William Middleton Sr - north side approach witness, the ultimate validation

reply to post by beachnut


Doesn't look like proof to me.

Looks to me like images you got off the internet and photoshopped out the real pilots name so you wouldn't get busted.

Boger saw the plane banking on the north side like everyone else.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Those are all real, the FAA stuff johndoex already has. You know this, you and johndoex work together.

Boger still saw 77 impact, and all of your witnesses agree 77 impacted the Pentagon.

Originally posted by beachnut
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

Those are all real, the FAA stuff johndoex already has. You know this, you and johndoex work together.

Boger still saw 77 impact, and all of your witnesses agree 77 impacted the Pentagon.

Do you agree then that the flightpath was north of Citgo?

reply to post by almighty bob


Do you agree the entire argument is moot as the plane according to CIT's own witnesses (save one) wound up in the Pentagon?

Again, NOC/SOC/EOC/WEC...........what difference does it make unless your contesting the impact of flight 77 with the Pentagon?

Something 9-11 Ct’ers, IMO only, like to do is pose questions and make assertions without addressing the implications of those assertions.

So, either you:

1. Agree the plane hit the pentagon thereby making this ENTIRE discussion moot or,
   
2. You are contesting the plane hitting the building
   

It's that simple. If your position is in "B" then, once again, these questions are for you:

Please answer these questions that are directly related to the widely accepted, amassed evidence. Once you (the royal you) can provide a plausible narrative to negate these questions, only then is it reasonable to entertain notions of a fly over.

Hint: conspiracies, layered upon yet more conspiracies is not a cohesive narrative. It's unfounded speculation.

(1)What happened to flight 77?
If flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, then where is it? Where is the plane – physically? Who disposed of the aircraft? Where was it disposed? How? We are talking about 110 tons of aircraft, engines, fuel, seats, trays, avionics, luggage, etc. Where are the eyewitnesses that saw the plane physically fly over the Pentagon? Where did it land after the fly over? Were the FAA radar operators “in on it” too? Where are the airport employees who saw the 110 ton airliner land, at the undisclosed location? Were they “in on it” too, or were they killed? If so, who killed them?

(2)What happened to the passengers and crew?
Where are the passengers? Were they all “in on it”? If not, who disposed of the passengers? Where were the disposed of? How have the disposers been keep quiet? Have the disposers been killed too? How have the disposers of the disposers been kept quiet? Where were the bodies taken/buried? How was this accomplished?

(3)How do you explain the phone calls from loved ones physically on the plane, to other loved ones?
Where the calls faked? From where? How were family members duped into thinking they were talking to their wife (for example) when in you’re claiming they were talking to a computer program? How do you reconcile that some of the phone calls went through cell phone towers very close to the so-called “official” flight path? How do you reconcile that some of the calls originated from the Airphones physically on the plane in question?

(4)How do you explain the wreckage found in the building?
If it was planted, how was it planted? Who planted it? When did they plant it? Where did they get spare aircraft parts? Where were these spare aircraft parts stored? How were they transported to the scene without anyone noticing? Were the parts in question placed beforehand? If so, how? How was this accomplished without anyone noticing?

(5)How do you account for the wreckage found on the lawn?
Were the parts found in the lawn placed beforehand ? If so, where are the witnesses talking about aircraft wreckage laying around on the lawn beforehand? Or, are “they” “in on it” too? Was the wreckage on the lawn placed after the event? If so, how were “they” able to accomplish this without anyone noticing? Or are the potential witnesses, after the event “in on it” too?

(6)How do you reconcile the impact location, as it relates to the evidence?
How were the perpetrators able to judge the exact location of impact, before the event? That is, how do you reconcile that the airplane debris in question is exactly where it should be?

(7)How do you reconcile the bodies of the passengers and crew being positively identified through DNA evidence collected from within the Pentagon?
Is the DNA evidence faked? If so, by whom? Is the lab that conducted the tests and certified it’s authenticity “in on it” too?

(8)How do you reconcile personal effects, positively identified by family members as belonging to their next of kin, found within the Pentagon?
Was this evidence placed beforehand? If so, by whom? If it was placed after the event why did nobody notice? Or, are the first responders (Pentagon employees) “in on it” too? How were personal effects taken from the victims (like a drivers license) without their knowledge beforehand and planted?

(9)How do you reconcile the bodies of passengers found within the Pentagon, some still strapped into their seats?
Were the bodies placed beforehand? If so, how do you explain the bodies in question checking in at the counter at the originating airport? Were the ticketing agents “in on it” too? If the pilots were killed beforehand and then placed in the Pentagon (at some point), who flew the plane? If the bodies were placed after the event, how were the correct passengers and crew killed, then placed in the Pentagon without anyone knowing? Are the first responders, who found the first bodies, “in on it” too? Can you offer a time line that reconciles the correct passengers/crew checking in at the airport, being led off and executed and then their bodies being transported to the crash site?

(10)How do you explain the impact zone damage being completely in-line with a fast moving commercial airliner?
Was it a controlled demolition? If so, where are the blasting caps? Wiring? How was the area wired without anyone noticing? How long would this take? How would the employees who were killed at their desks not notice demolition experts wiring their office with demolitions and not complain, notice, or ask questions? Or, were the employees killed at their desk “in on it” too? If there were no employees at their desks, were the bodies planted before the event? If so, how? By whom? How have the planters been kept quiet? Were the planters killed too? By whom? Were the bodies planted after the event? If so, by whom? Where are the eyewitness reports of dead employees being brought in, after the fact? Or, were/are these potential witnesses “in on it” too?

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by almighty bob

 

Do you agree the entire argument is moot as the plane according to CIT's own witnesses (save one) wound up in the Pentagon?

No. Whereas I may not agree fully with some of the CIT conclusions based on the testimony produced, it is hard to deny that there is a very real possibility, and in fact a more than decent probability, that the flight that potentially hit The Pentagon had a flight path north of Citgo.

This does not make the entire argument moot, merely gives a higher degree of deniability to the conclusion that the craft sighted in the path north of Citgo did not actually imapact with The Pentagon.

However:

Given the high likelihood of the NoC flightpath (either the eyewitnesses are reliable or they are not; it is not useful merely to pick and say 'well they say it hit The Pentagon and I believe that so I believe them, but I don't believe the northern flightpath so I believe they were mistaken'), then the obvious conclusion is that the damage caused external to and the damage pattern inside of The Pentagon, that would be in line with the official flightpath was staged somehow. The most likely culprits, the Government or whatever shadow powers that the Government is the puppet of.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Again, NOC/SOC/EOC/WEC...........what difference does it make unless your contesting the impact of flight 77 with the Pentagon?

The difference, as I stated above, is that the official flightpath requires the damage pattern displayed at the site which cannot be reconciled with the northside flightpath, which we have strong evidence for. Therefore, the damage was staged, therefore a massive government deception occurred.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

Something 9-11 Ct’ers, IMO only, like to do is pose questions and make assertions without addressing the implications of those assertions.

So, either you:

1. Agree the plane hit the pentagon thereby making this ENTIRE discussion moot or,
   
2. You are contesting the plane hitting the building
   

A: No, it doesn't make the entire argument moot. That is narrow.

B: Yes, I could contest whether the craft hit the building or not. There is not enough viable information for me to make a decision either way.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

It's that simple. If your position is in "B" then, once again, these questions are for you:

Please answer these questions that are directly related to the widely accepted, amassed evidence. Once you (the royal you) can provide a plausible narrative to negate these questions, only then is it reasonable to entertain notions of a fly over.

Hint: conspiracies, layered upon yet more conspiracies is not a cohesive narrative. It's unfounded speculation.

Seriously? This is a very leading and bias challange. I have no further evidence to put to this. Anything I say, no matter how cohesive the narrative, is unfounded speculation. I could write out the most plausible and bulletproof story to cover all of these points, but all it would still be unfounded speculation.

Furthermore, these questions, while certainly very important in the overall scheme of the events of that day, have no actual bearing on the fact that these witnesses placed the flightpath north of Citgo, that these witnesses have not been refuted in the manner in which they were given (that is, an independant and impartial collection of independant and impartial testimonies to support the official flightpath), and that the described flightpath points to an horrific deception by the rulers of America. Once this has been established, then it is the time to move on to deducing the methods as put forward in your post.

Originally posted by almighty bob
No. Whereas I may not agree fully with some of the CIT conclusions based on the testimony produced, it is hard to deny that there is a very real possibility, and in fact a more than decent probability, that the flight that potentially hit The Pentagon had a flight path north of Citgo.

Zero chance of NoC flight path.

The last heading of 77 was 70 degrees, that is 71.4 degree magnetic track, or a 61.2 true track course. And we have a true heading, 59.8; these headings and tracks are confirmed by other witnesses, RADAR, and the drift angle matches the winds for 9/11, which confirms the speed of flight 77. All the witnesses, RADAR, and FDR dovetail to form what 77 did.

Paths north of the CITGO station causing damage to the Pentagon are impossible.

Witnesses on this video all drew impossible paths based on physics alone, the paths contain the numbers required to figure out the G force. The method used in the video pilots for truth and CIT have about G forces ironically can be used to show each path is impossible. Some of the turns are subtle instant changes, the line just moves to a new heading with zero radius; most the paths have small turns requiring impossible G force. Some of them are 57 Gs; physics proving the drawn paths are not possible.

I saw the video, Middleton points to the south path. All the witnesses point to the south path.

Hard evidence, the heading information, one of the most accurate things in the FDR, makes any path anybody draws north of the Citgo impossible.

I think all the witnesses agree, 77 hit the Pentagon. Now that is something.

Originally posted by beachnut

I saw the video, Middleton points to the south path. All the witnesses point to the south path.


I think all the witnesses agree, 77 hit the Pentagon. Now that is something.

I saw the video. It appears that Middleton is pointing to a northside path. Other witnesses have also drawn and validated northside paths, whether you believe one possible or not.

Yes, it seems the witnesses agree that something hit the Pentagon. There is nothing to say from their testimony that it was actually flight 77.

So, are the witnesses reliable or not?

reply to post by almighty bob

It was 77. No evidence after 7 years to say 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

The witnesses all pointed to the south path. They drew impossible paths, due to physics alone for your north path fantasy, but pointed to the south path. Not one had the plane over them, but some drew the plane over others.

The all agree 77 hit the Pentagon. After 7 years no evidence to refute 77 impact at the Pentagon.

I doubt the witnesses draw charts as their livelihood, it take training to draw known paths on charts let alone something they erratically witnessed.

A simple course in aircraft accident investigation would help interpret the witness statements; but will all of them pointing to the exact south path, the north path dies a sudden death with impossible G maneuvers.

Originally posted by almighty bob

I saw the video. It appears that Middleton is pointing to a northside path. Other witnesses have also drawn and validated northside paths, whether you believe one possible or not.

He's hoping jedi mind tricks will work on you!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
He's hoping jedi mind tricks will work on you!

Never heard physics called a jedi mind trick,

the new Jedi mind tricks, simple physics, and evidence…

Originally posted by beachnut
reply to post by almighty bob

 

It was 77. No evidence after 7 years to say 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

The witnesses all pointed to the south path. They drew impossible paths, due to physics alone for your north path fantasy, but pointed to the south path. Not one had the plane over them, but some drew the plane over others.

The all agree 77 hit the Pentagon. After 7 years no evidence to refute 77 impact at the Pentagon.

I doubt the witnesses draw charts as their livelihood, it take training to draw known paths on charts let alone something they erratically witnessed.

A simple course in aircraft accident investigation would help interpret the witness statements; but will all of them pointing to the exact south path, the north path dies a sudden death with impossible G maneuvers.

So, let me get your logic straight here.

1: Witnesses point to, and draw a flightpath North of Citgo
2: You don't believe what they saw was possible
3: Therefore North is South.

Is this what you are trying to tell me?

Now, physics, as an extension of basic math, is based upon theories and presupposed 'proofs' (rationally agreed on theory and hypothesis, replicated with the same results, give or take an acceptible margin for the human element, under the same conditions). Physics, maths, any science, is formed by informed and educated concensus. But they are also being constantly challenged and refined and updated, and do you know why?

Because observation trumps theory

The fact we have these unrefuted impartial and unbiased independantly collected sets of observation, if you are really going to have a non-dogmatic, scientific mindset about the evidence presented here, then you must accept the possibility that the phyisics is wrong.

Flight 77:
Yes, after all these years, I have seen no evidence to refute that it was flight 77 that hit The Pentagon, and I find it unlikely that there ever will be.

But.

If the criminal is in charge of the investigation, what evidence against themselves would you expect them to produce. What organisations or groups, not sponsored by, an affiliate of or branch of the Government, not in the Governments pocket, was allowed access to these scenes? How much evidence has been hidden or destroyed since then (primarily WTC steel comes to mind here).

In the same impartial and non-dogmatic mindset, if there is evidence that there was Government involvement that day, and the CIT northern flightpath witnesses are remarkable evidence, probably the strongest evidence to date of a staged event and coverup, then you have to consider all evidence released by Government sponsered agencies as tainted.




[edit on 28-9-2008 by almighty bob]

Originally posted by almighty bob


In the same impartial and non-dogmatic mindset, if there is evidence that there was Government involvement that day, and the CIT northern flightpath witnesses are remarkable evidence, probably the strongest evidence to date of a staged event and coverup, then you have to consider all evidence released by Government sponsered agencies as tainted.

Precisely.

You got it bob.

However....when you say this:

Flight 77:
Yes, after all these years, I have seen no evidence to refute that it was flight 77 that hit The Pentagon, and I find it unlikely that there ever will be.

It's kind of a backwards way of looking at it to begin with.

They have failed to produce evidence that "Flight 77" DID hit the Pentagon.

There is none.

Zero.

Zip.


So we can not start on the assumption that it did hit just because that's what we have been told.

Upon investigating the event, the evidence definitively proves their story false so frankly, at that point, whatever caused the damage to the building becomes immaterial since the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a military black operation of mass murder to be used as a pretext for permanent global war.

Originally posted by beachnut

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
He's hoping jedi mind tricks will work on you!

Never heard physics called a jedi mind trick,

the new Jedi mind tricks, simple physics, and evidence…

You constantly stating that William Middleton and "all the witnesses" described the south side approach is beyond a mind trick.

It's sheer lunacy.

What's particularly hilarious is how much you straight up contradict yourself during your nonsensical barely coherent rants.

You'll suggest the witness described the south side approach and turn around and say the flight path he described is "impossible" in the same breath!

Is that you finally admitting that the official flight path is impossible?

First Reheat admits the north side path is possible now you are admitting the south side path is impossible!

I knew you guys would come around!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Flight 77:
Yes, after all these years, I have seen no evidence to refute that it was flight 77 that hit The Pentagon, and I find it unlikely that there ever will be.

It's kind of a backwards way of looking at it to begin with.

I'd rather think of it as impartial than backward

I strongly doubt that it was flight 77 that hit The Pentagon, especially given the degree of official obsfucation, but even as a sleight, they have produced evidence of impact (photos, videos of the scene after the event), and even though, as I outlined in my last post, I must consider them as tainted, I must still consider then.

Still, most damning of all, despite all the cameras and film consfiscated that day, official evidence of the actual impact has come from a grainy shot of what could possibly be a nosecone followed by a grainy shot of an explosion.

On the whole, I agree, the likelihood of it being flight 77 that impacted, given the current evidence that could be considered untainted, is marginal. Highly unlikely.

reply to post by almighty bob


Yeah I feel ya man.

I just like to point out how none of that is direct evidence of "Flight 77" or tail# N644AA.

None of it.

So to me it's important that we don't embrace their story by default and shift the burden of proof on us.

It is NOT our job to prove what happened.

That is their job and they have failed.

Because of this we have stepped up to the plate to collect evidence and it just so happens no matter where we turn, their story is proven false.

And much respect to you for it. I wish you the very best in discovering the truth, whatever it may be.