The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

SPreston

fleabit
For example, that piece of wreckage with AA serial info:

Ahhh yes, that little piece laying on that beautiful golf course turf the first picture of which came out 6 years after 9-11 in September 2007. Doesn't it seem odd that there is only one picture of it?

Yes siree bub, the only picture of your mysterious little planted piece is scanned from a page of the Pentagon 9-11 book. No actual photo has ever been released. Isn't that peculiar?

Pictures scanned from the Pentagon 9/11 book released in September 2007

It took 6 years for the only alleged 'piece of evidence' to be released to the public, which proved it came from Flight 77 (N644AA) by serial number? That is a crock of manure and you know it.


[edit on 8/19/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston

SPreston

fleabit
For example, that piece of wreckage with AA serial info:

Yes siree bub, the only picture of your mysterious little planted piece ...
Pictures scanned from the Pentagon 9/11 book released in September 2007

It took 6 years for the only alleged 'piece of evidence' to be released to the public, which proved it came from Flight 77 (N644AA) by serial number? That is a crock of manure and you know it.


[edit on 8/19/08 by SPreston]

I would not be sitting if I had all you evidence, I would be going to the survivors who lost loved ones in the Pentagon to go get justice! Take your evidence and go get justice; take some action like the Passengers on flight 93!



What are you waiting for? Evidence?

Originally posted by SPreston

fleabit
For example, that piece of wreckage with AA serial info:

Ahhh yes, that little piece laying on that beautiful golf course turf the first picture of which came out 6 years after 9-11 in September 2007. Doesn't it seem odd that there is only one picture of it?

fleabit
They will believe this was related, when you provide 4 independent studies conducted the day OF the crash, recognizing that this was indeed from that plane, from metallurgy tests, advanced physics tests proving it could fly to that location from the angle that the plane hit the Pentagon, with 9 eyewitness accounts that saw this particular piece of wreckage fly from the plane, and arcing through the air, landed on that piece of land.

Nine eyewitnesses watched that teensy little thing fly through the air and none of them saw the light poles which were a thousand times bigger flying through the air? Do you mind providing links to these wild claims of yours?

use the whole quote and it makes a little more sense.. it was sarcasm..
look again.. you might see it..

It's obvious some of these folks are such fanatics about what they believe in, they won't believe anything happened unless proved without a shadow of a doubt. For example, that piece of wreckage with AA serial info: They will believe this was related, when you provide 4 independent studies conducted the day OF the crash, recognizing that this was indeed from that plane, from metallurgy tests, advanced physics tests proving it could fly to that location from the angle that the plane hit the Pentagon, with 9 eyewitness accounts that saw this particular piece of wreckage fly from the plane, and arcing through the air, landed on that piece of land. Finally, 12 psychics will have had to be given access to this piece of metal, to use their empath abilities to determine if it indeed, came from an aircraft that recently held emotions of fright, terror, and despair. Then those 4 independent studies will have to have been cross-checked by the NSA, FBI, CIA, FDA, notarized by the President, and then displayed for public access for 10 years. If this happened, they might believe it. But probably not.

"but probably not"

Originally posted by SPreston

Yes siree bub, the only picture of your mysterious little planted piece

Do you have evidence that this was planted? Or are you just making this up?

Originally posted by nicepants

Originally posted by SPreston
Yes siree bub, the only picture of your mysterious little planted piece

Do you have evidence that this was planted? Or are you just making this up?

The 'evidence' speaks for itself. Only one picture of this mysterious little 'evidence' piece and that only picture appears on a page of the Defense Dept propaganda book 'Pentagon 9/11' published September 7, 2007. No photos ever released of this alleged piece of Flight 77 'evidence' and nobody ever sees it or hears of it until 6 years later in September 2007?

When did the AA mechanic give his expert opinion; in September 2001 or some time in 2007? We have the most lying most crooked most corrupt regime ever in the history of our republic, in control of our nation and their modus operandi is to plant evidence such as Iraqi WMDs and shred paperwork and censor evidence and confiscate videos and photos and gag witnesses dangerous to them and repeat the same lies over and over and over to the American people, and you doubt that this dinky little piece of 'evidence' was planted to protect the STATUS QUO?

Oh yeah; we should all be assured that this piece of 'evidence' was planted. It had to be planted since the aircraft which flew over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo could not possibly have impacted the wall and created the damage path inside and outside the Pentagon, which was aligned with the official Flight 77 path through the light poles and South of the Navy Annex. Correct? The North of Citgo aircraft would create a completely different damage path and miss the light poles. Correct?

Hitting the Pentagon 1st floor wall with 100 tons at a speed over 250 knots and not leaving a damage path of its own through the light poles and overhead highway sign and inside the Pentagon all the way to the A&E Drive at a different spot would be IMPOSSIBLE. Correct? There, see how useful simple logic and common sense can be? We are finally in agreement.

If no aircraft crashed and if no aircraft left parts at the Pentagon, then how else would it have gotten there except in the hand of a FBI evidence planter? Try to use a little common sense once in a while instead of your standard incessant 'government loyalist' kneejerk reaction.

An American Airlines mechanic identifies the part with serial number on the Pentagon lawn: (photo source: "Pentagon 9/11" 911files.info...)

"The part in question is the power supply for the emergency lights. ...I assure you it was Flight 77, AA 757 5BP."

[edit on 8/20/08 by SPreston]

fleabit
They will believe this was related, when you provide 4 independent studies conducted the day OF the crash, recognizing that this was indeed from that plane, from metallurgy tests, advanced physics tests proving it could fly to that location from the angle that the plane hit the Pentagon, with 9 eyewitness accounts that saw this particular piece of wreckage fly from the plane, and arcing through the air, landed on that piece of land.

SPreston
Nine eyewitnesses watched that teensy little thing fly through the air and none of them saw the light poles which were a thousand times bigger flying through the air? Do you mind providing links to these wild claims of yours?

pccat
use the whole quote and it makes a little more sense.. it was sarcasm..
look again.. you might see it..

Yes I know; and my own sarcasm was equal to the task. As you can easily see from my later posts, I wished to bring a little piece of planted 'evidence' into the discussion. Do you doubt that one little piece of 'evidence' which suddenly appeared 6 years after 9-11 with only one known picture and not one previous hint at its existence was planted?

[edit on 8/20/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston
Do you doubt that one little piece of 'evidence' which suddenly appeared 6 years after 9-11 with only one known picture and not one previous hint at its existence was planted?

Might this be similar to some witnesses who appeared over 6 years later, some with totally different statement than they recorded in earlier years?

Using your logic these witnesses were planted, no?

Originally posted by SPreston

1. Where are the eyewitnesses to a flyover away from the Pentagon, SP?

2. Where is the flight path away from the Pentagon, SP?

Cat still got your tongue?

reply to post by SPreston


Speaking of flight paths, where is that flight path that you promised you were going to do connecting the CIT delusion with the Tribby video/Looney photographs?

Really now, it's not as if you don't have time. You keep posting propaganda, yet don't post a graphic to prove that you're right. You could really score some points and earn the most gold stars ever recorded here. I mean you could win a Pulitzer Prize and that means $$.

You don't want $$ and fame? The more I think about it the more I can not think of any reason why you don't fulfill your promise to provide this diagram. Well, I can think of one reason you don't post it. Do you know that reason, SPreston?

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by SPreston
Do you doubt that one little piece of 'evidence' which suddenly appeared 6 years after 9-11 with only one known picture and not one previous hint at its existence was planted?

Might this be similar to some witnesses who appeared over 6 years later, some with totally different statement than they recorded in earlier years?

Using your logic these witnesses were planted, no?

A person as dishonest as you would have difficulty answering that simple question. Correct?

Of course. You with your inside sources already knew that one little piece of 'evidence' which suddenly appeared 6 years after 9-11 with only one known picture and not one previous hint at its existence was planted. But that is just hunky dory with you, isn't it Reheat? After all we all know with you guys, that the objective always justifies the means. Correct?

Originally posted by SPreston

Originally posted by nicepants

Originally posted by SPreston
Yes siree bub, the only picture of your mysterious little planted piece

Do you have evidence that this was planted? Or are you just making this up?

The 'evidence' speaks for itself.
If no aircraft crashed and if no aircraft left parts at the Pentagon, then

The problem with your theory is that it requires the aircraft to have not crashed. (a situation contradicted by every eyewitness and every piece of physical evidence)

If you want to prove that these plane parts were planted, you need to provide some proof of what happened to AA77.

EDIT: Or, better yet, provide some witnesses (of the hundreds present) to the planting of this evidence.

Originally posted by SPreston
We have the most lying most crooked most corrupt regime ever in the history of our republic, in control of our nation and their modus operandi is to plant evidence such as Iraqi WMDs....

They admitted that they never found WMDs in Iraq. That's right...this government which you claim pulled off the most complicated and intricate conspiracy in US history, planting evidence in front of hundreds of people, couldn't fake a single WMD in a desert on the other side of the world.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by nicepants]

[edit on 20-8-2008 by nicepants]

Originally posted by SPreston
After all we all know with you guys, that the objective always justifies the means. Correct?

Oh, so I'm in on it now, am I?

Is that the reason I have proven the CIT crap is not possible from a couple of different angles? Along with others, the garbage has been proven wrong on numerous counts, yet you can only refute that proof by spewing propaganda of corroborated witnesses, innuendos of planted evidence, and now accusations that I'm in on it.

One would think, by now, that you could post some proof instead of spewing garbage all over the screen. Poor CIT Cheerleader! All we get is post after post of unmitigated crap to litter the Forum.

You need to stop posting and do those graphics that would prove your story.

You can't? I am greatly surprised!

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by SPreston

 

Speaking of flight paths, where is that flight path that you promised you were going to do connecting the CIT delusion with the Tribby video/Looney photographs?

Really now, it's not as if you don't have time. You keep posting propaganda, yet don't post a graphic to prove that you're right. You could really score some points and earn the most gold stars ever recorded here. I mean you could win a Pulitzer Prize and that means $$.

You don't want $$ and fame? The more I think about it the more I can not think of any reason why you don't fulfill your promise to provide this diagram. Well, I can think of one reason you don't post it. Do you know that reason, SPreston?

You might break into tears?
You might lose your cushy job with the 9-11 defense team?

Come on Reheat. You are the only person around here dishonest enough to manufacture fantasy flight paths based on unknown aircraft and unknown altitudes and unknown positions and unknown speeds and unknown headings and unknown objectives. In other words, imaginary flight paths based on Reheat BS and fanciful illusions.

Just the simple fact that the actual aircraft is PROVEN over the Navy Annex and PROVEN North of the Citgo and PROVEN to have never flown the fake FDR loop southwest of the Pentagon and PROVEN to have flown east across the Potomac and over DC and west across the Potomac, is all that is necessary to PROVE that the official Flight 77 flight path South of the Navy Annex and through the light poles and low and level across the lawn at 535 mph is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Got that firmly in your pea brain Reheat?

Get your head out of your butt and face up to the FACTS.
Become a man Reheat . . . . . . . . . . And quit whining like a dog in heat.

reply to post by SPreston


Gee, can't you use the word PROVEN one more time.

Here's what all of that amounts to:

Reheat
Speaking of flight paths, where is that flight path that you promised you were going to do connecting the CIT delusion with the Tribby video/Looney photographs?

You don't want $$ and fame? The more I think about it the more I can not think of any reason why you don't fulfill your promise to provide this diagram.

Yet again another infamous Reheat 'strawman argument'? Would you mind quoting from this forum such a promise from me Reheat? No? Sorry Reheat, but counterfeiting other members' posts is not allowed on this forum. I know that the Magnificent Randi Forum of Illusionists is not quite so obstructionist in their rules and regulations, but you cannot collect a quote of mine from over there and post it here either. Besides, I have never posted over there at the Forum of Fools.

Where did you learn 'strawman arguments' Reheat? Was your Mommy always beating on you and you had to devise lies for your own protection? Has there ever been a time when you were just plain truthful? No? I know. A silly question to ask someone ignorant of the meaning of truth. Will you ever run out of 'strawman arguments' Reheat?

[edit on 8/20/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by SPreston

 

Gee, can't you use the word PROVEN one more time.

Here's what all of that amounts to:

Ahhh! A demonstration of the infamous Reheat flight path modeling and mathematical abilities. I am duly impressed.

While we are on the subject, some people are really dense when trying to understand the simple meanings of ordinary words such as PROVEN or TRUTH or INSIDE JOB.

SPreston
Just the simple fact that the actual aircraft is PROVEN over the Navy Annex and PROVEN North of the Citgo and PROVEN to have never flown the fake FDR loop southwest of the Pentagon and PROVEN to have flown east across the Potomac and over DC and west across the Potomac, is all that is necessary to PROVE that the official Flight 77 flight path South of the Navy Annex and through the light poles and low and level across the lawn at 535 mph is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Got that firmly in your pea brain Reheat?

Reheat
Gee, can't you use the word PROVEN one more time.

Well golly Reheat, I'm just trying to help. Truth is all those simple facts were PROVEN by real living eyewitnesses and you just don't seem to get it.

Originally posted by SPreston

SPreston
Just the simple fact that the actual aircraft is PROVEN over the Navy Annex and PROVEN North of the Citgo and PROVEN to have never flown the fake FDR loop southwest of the Pentagon and PROVEN to have flown east across the Potomac and over DC and west across the Potomac, is all that is necessary to PROVE that the official Flight 77 flight path South of the Navy Annex and through the light poles and low and level across the lawn at 535 mph is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Got that firmly in your pea brain Reheat?

Reheat
Gee, can't you use the word PROVEN one more time.

Well golly Reheat, I'm just trying to help. Truth is all those simple facts were PROVEN by real living eyewitnesses and you just don't seem to get it.

SPRESTON: If an eyewitness claims to have seen something, does that make it "proven"?

nicepants
SPRESTON: If an eyewitness claims to have seen something, does that make it "proven"?

If you put all the eyewitness accounts placing the aircraft over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo together with the eyewitness accounts placing the aircraft over DC and crossing the Potomac and banking around Reagan together with the NORAD tapes placing the aircraft over DC and 6 miles southeast of the White House together with the absense of aircraft debris scientifically identified by serial # as Flight 77 N644AA together with the obvious fakery of the parking lot security videos together with the confiscation and censorship of all local video tapes which might prove the identity of the approaching aircraft together with eyewitnesses accounts placing the C-130 far north of the RADES flight path PROVING the RADES a fake together with the evidence gathered by P4T demonstrating the FDR a fake together with the extreme difficulty of a 100 ton 535 mph pull up to level flight mere inches above a lawn after a descent down a hill through five 247 lb light poles together with the impossibility of the totally ridiculous light pole scenario with Lloyd England and the magical lay down gently light poles:

Yes it does.

Originally posted by SPreston

Originally posted by Reheat

While we are on the subject, some people are really dense when trying to understand the simple meanings of ordinary words such as PROVEN or TRUTH or INSIDE JOB.

1. Where are the eyewitnesses to a flyover away from the Pentagon, SP?

2. Where is the flight path away from the Pentagon, SP?

Prove it.