Is it possible for the Pentagon attack jet to fly north of the citgo and still hit the Pentagon?

Let me remind SPreston again that all of CIT's eyewitnesses either saw the jet hit the Pentagon, or believe it hit the Pentagon, and NONE ever stated that they saw any jet fly over and away from the Pentagon.

CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth so stated in P4T's latest animation:

Google Video Link

Arlington National Cemetary workers:

"Although all of these witnesses believe the aircraft impacted the building,..."
9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON - Official Release - Pilots For 9/11 Truth
Starting at 38:23

"Furthermore, these witnesses describe how they were running away from the scene for their lives and were not paying attention to what the plane did after it passed them."
Starting at 38:52

Sgt William Lagasse stated:
"...and I merely stated [over the radio] an aircraft has just flown into the side of the building."
memory.loc.gov...:15:./temp/~ammem_ySyN::

Roosevelt Roberts:
www.veoh.com...

So it is clear from CIT and P4T themselves that they do not have any eyewitnesses to any jet actually flying over and away from the Pentagon, crucial evidence for CIT to prove it's theory.

We can only keep asking CIT to give us that evidence otherwise their claims remain unproven.









[edit on 22-11-2008 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas

So it is clear from CIT and P4T themselves that they do not have any eyewitnesses to any jet actually flying over and away from the Pentagon, crucial evidence for CIT to prove it's theory.

We can only keep asking CIT to give us that evidence otherwise their claims remain unproven.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention to any of the other threads but yes we have.

Here it is again for you.

Besides the fact that we provide 13 witnesses who unanimously and independently place the plane on the north side of the gas station which proves a flyover....

Listen to the account of the first critical flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts Jr. in Part 2 of the North Side Flyover at 41:50:

Google Video Link

But beyond that we have suspect witnesses who report an alleged "2nd plane" as flying away from the Pentagon IMMEDIATELY after the explosion.



Clearly they ARE talking about a plane flying away and they aren't the only ones.

It simply wasn't a "2nd" plane because there were not 2 planes and the one plane that existed was on the north side of the citgo proving it didn't hit the building.

The 2nd plane cover story:

Google Video Link

Keep spamming your question and I'll keep spamming the answer!





[edit on 23-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Keep spamming your question and I'll keep spamming the answer!

See: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Shall I notiiy the moderators that you are spamming, or will you?

I am just responding to you.

You are the one who keeps asking the same question over and over and over even though it has been answered.

I'm sure the mods will see this for what it is and force you to stop spamming the question that has been already answered.

Back on topic....

Do you agree that if a north side approach in general, as independently reported by 13 witnesses, is accurate that it proves a flyover?

Or are you going to be the sole other person in the universe willing to support cogburn's scientifically impossible assertion of an NoC impact?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Why did the plane fly north of the Citgo station, when the pre-planning obviously called for it to fly south of the Citgo station?

So it could more readily be explained to people like Roosevelt Roberts who saw it flying away as a "2nd plane".

I've been giving this a little bit of a deeper think. I think the Jeopardy winning answer is, the plane had to fly north of the gas station so that it wouldn't collide with the missile that Rummy said did the damage at the Pentagon.

A cruise missile or some speedier substitute and an airplane over the site at the same time might account for some of the divergences in testimony from witnesses who saw something smaller than an airliner.

I knew there had to be a more tightly integrated reason for the aircraft to fly north of the gas station. Thankyou Rummy.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I am just responding to you.

You are the one who keeps asking the same question over and over and over even though it has been answered.

You said you would just keep spamming these threads when I reminded you that you have no eyewitnesses to any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon

Since you admit spamming here, you'll probably get kicked off for doing so.

But that would give you more time to look for any eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen any jet fly over and away from the Pentagon.

reply to post by jthomas


Back on topic.....

Do you agree that if a north side approach in general, as independently reported by 13 witnesses, is accurate that it proves a flyover?

Or are you going to be the sole other person in the universe willing to support cogburn's scientifically impossible assertion of an NoC impact?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by jthomas

 

Back on topic.....

Do you agree that if a north side approach in general, as independently reported by 13 witnesses, is accurate that it proves a flyover?

How?

reply to post by jthomas


"How?"?

That is not an answer to the question.

Let me know which words in the question you do not understand and I will look them up in the dictionary for you.

I'll even re-phrase it for you to see if that helps you understand....

Do you believe the physical damage at the Pentagon could have been caused by a plane that flew north of the citgo?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by jthomas

 

"How?"?

That is not an answer to the question.

You mean you can't even explain HOW it proves a flyover?!



You get funnier by the day.

reply to post by jthomas


Of course I can but the question was posed to you.

Do you believe the physical damage at the Pentagon could have been caused by a plane that flew north of the citgo?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by jthomas

 

Of course I can but the question was posed to you.

This was the question you asked:

Do you agree that if a north side approach in general, as independently reported by 13 witnesses, is accurate that it proves a flyover?

I asked you, "How?"

You couldn't answer the question. Now you say you can. So, answer the question: how?

reply to post by jthomas


Apparently YOU can't answer the question since you are responding with another question.

I know for a fact that a plane on the north side proves a flyover since this is irreconcilable with all the physical damage.

I am simply asking you to acknowledge this scientific fact but not surprisingly you are unable to engage in normal intellectual discussion without evasion, dismissal, and spin.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by jthomas

 

Apparently YOU can't answer the question since you are responding with another question.

You said ytou could answer my question. Proceed.

I know for a fact that a plane on the north side proves a flyover since this is irreconcilable with all the physical damage.

Show us how you could know that.

I am simply asking you to acknowledge this scientific fact but not surprisingly you are unable to engage in normal intellectual discussion without evasion, dismissal, and spin.

You have to demonstrate that you have any "scientific fact." So far, you claim to but refuse to demonstrate it when I repeatedly ask you to. You just claim that you "know" but are apparently helpless to demonstrate it.

That doesn't surprise me since you have been wholly unable to prove any of your claims since you started CIT.

Combined with Aldo's meltdown and punishment at another forum in not being able to demonstrate a flyover and SPreston's claim that the employees of American Airlines and United Airlines were part of the "crime" that killed their fellow employees, you ought to quit before you get further behind.

In fact, Craig, it is time to give it up once and for all. We see right through you.



[edit on 24-11-2008 by jthomas]

CIT,

What exactly are you trying to prove with this line of questioning?

It seems to me that you have not taken in the entire picture of events of that day. What I mean is, You guys seem to be set on proving the theory that there was a "flyover" at the sametime there was a explosion and 5 light poles knocked down.

But in doing this, you dont simplify the equation or even bring us closer to a total understanding of what happened that day.

You do the opposite and then create the problem of what happened to the passengers of F77? What happened to F77 itself? What created the "damage path" and damage to the buildings outsides(Light poles, generator). Thats just three problems out of many more that you create with this flyover.

Crashing F77 into the side of the pentagon solves all these problems.

Why do a flyover anyways? CIT can you answer this question for me or do I need to make a new post requesting CIT to please answer? Was the flyover for the FAA, or the people on the ground, I don't get it.

BTW, Must admit the Roosevelt interview is interesting , but I have questions about that also.

Please stop the bickering!

At this point you should agree to disagree and move on. Please discuss the topic and not each other.

reply to post by Stillresearchn911


Hi Stillresearchn911.

It's impossible for any independent citizen researcher to answer all the questions of what happened on 9/11 nor is it our responsibility.

It should be evident to intellectually honest, logical people that the official story does not add up as there are many questions in every aspect.

The burden of proof regarding 19 rag tag Muslim hijackers is on the authorities and they have failed to meet that burden.

All we should need to do as citizens is uncover one fatal anomaly in their story and the rest falls apart like a house of cards.

For instance.......if building 7 can be proven to be a controlled demolition.....9/11 is proven to be an inside job.

Period.

It is not required to explain what happened to the passengers of 77, or to the plane that allegedly crashed in Shanksville, or even exactly HOW they pulled off the controlled demolitions in Manhattan.

One single piece of evidence proving building 7 was a controlled demo should lead to grand juries, congressional investigations, indictments, and a moratorium on the fraudulent "war on terror".


We have proven how the plane in Arlington did not hit the building. This is evident for a lot of reasons but primarily because all of the witnesses in the area unanimously place it on the north side of the citgo making it impossible to be what caused the physical damage.

This simple fact alone is enough to prove 9/11 was an inside job without any other questions being answered. Do we want them all answered?

Of course!

But that will not happen without indictments and it's likely not to happen then either.

But we did not set out to prove a "flyover theory".

We simply embarked on an independent investigation to find out where people saw the plane.

They saw it on the north side which automatically proves a flyover.

This was not our idea. It was not our goal and it was not our theory.

It's simply what got uncovered and we see it as the most vulnerable part of the 9/11 deception and therefore the most important point we should be focusing on.

Building 7 is important but it's gone and the entire controlled demo discussion has been reduced to a scientific debate where they trot out a dozen "experts" for every expert that speaks out questioning the collapses.

The discussion has been effectively neutralized.

This can not be done with the north side evidence.

Not a single pilot, engineer, physicist, rationalist, or intellectually honest person would logically try to argue that a plane on the north side as reported by all the witnesses could be what caused the physical damage.

Hope that helps.







[edit on 25-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Not a single pilot, engineer, physicist, rationalist, or intellectually honest person would logically try to argue that a plane on the north side as reported by all the witnesses could be what caused the physical damage.

Now you're catching on, Craig. What do you think we've been telling you for so long?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

It helps a lot but agent provocateurs, spin doctors, the congenitally incredulous, village idiots, and please, please dupe me masochists can hardly be expected to be swayed by a sane rationalist.

It helps however to keep discussing these things and to meet the arguments of all of the above. If we yield the floor to them then every new person coming to these forums gets to hear the cockeyed version unopposed.

Go Craig, but conserve your energy for the important stuff.

[edit on 25-11-2008 by ipsedixit]

i agree. i didn't before, but now i see it.
the damage is irreconcilable with the northern path, which IS effectively proven in toto.

all the witnesses drew the same approach, and if they were unreliable, their testimony wouldn't all be exactly the same(ie. north of citgo).

OBVIOUSLY, the light poles were planted, and witnesses who claim to have seen them get knocked over were planted.

what kind of psy-op WOULDN'T have all kinds of planted evidence and witnesses?

and, "where are the whistleblowers?". they are all on an anthrax free diet.

and, "well what caused the downed poles and DID hit the pentagon?". good question. a missile? plain old laying down poles here and there(that's certainly what it looks like, as the lawn around the poles show no damage) and planted explosives IN the pentagon, or a TRUCK BOMB as was reported at one point.

and, what about the car bomb outside the state department? it was reported, but didn't happen, or happened, but was no longer reported?
or the van loaded with explosives in NYC? real? it's on the emergency radio recordings.
a missile from the woolworth's building? it's on the emergency radio recordings.
MANY things were reported on 911 that didn't actually happen, or did happen and were later ignored/covered-up by the media. ALL of these things act as FOG in the FOG OF WAR.
a couple planted light poles are a small feat compared to the whole ball of deceptive wax.

what is CLEAR, is that the MEDIA/MILITARY(yes, they are ONE) was involved in a multiplicity of DECEIT.

i can't express the gratitude i have for the seemingly tireless efforts of CIT. they have cleared MUCH of the FOG from the pentagon scenario, and the world is a better place for it.