The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

reply to post by jthomas


Do you think the media organizations would report it if there were flyover witnesses? I doubt it, seeing they reported many of the people's stories as eye witness accounts that weren't even there. It's pretty clear they were complicit in the cover up from the get go. Why else would they not even entertain the idea that the government lied to the people? They enjoy labeling good folks that don't believe the gov't lies as nut jobs and wackos. Why would they report anything that backed these "nut jobs"?

So far in the last 10 pages of this thread alone we've had:

1) Someone who claims to have a photo of AA77 landing elsewhere but could not produce it

2) Someone who claims that he witnessed the light poles that were struck by AA77 still standing after the attack, but identified the wrong poles when asked to do so

3) Someone who claims to possess a document that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the "official story" was false, but he won't produce it

Why the lack of transparancy in the "truth" movement?

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.

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]

You really have no idea how the court system works do you? I never knew you could challenge someone to a debate in court. Just goes to show how much people know.... You are going to file a case about what? And name an internet poster in the case. What a joke.

[edit on 16-8-2008 by tide88]

Originally posted by tide88
You really have no idea how the court system works do you?

Yes, actually i do. I was a federal police officer and have testified in court.

Originally posted by discombobulator
3) Someone who claims to possess a document that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the "official story" was false, but he won't produce it

Why the lack of transparancy in the "truth" movement?

For 1, i have shown evidence of the government document and will produce it if i can get it unclssified through a FOIA request.

Talk about transparancy. What really bad is the beleivers that keep stating they know what happened that day and believe in the official story but still cannot post 1 piece of evidence to supports it.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by tide88
You really have no idea how the court system works do you?

Yes, actually i do. I was a federal police officer and have testified in court.

Sure you were. And now you work for the NSA. How do you file a court case to debate a topic. Why dont you show me some examples of previous cases where someone filed a case to debate a topic and the court allowed it. Or even better where someone filed a case in a US court where the courts allowed them to debate a topic from a conspiracy board and supenoed an internet poster.

Yes, actually i do. I was a federal police officer and have testified in court.

I would love to have been the person you testified against. I am sure he won the case.

Originally posted by tide88
Sure you were. And now you work for the NSA.

I have already proven to a few members on here who i am and who i work for. Would you like to see thier quotes?

I would love to have been the person you testified against. I am sure he won the case.

Well that would be where you are wrong yet again. He was proven guilty.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
For 1, i have shown evidence of the government document and will produce it if i can get it unclssified through a FOIA request.

So you have an FOIA request in at the moment?

Would you mind sharing the FOIA Request Number?

If there was a document that proved without a shadow of a doubt it was a coverup, I guarantee you wouldn't get your hands on it. FOIA or not, you'd never see it.

"Even though I think people definitely saw something I don't believe it was a 757. I think it was a sophisticated psy-ops deception that distracted people from what really happened, like a magician's sleight of hand."

What sort of psy-ops are you talking about? Imo, that's a cop out. An excuse to explain away the eyewitnesses. If I saw a 757 crash into the Pentagon, I'd have NO doubt what it was. It's sort of difficult to "disguise" a large jet flying into a building. If I were a witness, I'd know perfectly well what it was I saw.

Again, your premise suggests that there is a point wher NO ONE saw the jet. It just disappeared. Care to explain how this happened? It's low to the ground.. many people see it.. and then it just disappears! How does a large jet do this, I'd really like to know. Again, if I were a witness, my eyes would be glued to that until I couldn't see it any longer.

If you start getting into mind-games, saying that the military tricked people into seeing what they saw, and made them ignore the real jet, you know there is no defense for this. You might as well move onto "aliens camoflauged the jet as it flew away" as an excuse, and be done with it. This theory just gets more ridiculous as it goes along.

It's pretty simple really: Until you can prove that the eyewitnesses that say they saw it crash into the Pentagon did NOT see it do this, you have no case whatsoever. I'd also like you to explain how witnesses could just lose track of a low-flying 757. Hell, I watch fly across the sky at 15,000 feet for minutes at a time. I can hear it from a looong ways away, it's obvious. Yet you are suggesting that flying at less than 100 feet from the ground, people lost track of it. It's incredibly loud that close (and people commented on how loud it was), and yet people just lost sight *and* stopped hearing it. That's quite amazing! I don't think David Copperfield could pull that one off.

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by jthomas

 

1. Obviously I missed where I have been arguing with anyone in this thread? That is what I ment about not playing this game of yours.

So you still need to distort what you wrote and deny that I responded to what your wrote appropriately? Whoopee. That's exactly what 9/11 Deniers always do.

3. From what I've read, CIT is on to something and at least they are out there doing the grunt work.

So what's valuable is the fact that they went to Washington and to hell with the fact that they have no produced the evidence or addressed the questions that necessarily follow from their trip.

Amazing logic.

Even if they are mistaken, they've earned my respect to not degrade them or play you guys' childish games of trying to wreck their reputation.

Asking them to answer questions to support their claims is "playing childish questions?"

I have never seen Craig stoop to the level of some of his opponents and I also respect that. He has more reserve than I, that is for sure.

That is another fine illustration of your denial of reality.

4. Have you spoken with all these eyewitnesses you claim? If not, when will you get off your ass and get them? You first. I'm not the one adamently claiming to know everything.

Sorry, trying to shift the burden of proof is STILL not going to get you anywhere. It's CIT's claims and CIT's sole responsibility to provide the necessary evidence that a flyover occurred. CIT has not done so. Aldo and Craig know that. How can you not?

Until and unless CIT can provide the necessary evidence we have requested from it no manner of CIT insults to us are going to change the facts on the ground. They have made no case for a flyover.

Now, again, WHEN are you going to stop dancing around and provide the required eyewitnesses to a flyover AND the flight path CIT's jet was supposed to have taken?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 I have already posted a $1,000 reward years ago and someone else once offered a $2,000 reward and no one even tried.

You sure do confuse yourself, young fella. First you want to take us to court, now you want to give us a reward.

This 9/11 Truth stuff you're smoking must be some powerful.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
What are your charges against me?

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

You're going to take me to court to shut me 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.

No, you said the evidence "hasn't been released."

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

I repeat. You said the evidence "hasn't been released." What evidence?

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by jthomas

 

Do you think the media organizations would report it if there were flyover witnesses?

There is no reason not to.

I doubt it, seeing they reported many of the people's stories as eye witness accounts that weren't even there.

So you don't believe these eyewitnesses? Prove it.

Pentagon witness spreadsheet (Excel file)
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Many witnesses were in their cars, in a traffic jam directly in front of the Pentagon. Most of those people drove away and were not interviewed. Below is a summary of the accounts quoted in the lists and spreadsheet summary above. These are mostly accounts that appeared in mainstream media reports. Many more people probably witnessed the attack.

From the lists above, 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

It's pretty clear they were complicit in the cover up from the get go.

It's only your claim that a cover up took place. You haven't even begun to provide any evidence for one so you cannot base an additional claim on an unproven one.

No wonder Truthers don't understand what constitutes evidence.

It is your mission to provide eyewitnesses to a so-called "flyover." Obviously, you are trying every Truther trick in the book to evade your responsibility to support your case.

Originally posted by jthomas
Asking them to answer questions to support their claims is "playing childish questions?"

And yet, you deny us the answers to our questions asked of you. Like providing a shread of a single piece of evidence to back YOUR claims. I have yet to see you post your grunt work.

Tell me, when are you guys taking Osama Bin Laden to court? Oh, that's right, even the FBI doesn't have enough evidence to convict him.

Oh, BTW, I have no idea where you come to the conclusion that this flyover thing is my hypothesis. Lumping us all in the same group has lost it's effectiveness long ago.

reply to post by jthomas


Let me know when you get around to interviewing all those people to verify what is stated they said. Funny that you post a summary of these eyewitnesses but not even a name or direct quote. Some evidence there.



Edit: At first, I couldn't get the witness list links to work. Now they do, so I take back the comment about not a name or direct quote.

[edit on 8/16/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
Asking them to answer questions to support their claims is "playing childish questions?"

And yet, you deny us the answers to our questions asked of you. Like providing a shread of a single piece of evidence to back YOUR claims. I have yet to see you post your grunt work.

You know perfectly well that I don't have any claims. I am not trying to prove anything. YOU are the ones trying to prove something but can't.

Oh, BTW, I have no idea where you come to the conclusion that this flyover thing is my hypothesis.

I never said it was "yours." But you're here in this thread denying that CIT has to produce eyewitnesses, denying that CIT has to support its claims.

You've happily joined the CIT groupie contingent so we'll hold you to producing the necessary evidence and call you on it when you evade doing so.

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by jthomas

 

Let me know when you get around to interviewing all those people to verify what is stated they said. Funny that you post a summary of these eyewitnesses but not even a name or direct quote. Some evidence there.

Edit: At first, I couldn't get the witness list links to work. Now they do, so I take back the comment about not a name or direct quote.

[edit on 8/16/2008 by Griff]

I am happy to show that you will never produce any eyewitnesses from the metropolitan Washington, DC area who claimed to have seen a flyover.

Don't worry, you're in good company. Ranke and Marquis can't either. They ran away.

Originally posted by jthomas


I am happy to show that you will never produce any eyewitnesses from the metropolitan Washington, DC area who claimed to have seen a flyover.

That's because according to Roosevelt Roberts, the officially documented and independently confirmed flyover witness, it did not fly over the river or the DC area and banked around and did a "U-turn" towards the "mall entrance" or north side of the Pentagon.

Why are you dismissing Roosevelt Roberts' account?

Thanks to the ANC witnesses and the Tribby video we know FOR SURE that the C-130 wasn't in the area until a few minutes later and was clearly MUCH higher than the 50 feet altitude reported by Roosevelt Roberts immediately after the explosion.

Roosevelt Roberts it the ultimate validation of the 13 north side witnesses proving the plane did not hit.

reply to post by jthomas


I don't agree with the fly over. But, what I do find interesting are the eyewitnesses who claim the north side path. You can't deny their testimony.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

That's because according to Roosevelt Roberts, the officially documented and independently confirmed flyover witness, it did not fly over the river or the DC area and banked around and did a "U-turn" towards the "mall entrance" or north side of the Pentagon.

My, my, my, you must have found some good weed while you were gone. Would you mind drawing the flight path for what you've just described? GoodYear Blimp again?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Why are you dismissing Roosevelt Roberts' account?

Because it didn't happen. It is aerodynamically impossible according to your interpretation of his confusing muddled statements.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Thanks to the ANC witnesses and the Tribby video we know FOR SURE that the C-130 wasn't in the area until a few minutes later and was clearly MUCH higher than the 50 feet altitude reported by Roosevelt Roberts immediately after the explosion.

Sure. The Tribby video also shows that your convoluted attempt to show the RADES data is false also SHOWS YOU ARE WRONG and it show the ANC PEOPLE WERE WRONG. The RADES data is confirmed by video and photography.

[edit on 16-8-2008 by Reheat]