Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

reply to post by pteridine

Originally posted by pteridine
The information available to the general public is incomplete and we can only report what we can find. We found statements about first responders seeing bodies strapped in seats.

Can I see the source of any of these statements?

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by scott3x
The clean cuts of the light poles at their bases suggests to me that they were severed with something like a blow torch.

Are you seriously proposing that 5 light poles were cut down with a blow torch in front of the largest office building in the world, with some 25,000 employees, and nobody saw a thing ?

Clearly some saw what was going on; the person or people who did it, at the very least. As to when, precisely, the light poles were taken down, it has been suggested by CIT that it may actually have been taken down the night before. Instead of being incredulous that they might have been taken down before the event itself, can you prove that this wasn't done? Given all the evidence that the plane didn't fly over that area, I think it's much more probable that the light poles were taken down by a means that didn't involve a plane.

scott3x

I am sorry but I think you are really clutching at straws with this. How would it help if the poles were cut down the night before ? Are you suggesting after dark ? Would not a blow torch cutting metal have been even more of a firework display then ? Is there no security at the Pentagon at night ?

Plus, the damage to the poles was such that they would have to have been removed to a workshop for that to be faked. They weren't just severed by a cut. No-one saw this removal or their return.

I am not aware of any credible evidence that the plane did not fly through the light pole area. Just CIT's cherrypicked witnesses who have had their testimony censored to exclude the crashing into the Pentagon bit.

Originally posted by GenRadek
So tezza, rather than troll on and on about how there is no proof the lamp post (in your mind) ever hit the windshield, hows about providing an alternate version

There is no requirement upon me to propose any 'version' of events. I don't know what happened at the Pentagon. I wish I knew.

I read here on a daily basis that people claim a light pole hit the taxi. For me to believe them, they need to prove it. They haven't. They've failed to do so.

Originally posted by GenRadek
You can't stick your head in the sand and ignore the facts, by constantly "demanding" proof, and when it is presented to you,

No one has proven to me that the light pole hit the taxi. I've seen it proclaimed and hand-waved, but not proven.

Originally posted by jthomas
He doesn't have to 'prove" a thing. You have to refute the evidence.

Casual readers will again note, the destruction of logic that jthomas willingly takes part in.

He is supporting someone who has claimed that the light pole hit the taxi. This has not been proven, jthomas. It has been speculated and assumed, which does not constitute being proven.

Originally posted by jthomas
So you would agree that it is ludicrous that CIT did any type of proper investigation.

No. I don't agree with that, jthomas. Why are you again trying to shove words into my mouth? You do this with predictable regularity.

You have a history of making false claims against me and never being able to quote me. Only you know why you do this. Perhaps you should spend more time trying to prove aspects of your official story, instead of trying to misquote people.

reply to post by Alfie1

Originally posted by Alfie1
scott3x

I am sorry but I think you are really clutching at straws with this. How would it help if the poles were cut down the night before? Are you suggesting after dark ? Would not a blow torch cutting metal have been even more of a firework display then ?

Perhaps. Perhaps it was cut down just a bit before the event, or even the day before. As CIT mentioned in this thread, a pole in the area has been down for 2 years and apparently no one's noticed but CIT, through an asset they have in Arlington.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Is there no security at the Pentagon at night ?

Apparently, CIT suspects that pentagon security was complicit; I certainly suspect this at any rate.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Plus, the damage to the poles was such that they would have to have been removed to a workshop for that to be faked.

I think a blow torch would have done the trick; the clean cuts suggest that I believe, as pictures taken of the downed light poles, and which can be seen in the OP of the linked to thread above.

Originally posted by Alfie1
I am not aware of any credible evidence that the plane did not fly through the light pole area.

Have you seen CIT's videos?

Originally posted by Alfie1
Just CIT's cherrypicked witnesses

What gives you the impression that CIT's witnesses were cherrypicked?

Originally posted by Alfie1
who have had their testimony censored to exclude the crashing into the Pentagon bit.

In their new video, National Security Alert, I believe that their testimony was clipped, because by that point; people don't usually sit and watch something that takes more than an hour or 2. However, the original videos have the testimony in their entirety. To my knowledge, CIT has never denied that many if not all of the witnesses believe that the penta plane actually crashed into the pentagon. The issue is whether they were fooled into believing this. Judging from the fact that all the reliable witnesses that I've seen believe that the plane approached the pentagon from a north of Citgo approach, it seems clear that this must indeed have been what happened.

Originally posted by scott3x

Didn't have to be taken down in minutes. But even if that were the case, I have heard that the place was sealed off shortly before the event, apparently because the president was scheduled to arrive nearby (the white house?) that day. Why was Lloyd England the only one on the road, besides the spooks (their identities are still unknown I believe) who were there to "document" what happened? When did the spooks arrive?

Hundred or maybe thousands of drivers and passengers passed through this busy stretch of highway continuously up to 9:30 AM Sept 11/2001. Nothing unusual noted by anyone, no power disruptions which would be noted by lamp poles uprooted. The highway was obviously lit until there was full daylight and rush hour traffic was proceeding right up to the moment the plane appeared.

There is also the issue that the light pole simply couldn't have been lodged in Lloyd's taxi cab windshield and have caused so little damage, as pointed out in another CIT thread.

What part of a pole, whether is was a piece broken off, the exact trajectory, no one will ever know for certain. It would have happened in a couple seconds. Some have done probable reconstructions. There is nothing considered mysterious. Check the many threads where this has been exhaustively analyzed.

An anonymous truck driver helped Lloyde dislodge the pole. He may not have spoken English, be shy, or just too traumatized to make conversation. We don't know. Were he was a 'spook' as suggested, why did he help?

It has a lot of credence if you truly consider all the evidence against the plane taking the south of citgo flight path.

There is no evidence of the plane's flight path being different from the one where the poles were knocked down. CIT may be trying to show a disparity with confused witnesses, but they are more than nullified by all the evidence and testimony substantiating the acknowledged path.

As CIT does not show their outtakes we do not know how much suggesting and prompting they did with their videoed witnesses. It is very easy to encourage and reinforce incorrect accounts made years later. Lawyers of it all the time. And judges and juries learn to discount this kind of incorrect testimony when it conflicts with the preponderance of consistent fully substantiated evidence.

CIT has constructed a false picture. It's not that difficult when you only edit in what supports a claim and leave out everything that disproves it.

Unless they provide tangible evidence of their suppositions and release their outtakes to show the fuller context of their witness statements, they have have nothing to contradict what has been determined and verified.

M

reply to post by scott3x


Many witnesses saw the plane strike the Pentagon. How many saw a flyover? Evidence is a hole in the Pentagon and plane parts throughout. People estimating flight paths +/- several hundred yards hardly overrides those who saw a flaming collision.
Yes, I have seen CIT's videos. Yes, I saw the interviews. I watched during the time when they were changing their story, daily, so the story didn't always match up. Regardless, their arguments are so unbelieveable as to be comic relief. The planting of the lamp posts in broad daylight is the capper on this. When will they put the Brooklyn Bridge on e-bay?

Edit to add an earlier thread that may help you out: www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 11/21/2009 by pteridine]

Originally posted by mmiichael
What part of a pole, whether is was a piece broken off, the exact trajectory, no one will ever know for certain.

Which raises a big red flag. It could have been known, for certain if a proper investigation had been done.

In this thread, mmiichael, you have claimed that there were forensic investigations done. I asked you to show me the results. Naturally, you fell short of doing so.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Some have done probable reconstructions. There is nothing considered mysterious. Check the many threads where this has been exhaustively analyzed.

Who are the 'some'? Please link us all and show us all where this has been done.

You can not arbitrarily hand-wave a claim and not support it, mmiichael.

Originally posted by mmiichael
An anonymous truck driver helped Lloyde dislodge the pole. He may not have spoken English, be shy, or just too traumatized to make conversation. We don't know.

We don't know if it was true. It has never been proven.

Originally posted by tezzajw
In this thread, mmiichael, you have claimed that there were forensic investigations done. I asked you to show me the results. Naturally, you fell short of doing so.

Just stop dictating terms right now.

This is a thread of a discussion forum open to over 100,000 members.

You have posted the most messages. They are always criticizing other members. But you have contributed no information or responded to most questions and requests.

Because you can squeak through under the rules on individual messages does not mean this kind of negative disruptive behaviour needs to be tolerated.

This forum is not a podium for anyone who thinks they can take control, while making incessant demands and criticizing members.

The subject title here is "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information" Inferred there is relevant information on the Pentagon attack from the Citizen's Investigation Team Limited Liability Corporation of the State of California. But no one can find it after 83 pages.

If you can't present this or any other information or comment on the Pentagon attack there is no reason for you to continue posting here. Your constant claims members have failed, that they can't back up claims - even when numerous links are provided, and other willful attempts to be disruptive are unwelcome by the majority of contributors here.





[edit on 21-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
The subject title here is "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information" Inferred there is relevant information on the Pentagon attack from the Citizen's Investigation Team Limited Liability Corporation of the State of California. But no one can find it after 83 pages.

CIT claim in the OP video that there is no proof that the light pole struck the taxi.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Your constant claims members have failed, that they can't back up claims - even when numerous links are provided, and other willful attempts to be disruptive are unwelcome by the majority of contributors here.

Your constant failure to support your claims has not only been noted by me, it has also been pointed out to you by other members. You have not supplied the links to prove your claim that a light pole hit the taxi. You have not supplied the names of the thousands (hundreds?) of people who you claim saw the plane depart.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Which raises a big red flag. It could have been known, for certain if a proper investigation had been done.

Please explain, in detail, how this could have been done "for certain" including what a proper investigation would have entailed.

Originally posted by pteridine
Please explain, in detail, how this could have been done "for certain" including what a proper investigation would have entailed.

Photographing the poles where the landed and how they landed.
Measuring the poles to determine where they were bent and how far they travelled.
Collecting of all the pieces of the poles and studying the breaks/bends to determine how they were damaged.
Traces of paint samples or other fibre/material samples to determine if they were struck by a plane.

Earlier in the thread, mmiichael stated that a forensic analysis was performed. He has not proven this. He has not shown that there was any attempt to study the light poles to determine how they were found in the condition that they were found.

Not one single government document can be shown that describes a light pole hitting the taxi.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Earlier in the thread, mmiichael stated that a forensic analysis was performed. He has not proven this. He has not shown that there was any attempt to study the light poles to determine how they were found in the condition that they were found.

Not one single government document can be shown that describes a light pole hitting the taxi.

You are probably misquoting me or taking something out of context, as usual. I really don't care either way.

I've seen much discussion of the light pole on ATS threads with analysis and event reconstruction.

Quite frankly, on Sept 11, given the extreme and terrifying situation, surprise plane attacks and 3000 dead within a minutes, no one gave a good goddam about a stupid broken windshield on some taxi. It was a small miracle no one was hurt.

I mean get real. People were cut by broken glass or by in raging fires. Some were still injured and needed help. Saving lives and damage control were on people's minds. About the last thing any sane person would think about when there were people frying within a few hundred yards, was about some incidental vehicle damage on the highway.

If there was no broken windshield what would change? A plane hit the Pentagon. Only people out of touch with reality would think there was a conspiracy to break a windshield to mask some fantasy missile and bombs being used to destroy a wing of the Pentagon.

After all material evidence has been evaluated and testimony corroborated there is no real doubt a plane with passengers flew low over Washington and into the Pentagon. Documented from innumerable sources, most just ordinary people. Nothing of any weight conflicts.

I'm not going to supply links to a few thousand pages. Look it up if you want.

Lame amateurish attempts to prove something different occurred have fallen flat on their faces. Sum total: a small collection of conflicting remarks. We don't know how much of these are misremembering, leading questions and prompting by interviewers, or possibly the witnesses having a laugh giving wrong information they saw their interviewers wanted to hear.

Buy me a couple beers and I'll say what you want me to say into your little video camera, trying to keep a straight face. Just tell me which direction you want me to point to. North, South, East, West?

It adds up to a hill of beans when put against all the consistent and credible evidence.

Nonsense fantasies for people who prefer fiction to facts.


M

[edit on 21-11-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael, Part 1

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by scott3x
Didn't have to be taken down in minutes. But even if that were the case, I have heard that the place was sealed off shortly before the event, apparently because the president was scheduled to arrive nearby (the white house?) that day. Why was Lloyd England the only one on the road, besides the spooks (their identities are still unknown I believe) who were there to "document" what happened? When did the spooks arrive?

Hundred or maybe thousands of drivers and passengers passed through this busy stretch of highway continuously up to 9:30 AM Sept 11/2001. Nothing unusual noted by anyone, no power disruptions which would be noted by lamp poles uprooted.

I'm not sure if you took a look at the following thread from CIT; from that thread, it seems to be clear that the lamp poles might have been taken down the day before if not earlier:

Light pole on hwy goes unnoticed for years, planted poles wouldn't have been noticed

Originally posted by mmiichael
The highway was obviously lit until there was full daylight and rush hour traffic was proceeding right up to the moment the plane appeared.

You bring up an interesting point; that is, it's one thing to have -1- light pole down in an area; after all, there are many adjacent lights that more or less make up for it; but 5 in the same area is a bit more. However, I think they would have been able to do it all in the morning. And as to rush hour traffic, it seems that that day there wasn't so much. From a member of CIT's forum called onesliceshort, in the OP of a thread he created called ´100s of possible flyover witnesses´, Let´s see..:

The last three motorways furthest from the Pentagon offer very little to absolutely no POV opportunities. The three closest DO have a good view ranging from behind the North/South corner at a distance up to the midway point of the building. Two of those roads merge into one POV for a fair distance.

Yet...

The Tribby video shows just how sparse traffic was on those lanes that morning.Very sparse. Cars were travelling 80-120kph. Tribby had slowed down 1 minute AFTER the event and started to film. He drove at a snail´s pace to capture the images.

If any of the by what is now decimated number of ´possible flyover witnesses´ had seen a fireball/smoke plume, they would have been fixed on that and and the road. Nothing else. If some HAD seen a plane, remember this was a common occurrence in this area.

maybe if we had the sequetered 911 calls in Arlington from that day it would shed more light on the subject, but until then...

By the way detractors in your additional areas mentioned of a possible flyover POV the South Parking Lot was mentioned. Out of a handful of testimonies from that area one was a Roosevelt Roberts and the other was Dewitt Roseborough. Look them up.

I decided it would be best for me to look them up, to add to this discussion.

CIT's thread on Roosevelt Roberts:

Roosevelt Roberts's Testimony, A transcript

And CIT's thread on Dewitt Roseborough:
Person of Interest, Dewitt Roseborough

[edit on 21-11-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by scott3x

I decided it would be best for me to look them up, to add to this discussion.

CIT's thread on Roosevelt Roberts:

Roosevelt Roberts's Testimony, A transcript

And CIT's thread on Dewitt Roseborough:
Person of Interest, Dewitt Roseborough

Good that you're looking things up. I wasn't around for them but have looked through many ATS threads, quite a few on CIT claims with Mr Rank often present.

Though you'll hear otherwise, knowledgeable members like 'Reheat' other pilots like 'weedwhacker' and even modest 'jthomas' have produced mounds of primary data and scientific knowledge that have consistent demolished CIT's flimsy speculations.

Check it out. A good week's worth of reading.


Mike

[edit on 21-11-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by burntheships


Thank you for posting this information.
We need to keep this alive, and there is absolutely no doubt 9/11 was a black operation.
Eyewitness accounts do not corroborate with the flight path of the plane given by the 9/11 Commission.
This is one hole, along with so many that allow the Official Story to crumble.
If there is one Conspiracy that has captured the attention of so many it is 9/11. Furthermore, thank god we have so many respected scholars fighting this ludicrous account that we're supposed to believe took place.

Exposing 9/11 will cause an astronomical shift in public perception, but ultimately for the better.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Photographing the poles where the landed and how they landed.
Measuring the poles to determine where they were bent and how far they travelled.
Collecting of all the pieces of the poles and studying the breaks/bends to determine how they were damaged.
Traces of paint samples or other fibre/material samples to determine if they were struck by a plane.

You cannot account for pathways or secondary collisions from the final positions of the light poles. There are no algorithms that would allow you to do so without complete knowledge of the vectors of all bodies that the poles would interact with, including the plane. Further, inconsistencies in individual poles such as manufacturing anomalies, hold-down anchors, breakaway designs, and asymmetric aging via wind stress adds additional error.
There is no way to do what you suggest and likely no reason to do it.

reply to post by mmiichael

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by scott3x
CIT's thread on Roosevelt Roberts:

Roosevelt Roberts's Testimony, A transcript

And CIT's thread on Dewitt Roseborough:
Person of Interest, Dewitt Roseborough

Good that you're looking things up. I wasn't around for them but have looked through many ATS threads, quite a few on CIT claims with Mr Rank often present.

Though you'll hear otherwise, knowledgeable members like 'Reheat' other pilots like 'weedwhacker' and even modest 'jthomas' have produced mounds of primary data and scientific knowledge that have consistent(ly) demolished CIT's flimsy speculations.

Check it out. A good week's worth of reading.

You can claim that various people 'demolish' CIT's theories, but saying it's been done isn't the same thing as demonstrating that it's so. I'm guessing you didn't even go to the linked material I provided. You yourself didn't even provide links to the people who you believe demolish CIT's theories :-p.

Why don't we focus on the 2 above eyewitnesses; have you even heard of them before?

I've linked this page before. Essential reading before discussing CIT claims.

911review.com...

To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show'

This essay examines the work of the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), a team of two people who claim to prove that a complicated "magic show" occurred during the Pentagon attack on 9/11/01, fooling all of the witnesses and surviving victims of the event into believing that American Airlines Flight 77 (AA77) hit the Pentagon, when instead, it flew just over the building, obscured by a simultaneous explosion, and then somehow flew away, unnoticed by anyone in the area (the "flyover" theory).

CIT took their camcorders and went to Washington, DC, where they interviewed a select group of Pentagon attack eye witnesses whom they believe, indicate a different flightpath from the accepted flightpath (the one described by a trail of damage leading up to the building). These interviews, it is claimed, provide the primary "evidence" for the flyover theory.

Or so we are led to believe.

The general conclusion that "no plane" or "no Boeing" could have hit the Pentagon -- widely accepted by skeptics of the official version of events of the Pentagon attack, even as it is generally not carefully examined -- is based on a series of erroneous physical evidence claims. The details of these common errors made by investigators of the Pentagon attack are not the purpose of this essay, but have already been described in What the Physical Evidence Shows.

The purpose of this essay is to critically examine the claims, methods and themes employed by CIT in their attempts to make the case for the flyover theory. This essay will show that CIT's claims about what happened in the Pentagon attack on 9/11/01 are without a meaningful scientific process and are reliant on biased interpretations of broad statements made by less than 20 witnesses to the attack, 8 years after the event.

The witness recordings made by CIT are sometimes muddled, are significantly edited, and at times appear to have almost nothing to do with what CIT interprets from them, leaving many video viewers and forum readers, told they would see "proofs", frustrated and perplexed about what is going on.
Wheelhouse

At the heart of it, what CIT has really created from the witness accounts is an elaborate historical fictional drama focused around the narrow theme of witnesses appearing to describe a different flightpath for the plane that day. Without any viable corroborating evidence for the claim that the plane never hit, but instead flew over the building, the filmmakers instead offer up a fascinating premise:

"Everything was faked!"

So what began as an innocent sounding exploration of discrepancies in eye witness testimony, moves on to "proofs" of how the existing damage incurred during the attack could not have happened from the impact of a large Boeing. A summary of the many "it was faked" claims indicates a somewhat daunting if not entirely ridiculous premise for the "flyover":

* Lamp posts downed by plane impact: faked

* Generator damage by engine impact: faked

* Boeing parts on the ground and inside the building: faked

* Impact hole cutout in the Pentagon matching a 757-sized jetliner: faked

* Recovered DNA identifying Flight 77 passengers and crew: faked

* Recovered victim personal effects provided to family members: faked

* All witnesses to the plane impact: plants or confused about what they saw

plane crash damage and debris

And at this point, the doubts are just beginning. Given the complexity of such fakery and sleight of hand, most who attempt to confirm the full story end up at one of several dead ends in the scenario. The claim that so much evidence at the scene of the Pentagon was staged in advance, so precisely and amidst hundreds of people in all directions, simply to make it appear that the plane which approached the building had actually impacted it, strains credulity and logic.

Because as most readers and viewers quickly surmise, far easier than all of the elaborate fakery, would have been to simply ram a plane into the building, just as was done in NYC. That would be one part of the official story. While CIT claims that anyone who believes the plane hit the building is endorsing the official story, in reality, there is a overwhelming case for insider involvement in the Pentagon attack consistent with the impact of Flight 77.

Thus, it is important to have a look at another possibility, another reality, in which the "no Boeing impact" claims had never happened in the first place, and instead -- rather than endless internal sqabbles of what that hit the Pentagon and easy media attacks about "conspiracy theorists" who think the plane never hit and the passengers were dumped into the ocean -- the many other glaring questions, anomalies and absurdities of the Pentagon attack story, essentially ignored by media and the 9/11 Commission, had had even a fraction of as much energy devoted to them as "no Boeing impact" claims.

What is that story, and what are those questions?

What CIT and many other no-Boeing-impact focused efforts have created is essentially a historical vacuum in which readers and viewers are disconnected from the original larger context of the attack and its aftermath, in favor of the hyped soap opera mystery in which an elderly cab driver's apparent role in the attack is central, rather than officials in Bush Administration who were in charge that day.

[...]

despite the broad rejection of CIT by much of the 9/11 activist community, event organizers are all too willing to feature hyped "mysteries" like PentaCon -- seemingly regardless of the absurdity of the films' methods, the demonstrable falseness of their claims, their effectiveness in polarizing activists, or the history of disruption by the filmmakers themselves.

Whether such promotions reflect a misguided belief that such films help "grow the movement" because of the "excitement" they engender or whether they reflect a more deliberate form of "false flag 9/11 truth" the effect is the same: damaging the credibility and viability of 9/11 activist efforts by giving center stage to hoax material.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
I've seen much discussion of the light pole on ATS threads with analysis and event reconstruction.

Links, please?

Originally posted by mmiichael
If there was no broken windshield what would change?

That would probably make your job of proving that a light pole hit the taxi even more difficult that you're currently making it.