Well i cannot show the document itself on here because its classifed.

But there is a document that states that Flight 93 was intercepted, which shows reasonable doubt in the official story.

onlinejournal.com...

On October 29, 2007, WMR reported: “According to U.S. intelligence sources, the archives of the National Security Agency (NSA), available to cleared users via the INTELINK network, contains an archive of Flash precedence and Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) NSA intelligence messages known as ‘CRITICs.’

One such CRITIC from September 11, 2001, which includes a number of follow-on intelligence reports, concerns United Airlines flight 93, downed over Shanksville, Pennsylvania. However, the CRITIC is at odds with the official account of the fate of United 93, which is that passengers and crew attacked the hijackers and forced the plane to crash into the ground.

The NSA CRITIC, according to sources who have seen it, is about five or six sentences, and paraphrasically states:

“Two F-16s scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base at [likely 1336 Zulu]. Civilian airline hijacked. Over state of Pennsylvania civilian airliner was ‘intercepted’ at (Latitude and Longitude of intercept].”

Several follow-up CRITICs are appended to the first United 93-related CRITIC. One follow-up CRITIC mentioned a possible fifth hijacked plane flying south from Canada that was near the Canadian-U.S. border. Another CRITIC states the plane ‘intercepted’ over Pennsylvania was ‘confirmed civilian.’

On April 16, 2008, WMR reported: “WMR has received another confirmation, bringing the total number to three, that United Flight 93, hijacked on the morning of September 11, 2001, was shot down over rural Pennsylvania by U.S. Air Force jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. There are also reports that one F-16 scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia returned to base minus one air-to-air missile but the National Security Agency CRITIC report specified the interceptors that downed United 93 took off from Andrews.

“The third confirmation, as were the first two, is from a National Security Agency (NSA) source. In fact, a number of personnel who were on watch at the Meade Operations Center (MOC), which is a floor below the NSA’s National Security Operations Center (NSOC), were aware that United 93 was brought down by an Air Force air-to-air missile. Personnel within both the MOC and NSOC have reported the doomed aircraft was shot down.”

reply to post by jthomas


Apparently, according to the FDR it flew over. Why do you keep coming back to the same tired argument of not having any flyover witnesses? CIT has one that is officially documented and now independently confirmed as seeing the flyover as in the title of this thread. Now with the video backing up the timing and location of the C-130's loop near the Pentagon, it is even more improbably that he saw anything but the flyover.
So, how many more flyover witnesses does CIT need to satisfy your demands?

Originally posted by jthomas
You don't have any eyewitnesses that saw any plane fly away from the Pentagon nor do you have any "flyaway" flight path. Why not?

Just like the all the witnesses at the Pentagon could not agree on what they saw or even what type of planes it was.

Also there are no official reports or actual evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
Now, are you going to provide the evidence we ask for or keep hiding?

Since the government isn't tasked with supplying their evidence, why should anyone have to supply it's suporters with anything?

Strawman. The evidence doesn't come from nor does it originate with the "government." Don't try to evade your responsibility.

You present your factual evidence first. After all, you're the one who believes the whole government and MSM laid out story.

Sorry, your evasion still doesn't work. You're trying to prove AA77 did not crash into the Pentagon by claiming a "flyover" took place. Until and unless you accept the responsibility to produce evidence for your claims, you're just blowing the same hot air into the wind as you have for almost 7 years now.

So, this evidence shouldn't be hard to find, right?

Then why won't you provide it?

But, we've gone through this before and you'll deny that the government has to supply anything but then cry that the "twoofers" have to supply evidence.

The evidence did not originate with the "government." Your strawman doesn't work. The evidence of what happened on 9/11 is independent of, and did not originate with, the government. You can't get anywhere by repeating fallacious nonsense over and over and over.

Now, for the umpteenth time, Griff, when are you going to present evidence for your claims?

Originally posted by jthomas
Now, for the umpteenth time, Griff, when are you going to present evidence for your claims?

The FDR is the evidence, enough evidence to show reasonable doubt about the official story.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
Now, for the umpteenth time, Griff, when are you going to present evidence for your claims?

The FDR is the evidence, enough evidence to show reasonable doubt about the official story.

Please explain to me how the FDR casts reasonable doubt on the "official story."

Have you really thought this through?

[edit on 16-8-2008 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by jthomas

 

Apparently, according to the FDR it flew over. Why do you keep coming back to the same tired argument of not having any flyover witnesses?

Because you can't have a few witnesses on one side of the Pentagon, the approach side, and not have eyewitnesses on the departure side. As you well know.

CIT has one that is officially documented and now independently confirmed as seeing the flyover as in the title of this thread.

Nope. It only has an unsupported claim. You know that CIT has yet to provide any witnesses to a flyover on the departure side or a flight path away from the Pentagon. The jet would have to fly over a geographic area of thousands of people as it flew away from the Pentagon after the "explosion," low and fast, and draw the attention of scores if not hundreds of people, particularly drivers on the bridges and freeways.

Not one has ever surfaced. Without any eyewitnesses, CIT's case for a flyover is null and void

Now with the video backing up the timing and location of the C-130's loop near the Pentagon, it is even more improbably that he saw anything but the flyover.

Another fallacious statement. Reheat and others have produced four independent sources fully backing up the RADES data. CIT is unable to refute it.

So, PplVSNWO, when are you going to produce the necessary eyewitnesses to a flyover and the flight path of the jet away from the Pentagon?

No more evasions from you. We want the EVIDENCE.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
You don't have any eyewitnesses that saw any plane fly away from the Pentagon nor do you have any "flyaway" flight path. Why not?

Just like the all the witnesses at the Pentagon could not agree on what they saw or even what type of planes it was.

So, you have nothing to go to court with. Gosh, gee willikers.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
Now, for the umpteenth time, Griff, when are you going to present evidence for your claims?

The FDR is the evidence, enough evidence to show reasonable doubt about the official story.

I'm confident you won't get anywhere in any court with that claim. When do you propose to try?

Originally posted by jthomas
I'm confident you won't get anywhere in any court with that claim. When do you propose to try?

As soon as you have your evidence together to debate me in court.

Becasue i am going to challenge you in court. Since you want to talk about court so much. Put your evidence where your mouth is.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
I'm confident you won't get anywhere in any court with that claim. When do you propose to try?

As soon as you have your evidence together to debate me in court.

Gosh. Did you forget I have absolutely no reason to go to court?

What a hoot.

reply to post by jthomas


I didn't say anything about RADES, I said the FDR puts the plane too hight so it must have flown over as the witness proves. The point about the C130 was that he couldn't have seen the C-130 because it didn't fly over the pentagon and it came 2.5-3 minutes after the explosion as the video shows.
How do you propose that we go about finding any additional flyover witnesses? How many do we need? Perhaps when all the confiscated 9/11 calls are released, we will have plenty of eye witness testimony to a flyover. For now, since the media didn't interview anyone that could have been a flyover witness, it's going to be pretty difficult to find them.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by jthomas

 

I can not wait for the quote mining to occur with this. The article paints them as really, really misguided with not a shred of evidence to support their assertions.

Oh, I forgot, this reporter is one of "them" and is obviously "in on it".

Let Aldo's whining begin!

Originally posted by jthomas
Gosh. Did you forget I have absolutely no reason to go to court?

Well too bad you are going to have to go if i name you in the case i file.

So now you can finally show all the evidence you beleivers have that supports the official story.

OH THATS RIGHT I FORGOT, MOST OF THE EVIDENCE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED. SO YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY REAL EVINDECE TO SUPPORT THE OFFICIAL STORY.

[edit on 16-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by jthomas

 

How do you propose that we go about finding any additional flyover witnesses?

You mean CIT does know how to find eyewitnesses?

For now, since the media didn't interview anyone that could have been a flyover witness, it's going to be pretty difficult to find them.

Why? You don't think people are capable of using the phone or sending e-mails to media organizations if they saw something they subsequently NEVER heard reported anywhere?

In other words, you concede that there may never have been a flyover.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
Gosh. Did you forget I have absolutely no reason to go to court?

Well too bad you are going to have to go if i name you in the case i file.

You're going to file a case against 260,000,000 Americans, a class-action suit, perhaps?

OH THATS RIGHT I FORGOT, MOST OF THE EVIDENCE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED.

I see. First there you say there is NO evidence, now there IS evidence.

I have to say you are great entertainment!

Originally posted by jthomas
You're going to file a case against 260,000,000 Americans, a class-action suit, perhaps?

No, just challenge you in court. So now is your chance to stand up and show the evidence that you and the believers keep stating you have.

TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

I see. First there you say there is NO evidence, now there IS evidence.

Are you really that immature? As proven most of the evidnece has not been released by the FBI and NTSB. But if you file FOIA requests (like i have) and have access to good resources (like i have) then you can get infomration.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by jthomas

 

How do you propose that we go about finding any additional flyover witnesses?

You mean CIT does know how to find eyewitnesses?

Well, pffft lists their credentials as "Eyewitness Experts", (whatever that is) so they are highly qualified according to that "credible, trustworthy" site.

[edit on 16-8-2008 by Reheat]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
You're going to file a case against 260,000,000 Americans, a class-action suit, perhaps?

No, just challenge you in court. So now is your chance to stand up and show the evidence that you and the believers keep stating you have.

TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

What are your charges against me?

I see. First there you say there is NO evidence, now there IS evidence.

As proven most of the evidnece has not been released by the FBI and NTSB.

So, you now agree there is evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

I think that means you should be taking yourself to court for lying to us.

Man. this IS fun!

Originally posted by jthomas
What are your charges against me?

NO charges. Just a challenge to PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

So, you now agree there is evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Why must you believers be so immature as to try to put words in peoples mouths? I have already proven several times that there is no actual evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Its up to you that if you believe AA77 hit the Pentagon to show evidence to support your believe.

[edit on 16-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]