CIT's own logical fallacy in their fly-over thesis.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

 

A massive central flaw with your flyover theory is that out of all the hundreds/thousands of potential witnesses around the Pentagon that morning you do not have a single eyewitness.

Roosevelt Roberts is not a flyover witness. He has never claimed to see a plane flying over the Pentagon.

In his conversation with you he said he saw a plane around the lane 1 area of the south parking lot at about 50 to 100 feet. From his perspective, about half-way down the parking lot, it is quite possible that the plane was in fact over the clover-leaf just beyond and on a soc course.

Well see what you are doing is called goal post moving. Your requirements, wording, semantics are irrelevant. You don't make the rules.

Initially your ilk was demanding more than 4 witnesses, we gave you 10 more, then that changed to not having a flyover witness and even being willing to accept witness on the other side seeing the plane flying away, we gave you that, then the goal posts were moved again to having to provide someone see it fly toward the Pentagon, the plane flying over the Pentagon, the fireball, the flying away from the Pentagon. We don't care much about YOUR requirements for evidence because you and your type are anonymous, illogical, and move goal posts.

BTW, you need to research where East Loading Dock actually is at my friend and listen to what Roosevelt is describing. He isn't describing an approach. He is describing an explosion, running 7 steps to the edge of East Loading dock, and seeing a commercial jet liner 50 ft "just above the light poles" flying around South Parking Lot like it missed it's landing zone and u-turning out and coming back around to the Mall Entrance side. That is not a plane "over the clover-leaf just beyond and on a soc course".


[edit on 22-4-2010 by Aldo_Marquis_CIT]

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

 

dubious PenRen workers

What gives you the right to declare someone as "dubious"?

14+ heavily corroborated eyewitnesses do.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So, Aldo, they faked the light pole path, the generator trailer/fence, and the surveillance video so they could fly the plane over the building at a different angle?

Yes that's right. I know it is hard for you to accept Joey. It's even harder for you to confront these witnesses on camera and tell them they are wrong because you weren't there but have photos of light poles on the ground. It's probably even harder for you to find a SoC witness and get them on location on camera pointing to the South side flight path.

The witnesses stand by where they saw the plane and will not recant even in light of the implications. Lloyde England has virtually admitted involvement. Roosevelt saw the flyover, knows the implications, and is scared to talk. Dewitt Roseborough was in South Parking, saw a plane above his head then a fireball rise over the Pentagon, was confused for days about what actually happened and was confronted about the flyover and refused to confirm OR deny the allegation when he had ample opportunity to do so. Meanwhile you are here on a forum chasing us.

Why won't you just contact some witnesses like we do? That's the real insult, Joey.





[edit on 22-4-2010 by Aldo_Marquis_CIT]

reply to post by Aldo_Marquis_CIT


Aldo~

I don't have a problem with the witnesses. The ones that were in a position to do so, watched the plane impact the Pentagon. But, I will refrain from that dummy dance as you and Craig ignore that.

My issue is the fly over. It would be impossible. Take the recent eruption from Iceland’s Eyjafjallajoekull glacier. As you know, aircraft were not allowed to fly near this ash. The industry lost billions of dollars in revenue. This decision was made probably in part due to the incident in 1989, a KLM 747 flying over Alaska at 25,000 feet lost power in all four engines when it flew into a cloud of ash from the eruption of Mount Redoubt. The aircraft fell 13,000 feet before pilots were able to restart the engines.

Yet, we are all to believe that this magic plane that flew over the Pentagon was able to fly through a massive explosion that contained glass, cement, and steel without any damage to the aircraft?

Originally posted by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

BTW, you need to research where East Loading Dock actually is at my friend and listen to what Roosevelt is describing.........

Be careful when promoting Roosevelt, Aldo. I am sure you are aware for him to be a flyover witness will throw other witnesses under the bus and also change your flyover claim. If Roosevelt saw the "attack jet", then that so called jet would have had to have flown to the south of the impact point and in FRONT of the explosion. This was data supplied by your PFT buddies.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by Six Sigma]

Originally posted by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

 

A massive central flaw with your flyover theory is that out of all the hundreds/thousands of potential witnesses around the Pentagon that morning you do not have a single eyewitness.

Roosevelt Roberts is not a flyover witness. He has never claimed to see a plane flying over the Pentagon.

In his conversation with you he said he saw a plane around the lane 1 area of the south parking lot at about 50 to 100 feet. From his perspective, about half-way down the parking lot, it is quite possible that the plane was in fact over the clover-leaf just beyond and on a soc course.

Well see what you are doing is called goal post moving. Your requirements, wording, semantics are irrelevant. You don't make the rules.

Initially your ilk was demanding more than 4 witnesses, we gave you 10 more, then that changed to not having a flyover witness and even being willing to accept witness on the other side seeing the plane flying away, we gave you that, then the goal posts were moved again to having to provide someone see it fly toward the Pentagon, the plane flying over the Pentagon, the fireball, the flying away from the Pentagon. We don't care much about YOUR requirements for evidence because you and your type are anonymous, illogical, and move goal posts.

BTW, you need to research where East Loading Dock actually is at my friend and listen to what Roosevelt is describing. He isn't describing an approach. He is describing an explosion, running 7 steps to the edge of East Loading dock, and seeing a commercial jet liner 50 ft "just above the light poles" flying around South Parking Lot like it missed it's landing zone and u-turning out and coming back around to the Mall Entrance side. That is not a plane "over the clover-leaf just beyond and on a soc course".


[edit on 22-4-2010 by Aldo_Marquis_CIT]

Aldo, you have got me completely confused now about which loading dock you are placing Roosevelt Roberts at. Surely it is the one overlooking the south parking lot as I indicated ?

I have seen references to him being at the east end of that loading dock, but if you are now saying he was on the east face of the Pentagon how could he see lane 1 of the south parking lot ?

reply to post by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

14+ heavily corroborated eyewitnesses do.

Again, what makes them dubious? You are trying to dodge the obvious here, the workers testimony destroys your little theory so your only choice is to cast unsubstantiated accusations about the veracity of their witness.

That carries no weight, sorry. Please tell me how you know they are not telling the truth and all of your alleged 14+ witnesses are all honest, correct and unerring.

reply to post by Aldo_Marquis_CIT


Wow.

This fantasy takes on new parameters with each re-telling:

He is describing an explosion, running 7 steps to the edge of East Loading dock, and seeing a commercial jet liner 50 ft "just above the light poles" flying around South Parking Lot like it missed it's landing zone and u-turning out and coming back around to the Mall Entrance side.

Huh? Really wish to stand by that?

....like it missed it's landing zone and u-turning out and coming back....

He saw ALL of that, hmm?

From his position, with the majority of the Pentagon structure looming nearby, he was able to see a commercial jet liner (your words) at about 50 feet "just above the light poles" (so, add twenty or thirty for the height of the poles, and the airplane is still below 100 feet MSL).

Am I the only one who finds this "story" a litle incredible?

On, and additionally. Care to take a guess at what the turn radius of a commercial jet liner is, when in the air? Please feel free to Google, for calculators are redily available online.

Well....I'm feeling generous, so here is a Turn Radius Calculator.

Let's be generous some more, and plug in numbers that are way too slow, such as 130 knots, and use 35 degrees bank angle (not excessive, about max for normal passenger flights):

Radius of the turn = 2,158 feet (assuming no wind). Nearly half a mile.

With that airplane flopping all around, near the Pentagon, and encroaching on the Prohibited Area (P-56), yet NO BODY ELSE (not even the trained professionals in the National Airport Control Tower) saw this airplane??

BUT wait, there's more:

That speed, 130 knots? IMPOSSIBLY slow, unless the airplane is fully configured for landing, with the maximum flap settings. ESPECIALLY, in turns, since stall speed goes up, the steeper the angle of bank.

BUT...the airplane WASN"T going that slow, right? The whole idea, here, of the "fly over", was for it to scream past, quickly, with the "coordinated" explosion being set off. Correct?

SO, how fast was the "commercial jet liner" traveling? Mininum clean (no flaps/slats), with a stall margin for a turn, is about 160-170 knots, (depending on weight).

Let's plug that in: (I upped the angle of bank to 45 degres, more generosity)

Trims the radius down to about 1,850 feet. It is the ANGLE of bank that makes the big difference, there, in radius of turn. It is a combination of angle, and speed, of course. ALways.

Leaving it at 35 degrees, and at the new speed (about 165 kts) comes out to 2,611 feet radius. Still that pesky half-mile radius, give or take, and when you look at the population density, and time of day, and extremely clear visual conditions....well, the entire idea of the "fly over" is just nonsense, pure and simple.

Besides, in order to stick with that script, one has to IGNORE all of the other eyewitness evidence, and radar evidence, and airplane debris, and FDR, etc.

That, I believe, could be considered a form of "willful ignorance".

Originally posted by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

 

dubious PenRen workers

What gives you the right to declare someone as "dubious"?

14+ heavily corroborated eyewitnesses do.

You mean witnesses like Ed Paik, which you guys have been busted for trying to pull a fast one? He wasn't even outside, we know this now.

I think that alone gives anyone the right to declare the CIT and anything they present as "dubious".

Originally posted by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So, Aldo, they faked the light pole path, the generator trailer/fence, and the surveillance video so they could fly the plane over the building at a different angle?

Yes that's right.

So it's a perfectly acceptable scenario for YOUR delusion, but NOT for labtop's?

Ok dude, whatever floats your boat.

Just pointing out the lunacy of that particular line of reasoning.

reply to post by jthomas


"What I get out of this is a "new" theory, even more complicated than the previous ones"

The logical conclusion of all this theorizing will be like that staggering decision by the producers of Dallas to write off a whole season by having the dead Bobby Ewing resurrected , - it was all a dream. The conspirators had at their disposal psyops tecniques & technology so advanced that we were all plunged into some catatonic state on 9/11.

It all seems like a frenzied frittering away of intellectual energy. A suicide terrorist slammed a plane into the Pentagon. Fifty more years of theoretical investigations will never change that. A vast internet army of millions can attempt to hijack a historical event, and pick apart every nanosecond of the 9/11 attacks, but even the most ardent conspiracy theorist must see this is futile, obsessive, nihilistic. Paranoia isn't hip, or at least it shouldn't be.

The much loathed George W Bush put it best, - Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories. Surely there are far more important things in life to be concerned with than the compulsive microanalysis of a terrible day in history with the aim of proving that your former President & Vice-president are sociopathic mass murderers.

Aldo, sorry for the somewhat late response, I always take my time to put my thoughts on "paper", so they will reflect as best as I can do, what my arguments are.
First, a subject linked by Aldo in his first posted reaction. And my opinion.

Pentagon witness Dewitt Roseborough misinterpreted by CIT as a fly-over witness :

findarticles.com...

External quotation. BEGIN :

Shutter Shock PH1(AW) Dewitt Roseborough

Photographer's Mate 1st Class (AW) Dewitt Roseborough was serving as the Chief of Naval Operations' photographer on the morning of Sept. 11, a day he will never forget.

"That morning, I was covering a reenlistment in the SECNAV mess at the Pentagon. It was supposed to start at 9 a.m., but the reenlisting officer was late getting down there' he said. "That's because he was watching CNN and saw that a plane had hit the World Trade Center."

Those who were waiting for the reenlistment didn't know anything about it at the time. They were all just sitting there wondering what could be keeping the officer. Before he could make it out of the office, the second plane hit.

"He finally got down there about 9:20 a.m., and told us what happened," Roseborough said. "Although there were a lot of people in shock, we proceeded with the reenlistment?'

It was as he was leaving the Pentagon that the world Roseborough knew changed forever. "I got out into the parking lot, just walking along, and all of a sudden, I hear what I would describe as a 'lion's roar' above my head," Roseborough said.
(LT : Since he did not explain which parking lot; there is also a northern one, we do not know for sure what parking he meant. From both parkings he could have observed the NoC plane, and lost sight of it when the corner of the building blocked further view.
South parking however seems to be the one with 2 walkways where he could have ducked under for cover from floating and flying debris. South parking also laid in the right wind direction that day)

"It caught my attention, and as I looked up, I heard another roar and I saw this airplane flying low. I thought, 'Oh, my God, this thing is really low.'
(LT : Logically, he could have seen only the NoC plane flying low North of CITGO since there was no other plane in the air, at that moment, as ALL CIT witnesses said later. Those two roars must have been the start of the right banking maneuver just north of CITGO, and a few seconds later, the slight left bank and hop-over the light poles there, just before Route 27, the "highway" as Dewitt said. A short burst of engine power will have assisted in keeping the plane in a fluent arced path toward the West wall, and hopping over obstacles in front and on Route 27.
Remember, that plane must have been pre-programmed like a cruise missile, with several options of crossing the lowest point in its flight path, Route 27. After that, just power down both engines and the plane would just float into the wall, at the right height and speed. It did not matter where exactly the plane hit, if it hit at least in the just renovated Wedge 1, section 4 part. The newly installed reinforcements would keep the plane on all scenario-allowable impact spots in that section 4, from passing further than the boundary between the first, E-ring and the second, D-ring.
The preplanned explosions (we heard of at least 3: impact, 1 minute later, and pre-collapse, see my links) have taken care of preparing at the spot, that strange 53° angle on the wall, internal damage path. But, now that we know for certain of a NoC path, all the damage to the left and some to the right of the NoC impacting plane, is totally ridiculous and impossible to explain for that plane's impact path.)

"I thought it was going to crash onto the highway" (LT : Route 27), recalled Roseborough. "Just as I thought that, I saw a fireball come from over the Pentagon. I was just standing there dumbfounded, thinking, 'What just happened?'"
(LT : again, the only possible direction he could have been looking at in those moments, was to an incoming NoC flying plane.!
And thus towards Route 27.
And NOT as Aldo Marquis is convinced of in his CIT thread : ""he can only be referring to Route 395 or possibly even Route 110."")
( Aldo's CIT thread : z3.invisionfree.com... CIT -> Person of Interest. Dewitt Roseborough.)

As debris floated and flew his way, he realized he needed to take cover. "I ducked under a walkway for what seemed to be a long time, but actually was only about a minute," Roseborough said. "That's when I noticed this woman screaming out in the parking lot. It broke my 'shock state.'" He ran to her and helped calm her down.

"After a while, I said to myself, 'Hey, I've got my camera, I'd better go do some shooting.'" He walked to the grassy area where the Navy Annex is and stood on that hill and started shooting photos documenting the immediate aftermath of the terror attack on our nation's defense headquarters.
(LT : why, as a NAVY photographer, who must have realized that that plane had impacted somewhere very near the broad area of the new NAVY Special offices, did this man walk up all the way to the NAVY ANNEX, while he could have rounded the corner and be at the heart of the scene?
And could have saved perhaps a few of his Navy colleagues.
I would love to hear why he opted for scenery photography, instead of on-scene, first eyewitness photo reporting. And where that SECNAV mess was situated in the building at the time.)

"I've asked myself several times over, why, as a photographer, I didn't immediately turn around and start shooting photos when the plane hit? I guess my major concern at the time was with the people that were out there. That's one thing about being in the Navy for the last 20 years, seeing disasters and death; I've been prepared to react in the manner that I did," he said. "I just started making sure everyone was OK."
(LT : Again, if he was so concerned about his fellow men and women, why did he go up all the way to the Navy Annex? Why not help on the spot?)
"The next day, I didn't go to work," he said. "I was still trying to process everything that had happened. I had just witnessed the worst disaster I'd ever seen, up close and personal. I was just trying to piece everything together for a while. It was just an unbelievable thing."

Roseborough summed up his feelings about Sept. 11, by saying that it was just a strange day. "It was like you were watching a movie, but you were the actor; you were in the movie. It was the most incredible thing I've ever witnessed" he said.

External quotation. END.


Aldo, I see you and Craig in both your CIT threads I linked to in this thread, repeatedly tripwire yourself over your own NoC discovery.There are few Official Theory arguments and evidence left over after acceptance of a NoC flight path and its logical consequences.

It is a logical fallacy to go against your own belief in a NoC flight path when arguing for a Fly-Over plane seen by Dewitt Roseborough, when supposing the plane he saw flew over Route 395 (South of Pentagon) or even Route 110 (East of Pentagon), when YOU BOTH, and we all too, who believe in your discovery of those NoC witnesses, know by heart now that the only plane in that time frame near the Pentagon was the NoC incoming from the West, plane.

Am I right or not? What do you think now that you saw my argumentation?
Btw, I think that I am right as a rock on this subject.

Because it is also the same logical fallacy when you both and more of your forum-groupies base your Fly-Over theory on some quasi-evidence, handed over by our adversary, the US government and all of its branches. You base it, in writing, on a fake "Exit" hole.
Sorry for the groupies remark, not meant as an insult, but sadly enough, your forum starts to have an inclination on me, like that forum you and I so despise over the years, because of that same non-critical, group behavior. Like lemmings, following their few, chosen leader(s). JREF.
See the link in my first post about the "new" theory at your forum.

Please change your fundamentalist attitude towards new and old investigative members, or you will loose your reader-base. For the wrong reasons, because solely your NoC investigation is of immense historical value.
Please do not further the path of "know it all, done it all".
And especially do not insult good willing new members, because you feel you have some online power. Your name calling in that thread was not asked for. And frankly, I do not understand why you lower yourself for a global audience to use such words against a civil debating person.
There will be knocking many new members on your forum doors, who will ask "stupid" questions, repeatedly. You must keep it civil, and keep teaching them in a civil manner, whatever boring it can be.

Just look at the success of this ATS site and forums, earned by encouraging civil discussions and enforcing it with a hard hand. And you are the ones who themselves in your own forum and your posting behavior, have to serve as an example of that, as the first ones.
I've seen members arriving here, of whom I thought in first instance that it were attention whores.
It turned out that they became valued members, who added a lot of positive influence here.
Pro and contra official story-supporters, both positive alike.

[edit on 23/4/10 by LaBTop]

Aldo, I think you added that last underlined remark to this sentence of yours in your first post, he did not say that :

"" Did I twist his arm to say "it looked like a pilot who missed his landing zone and was coming back around"? ""

"" So, LaBTop, they faked the light pole path, the generator trailer/fence, and the surveillance video so they could crash the plane into building at a different angle? ""

They prepared the explosives in such a way, that their targets got wiped out. That was their goal.
Thus they needed an impact. To be instantaneous believable on TV for the old and new molded patriots.
And they knew from their calculations regarding speed and weight of the plane, against the strength of the reinforcements of that piece of the West Wall, that the real penetration of the plane would fit into their broadly constructed, aided by explosives, 60.25° angle True North, or i.o.w. 53° onto the wall, and the following internal damage, all made by explosives.
They however never expected the effect of the power of the INTERNET, which stood at the birth cage of your CIT NoC investigation, which suddenly threw their "hard" evidenced SoC flight path on its side. Derailed it totally, since the biggest part of the internal damage suddenly did not fit at all anymore any possible NoC impact. And that upwards deflected piece of concrete ceiling suddenly becomes proof of a huge explosion outside a possible NoC impact course.


By the way, I linked in my first posts to a discussion in another thread, in its pages 50 to 54, where I have first defended your adopted fly-over witness Roosevelt Roberts, but slowly got convinced by the arguments of my opponents, that Mr Roberts was no fly-over witness at all. To the contrary even. After many hours of listening to both interviews, it became obvious what Mr Roberts meant to say when he got confused and mixed up directions.

To avoid double posts for many pages to follow, please read those 5 pages first, and do try to listen again to the two interviews that Mr Roberts gave and we have on audio, with an open mind.
The Library of Congress one first, then yours again.
If you did already, ask me what you think will change my mind.

And that's not asking me why I have not interviewed US witnesses myself, we both know where you are aiming at, that's Craig's and mine private discussion in PM's, where I explained to him why not.
I still have them saved. As I said, keep it civil. I shall then too.

Take your time to answer this all, I am a patient researcher.

From the CIT (New Theory) thread posts I referred to above and at page 1 of this thread :

Page 4. z3.invisionfree.com...

Calling911 : Mr.England claims he was somewhere else then where the photography puts him, and there is even the possibility he was part of the "cover-UP", his entire story cries contradictions in it, so how can you be certain that any of your witnesses statements weren't post 9/11 fabricated? You know : to incur more confusion to the story. To mislead us.

Mr England in his last CIT interview kept saying that he was much further back North on his South leading lane of Route 27 when he saw the plane crossing Route 27, which would place him somewhere near my proposed NoC flight path.
It would also mean that the two or three "suits" we kept seeing hanging around him near the Route 27 bridge over the underpass of the Pentagon South Parking leading last part of Colombia Pike, the official "place of delicti", have escorted him to that spot, smashed that pole 1 or 2 through his windshield, or had his car already prepared with a hole in the front windshield, and just picked up the pre-placed "cut" light pole, stuck it over the bonnet of the car for a few moments perhaps, and then positioned the whole shebang on that southern lane of Route 27. That would have been the best and safest scenario. Anybody seeing them dragging around with the biggest pole part would have asked no difficult questions, since they saw the, prepared, big hole in the windshield. The upper, "cut away" lamp parts were already laid in place of course, no need for extra dragging of parts. The scenario must have been tightly fitted to the SoC path, to let them hold on to the pre-planned SoC scenario, while they, the "suits", MUST have seen that scenario go a bit wrong towards a NoC flight path, not too much to not persist with their plans.
Mr England would be a fine candidate for a post hypnotic effect during FBI debriefing reports.
Perhaps the logic of the arguments in various CIT phone calls and several interviews with him have broken the hypnotic spell on him, and that's why he stubbornly held on to being on a totally different place when he SAW THE PLANE, than the spot we all saw him at on the past-impact photos. On that overpass bridge on Route 27.
I think the immense imprint of the real event he witnessed overruled at last his planted hypnosis, the more CIT kept nagging at his hypnotically induced, locked up, memory part of his nervous system.

Let us have a second look at the curious circular cut-out in the fence left of the diesel filled trailer, which generator trailer's diesel burned, stopped burning and magically started burning again. That was after everyone was whisked away to the underpass under Route 27 "because another plane was on its way to the Pentagon".
That diesel trailer was meant to produce as much dark black smoke, very visible in a wide politically sensitive area, in a enormous column. The fires inside did not produce such extensive smoke masses, they burned whitish gray with much less massive smoke. All planned to produce the biggest visible effect on the news cameras.

That circular cut-out in the fence's iron mesh, was obviously meant to thicken the plot and force the impression on us that the right jet engine had cut through that iron wire mesh, and made that surgical round hole, as if cut-out with a surgeons knife.

That looks like it's done by a military Laser or a very thin Det-cord.
If a 757's jet engine's front spoiler which is very round, and certainly not sharp, would have hit that fences wire mesh, it would have ripped the whole fence with poles and all, out of the ground.

They were overdoing things a bit on 911, so eager were they to lay out the intentional SoC flightpath for the news reporters, to easily pick up. They needed TV sheeple material to instantly feed them convincing leads to the inevitable conclusion they aimed for :
"Those radical Muslims did it."

The PW2000 engine family builds on the success of the 757-200s, which are offered with PW2037 and PW2040 engines.
The PW2000 series power the Boeing 757, and C23, as well as the McDonnell Douglas Globemaster III (C117), and the Ilyushin IL-96.

This is how the front of the full engine looks and would have impacted that fence's iron wire mesh, if the official story were true ( gallery.pictopia.com... ) :














The gouge on top of the generator trailer :






All pre-collapse photo's combined to one full damage photo montage :

Total damage, all pre-collapse photo's combined. Click for full photo.







911research.wtc7.net...





911research.wtc7.net...





911research.wtc7.net...






911research.wtc7.net...





911research.wtc7.net...





911research.wtc7.net...






You, my posts readers, can copy and paste these 757-200 drawings to your Paint aerial views to show me your flight path proposals. Use the stretch function in Windows Paint to fit to scale.
You can import a plane, stretch it both horizontal and vertical, and drag the now smaller/bigger one to where you want it to insert in an aerial view.

Originally posted by LaBTop

That circular cut-out in the fence's iron mesh, was obviously meant to thicken the plot and force the impression on us that the right jet engine had cut through that iron wire mesh, and made that surgical round hole, as if cut-out with a surgeons knife.

Wow.

It's pretty cool when one can just make stuff up to reinforce one's statements.

I challenge anyone to take a look at the photo of the fence that labtop provided.

Now, can anyone state, with a straight face, that the fence is cut as if it was done with a surgein's knife?

I wonder what Aldo has to say about that......

Originally posted by LaBTop
That circular cut-out in the fence's iron mesh

That's not a circular cut-out.

It just looks that way from the top fence mesh falling over after being split.

reply to post by LaBTop


All of this "research", and you still get it so wrong?

While it is true that for a short time American Airlines operated a few Boeing 757s equipped with the PW powerplants, that was only because of their merger with TWA. The majority of their B-757 fleet utilized the Rolls Royce RB-211. Having the two different engine types is a burden on pilot training requirements, maintenance costs, etc. Post-merger, the fomer TWA pilots would have been exclusively assigned to the Pratt-equipped airplanes.

AA got rid of them as quickly as possible.

In any event, since the Boeing designation for the airplane at the Pentagon (N644AA) was ended in a "-223", it shows that it was an original ordered equipment to American's specifications, NOT to TWA's.

www.planespotters.net...

You can peruse the www.planespotters.net... website for further research and study.

(I am at a bit of a loss, still though. I agree with you on the "CIT fly-over" nonsense, but your efforts at analyzing and explaining are even more long-winded than some of my posts!)

Does this mean you are finally accepting the fact that on 11 September, 2001, a flight being operated as American Airlines flight 77 took off from Dulles International Airport, in Chantilly Virginia, bound for Los Angeles, California, and was hijacked by five Arab terrorists, as part of a co-ordinated plan wherein at least 14 others were involved in hijacking three other regularly scheduled commercial airline flights?

End result, THREE of those FOUR hijacked airplanes successfully found their intended targets, and were used as suicide devices of destruction, to devastating effect.

AAL 77 was targeted at the Pentagon, in Virginia.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

 

Aldo~

I don't have a problem with the witnesses. The ones that were in a position to do so, watched the plane impact the Pentagon. But, I will refrain from that dummy dance as you and Craig ignore that.

Really which witnesses? You spoke with them? You asked them what they saw exactly? Specifically? You corroborated their details with other witnesses? You asked them which side of the gas station the plane was on?

You do have a problem with the witnesses, because the ones who were in a position to do so, saw the plane approach and bank to the right on the NORTH SIDE of the gas station and this negates an impact of light poles and the building. Others, who were in a position to do so, saw the plane flying away from the Pentagon.

My issue is the fly over. It would be impossible. Take the recent eruption from Iceland’s Eyjafjallajoekull glacier. As you know, aircraft were not allowed to fly near this ash. The industry lost billions of dollars in revenue. This decision was made probably in part due to the incident in 1989, a KLM 747 flying over Alaska at 25,000 feet lost power in all four engines when it flew into a cloud of ash from the eruption of Mount Redoubt. The aircraft fell 13,000 feet before pilots were able to restart the engines.

Yet, we are all to believe that this magic plane that flew over the Pentagon was able to fly through a massive explosion that contained glass, cement, and steel without any damage to the aircraft?

We do not promote that it flew threw a fireball. It was one of the possibilities considered. The plane does not have to fly through the fireball in order for the flyover to effectively fool certain people. Just listen the account of Dewitt Roseborough he was in south parking when he saw the jet above him and THEN saw the fireball rise from over the Pentagon. He then, like a confused flyover witness, took days to try and piece it all together and figure out what had happened.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

BTW, you need to research where East Loading Dock actually is at my friend and listen to what Roosevelt is describing.........

Be careful when promoting Roosevelt, Aldo. I am sure you are aware for him to be a flyover witness will throw other witnesses under the bus and also change your flyover claim. If Roosevelt saw the "attack jet", then that so called jet would have had to have flown to the south of the impact point and in FRONT of the explosion. This was data supplied by your PFT buddies.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by Six Sigma]

It could fly over or just to the south of the impact point. Again Dave Statter interviewed a witness who said the plane "went to the side of the building and not directly in" and tried to "avert the building". No witnesses are thrown under the bus, from Roosevelts view at East Loading Dock it would appear over and it would actually bank over the eastern end of the Parking lot. Just as he describes.