Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

Here is a better view posted by Craig Ranke, from about 50 meters high from a helicopter, over the whole area that covers the SoC, but also the NoC flight path last part before impact.
Note that a NoC path crossed over Route 27 just in front of those two trees in front of the concrete Helipad :

i14.photobucket.com...



And you want me to believe that all those drivers on Route 27 saw (according to your nutty theory) a fly-over, but all of them reported an impact? Are you nuts? Look at the view they had!

When you imagine a line from that, above the two trees placed, black text block's right bottom corner, just a few meters above that 9 meters high light pole there (SP-B in above map), towards the impact point (yes, use your plastic ruler), then you see that a NoC path plus impact is perfectly possible, whatever PfT and CIT site-owners keep shouting at you.
That is a shallow descend and at impact, the plane was speared open and split in an upper and lower half, which resulting shredded parts were both netted up by the KEVLAR netting in the just renovated new front wall. Do not forget the extra steel beams welded together in a checkered fashion, build inside the front wall. And all those double-spiral re-barred concrete columns. And the massive floor slabs. A lot stronger all in all, than the WTC facades, floors and office spaces.

Below is another aerial map posted by Ranke, that shows the SoC path. When you have viewed the CIT CITGO witnesses interviews, you know that the NoC path must pass over that dirt mound just right of that half of Route 27 spanning traffic signs board, and that fits the 4 ANC workers testimonies, and lo and behold, also the officially released NTSB animation.

Vin Narayanan said he stood beside the exit sign, and that half VDOT traffic board has an exit sign for Columbia Pike on it. Vin stood beside it in the HOV lane going north, about where you see that tiny car in the black lane beside the grey HOV lane in that picture below (see my extra NoC witnesses lists in my page 4 of my PfT thread) :

It seems fly-over followers base that NoC-thus-no-impact-possible-belief on some unproven words ( "aeronautical impossible" ) from a non-757-experienced, former small business planes pilot with a proven bad grasp on mathematics and no flight time ever in a 757, and mixing 757 flight procedures up with those he knew for small business planes.
Hopefully he was a good pilot, but he acts as a stubborn, not open for correction, and uncivil person. He has been terribly wrong several times, and has a huge problem with admitting it.

The straight distance from impact to the border of Route 27 is nearly exactly 100 meters.
But in the angle to the west wall which that white 757 plane drawn in the above map is flying, that distance becomes 110 meters.

The VDOT light poles have standard heights of 30 to 50 feet (9.14 to 15.24 meter), see :
VDOT, Section V - 3.3.1 - Roadway Lighting.


See this thread by Craig Ranke :
The downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance., page 1.

The downed light poles at the Pentagon are arguably the most convincing evidence that a 757 caused the physical damage that day.
But now that we know the plane was on the north side of the CITGO station it is clear that they got there somehow else.

I suppose that you base that same fly-over belief on the 9/11 Pentagon aftermath photos found by CIT member Craig Ranke, from a part of a cleaned up bottom floor in the former collapsed portion of Wedge 1, that does not show deep skid marks. That photo was taken from about 1 meter high, so to see, which is not giving a good perspective for showing any floor damage. There are also areas with water on it, that will cover eventual marks.

Further more, you must take in consideration that the main longitudinal aluminum floor beams of AAL77 seem to have hit the wall exactly on the steel bar reinforced thick second floor slab.
In most European countries they refer to that slab btw as the first floor slab, and the space under it as the ground level or bottom floor level. You Americans refer to that space as the first floor level.
That slab must thus be about 3 meters above the grassy lawn level there.

That west wall portion was just reinforced with KEVLAR netting in between the front walls, and those nettings will have kept a great deal of the aluminum crash parts together in a sort of strong far stretched out "butterfly" net, pushed backwards with great speed.
And that huge floor slab will have functioned as a great dividing "knife", while that first and second floors netting kept the top and bottom parts of the crashing inwards plane, together.

As you should know by now, I think the plane came in under a near 90° angle, since that is the only logical conclusion if one is holding on to all the NoC witnesses, and I am convinced the plane its front parts came no further than the back wall of the first (later collapsed) ring E in Wedge 1.

This all based on the fact of all these very believable NoC flight path witnesses.
If anybody can contact Christine Peterson and Penny Elgas again, and ask them if she and her car stood within 30 meters south of those two trees in front of the Helipad when she saw the plane passing over her (Christine), or just in front of her (Penny), and she answers "No, much further back, in front of that huge Route 27 spanning traffic sign board at the Columbia Pike overpass bridge", then I start doubting Sergeant William Lagasse's witness account.

One thing for sure....those who question the 9/11 official story OVERWHELMINGLY believe that no plane hit the Pentagon. But there is only a relatively small number of alleged researchers and anonymous posters on the internet who desperately argue that the plane hit. They just happen to be very persistent, aggressive, confident, and disturbingly obsessed with CIT.

Notice how this extreme minority mostly relies on convoluted, lengthy, incomprehensible arguments riddled with vitriol in a desperate attempt to get you to throw your hands up in confusion.

This is the only hope they have to divert your attention from the obvious fact that no plane hit the Pentagon as confirmed more than a dozen times over by the north side witnesses.

My signature, in case anybody missed it..

To me our only real opponent is the government. What we say is directed at them and their version of the story in the 911 Commission Report. What GL’s and other Truthers like Legge say and write is meaningless unless the government says it too. That’s why I think it’s best to simply direct them all to the government instead of fighting with them (along with my confidence that the government will not adopt what they say). Only our real opponent can make any of their stuff matter.

That applies right across the spectrum of "counterarguments" posted here.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Now we swing to the other end of the scale.

From one person hijacking a perfectly reasonable thread regarding the NOC evidence to another who blindly accepts what the authorities say apart from when the authorities' version of events don't suit.

"Invented evidence" as you say.

You don't see the hypocrisy there Dave?

No, actually, I see perfect continuity because you truthers can't resist inventing your own evidence to suit your purposes here, either. I have never hid my position that there are gaping holes and coverups in the "official story" as you people keep caling it. It's just that...

a) the coverups are really concealing monumental bungling, and we saw how completely inept the gov't was in even handing out bottles of water to hurricane survivors in New Orleans so I know there's more bungling involved in the gov'ts reaction during the 9/11 attack than what they're admitting. It just that you truthers refuse to accept this because "sheer incompetence" isn't as sexy sounding as "sinister secret plot to take over the world"

b) you truthers can't understand why you aren't getting anywhere with these conspiracy stories of yours, so instead of stopping to reconsider the validity of your claims, you pull a cop out and clutch onto this "we all blindly accept whatever the gov't tells us" baloney to sooth your bruised egos. I've said at least a dozen times what my position is but just like how Linus simply can't give up his security blanket you truthers simply can't give up your "everyone else is a mindlessly goosstepping sheeple" propaganda, regardless of how silly it makes you look.

So no, I don't see any hypocrisy, nor is this hijacking the thread because others here have pointed out numerous examples of the CIT people likewise making up their own evidence as they go along. Birds of a feather, and all that.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
One thing for sure....those who question the 9/11 official story OVERWHELMINGLY believe that no plane hit the Pentagon. But there is only a relatively small number of alleged researchers and anonymous posters on the internet who desperately argue that the plane hit. They just happen to be very persistent, aggressive, confident, and disturbingly obsessed with CIT.

Was the alleged NTSB released FDR data "bungled"? How can an independent electronic unit devised to record flight data have "bungled" itself to such extremes that the most vital portion of data was "missing"?

Bottom line, giggle like a little girl all you want, but the official narrative is the only theory to be addressed when discussing 9/11. Not some invented "grey areas" where GLs like yourself can pick and choose some of the OCT and deny others.

Until the government/authorities explain the blatant anomalies such as the FDR, the aircraft didn't and couldn't crash.

Until a legitimate witness is found (23 pages later and still waiting) to support the alleged "SOC path", the NOC testimony stands and the aircraft didn't and couldn't crash.

Originally posted by ANOK

OK, so that explains it all then.

Regardless of why they were built, they blocked the view of the impact point from many areas, the Citgo obvioulsy.

But you said they were put up just before 9/11. You seemed fairly certain.

Do you see why this standard of evidence gathering hardly inspires confidence?

It's also fascinating that months and moths before the perpetrators decided to block a view of the impact point from "many" areas but not from a multitude of others.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
One thing for sure....those who question the 9/11 official story OVERWHELMINGLY believe that no plane hit the Pentagon. But there is only a relatively small number of alleged researchers and anonymous posters on the internet who desperately argue that the plane hit. They just happen to be very persistent, aggressive, confident, and disturbingly obsessed with CIT.

Notice how this extreme minority mostly relies on convoluted, lengthy, incomprehensible arguments riddled with vitriol in a desperate attempt to get you to throw your hands up in confusion.

This is the only hope they have to divert your attention from the obvious fact that no plane hit the Pentagon as confirmed more than a dozen times over by the north side witnesses.

One could also say: "... those who question the official shape [the OS] of the Earth OVERWHELMINGLY believe that the Earth is flat. But there is only a relatively small number of alleged researchers and anonymous posters on the internet who desperately argue that the Earth is spherical."

I don't think that anyone is "disturbingly obsessed with CIT." CIT is a very small group [2 or 3?] promoting the concept of a flyover coupled with demolition of the Pentagon. They are known to reject all evidence that shows their theory to be false while continuing to promote it to fringe elements. As I remember from a previous discussion, some of those same witnesses who estimated a NOC path also claim that the plane hit the Pentagon. If the witnesses statements are accepted for a NOC path why were same witnesses' statements not accepted for the impact? Could it be that they were rejected because they didn't coincide with the "obvious fact that no plane hit the Pentagon?" There are far too many holes in CIT's "convoluted, lengthy, incomprehensible arguments" as they try to regain the spotlight. Some of the many faults of the theory, such as how thousands of gallons of fuel were smuggled into the Pentagon and concealed along with the explosives, why a demolition blew the walls inward, what happened to the plane and passengers, and how the light poles fell and tree damage occurred are waved away with the fallbacks typical of such groups; planted evidence, lying witnesses, and magic.
I don't know the real goal of CIT. It has nothing to do with "the truth" given their behavior. It may be financial or just some celebrity among ATS members. It is unlikely that many people, or any [including CIT], actually believe their theory but any attention is good for the attention deprived. What else do they have?

Still, nobody offers forward an "SOC witness". Why do you think that is?



Note the "likes" vs "dislikes". Hardly a "fringe" movement.

The NOC witnesses are adamant about where they saw the aircraft. They corraborate. It's on record.
It's physically impossible for the aircraft to cause the directional damage from that trajectory. It's a physical impossibility.

Please, no "parallax problems" or they "misremembered".

How could William Middleton have physically seen the "SOC aircraft" or have been confused about seeing the aircraft bank over the ANC carpark and be corroborated??



Please make an effort to answer this post instead of shimmying around the subject.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
But you said they were put up just before 9/11. You seemed fairly certain.

Do you see why this standard of evidence gathering hardly inspires confidence?

It's also fascinating that months and moths before the perpetrators decided to block a view of the impact point from "many" areas but not from a multitude of others.

So when were they erected then? Before 911 right? And taken down just after?

Regardless the point is the mounds blocked the view of the impact area from the Chitgo, where OSers have claimed the CIT witnesses SAW the impact. It was also the center of the media response. The mounds kept the press from getting too close to the pentagon...




Dirt mound right in front of the impact point...



Was the because of the pond?

The view was blocked from most areas, not just some. The pentagon impact point is not easy to see from the road when you are sitting down low in a car. They would only have to block areas with direct views, as anyone not directly under the path of the plane would not have noticed anything until they heard the blast, and then it's too late to see the impact. All the views we see are from a higher point, and makes it look like the impact point is visible when it really isn't.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Still, nobody offers forward an "SOC witness". Why do you think that is?

Becuase everyone who was in the vicinity of the Pentagon specifically saw it was plane that hit the building and scores of examples have already been provided here, so arguing over frivolous details such as whether the plane was 100 yards vs 110 yards away from a given witness is grasping at straws in extreme desperation on your part.

If you want to argue the highway lights were really knocked down by distracted motorists rather than the plane, knock yourself out.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Reconciling the NOC estimates with the physical damage requires a contrived system of evidence planting such as the light poles and plane debris. The engines are not easily moved around in a back pocket for salting the scene. No evidence that the plane or the passengers are still extant has been presented. CIT also disregards some of their own NOC witnesses who said that they also saw the plane hit. Penny Elgas saw the plane hit and recovered a wingtip. Her version is a SOC path. I can look at old posts for other witness names but it is not important. No one saw the plane fly away, ergo, no flyover. All the tap dancing in the world won't change that. The idiotic duck-and-cover theory is a fine example of a desperate crew looking for anything to save their pet theory.
There is a long list of deficiencies that CIT cannot address that have been reviewed many times on ATS. CIT goes away after each drubbing, waits a while, and returns with the same deficiencies in the same theory. The tactic may be that people will eventually get tired of it and stop pointing out the many fallacies so that the CIT crew can pontificate on their totally debunked theory without interruption.
So what is new? What have these characters come up with to fill the holes in their theory? Maybe it should be phrased "Are there any bits of theory to fill the extensive hole collection called the NOC-flyover" Is this the same old stuff reiterated by another ATS member name?

Originally posted by ANOK


So when were they erected then? Before 911 right? And taken down just after?

Dirt mound right in front of the impact point...

All of the dirt mounds are still there. And that last dirt mound is on the other side of the high way, not "right in front of the impact point"...

Google Earth has a satellite photo dated 9/7/2001 you can see the dirt mound above the NW side of the clover leaf. The yellow trailer can be seen parked there as well.

reply to post by waypastvne


OK so the dirt mound by the Chitgo is still there, the others are not.

Again though it still means the CIT witnesses could not have seen the impact point from the gas station as some have claimed. If you're not still claiming this then forget it.

Is this one still there?....



No it isn't. Your excuses are not addressing my point.

reply to post by ANOK


The first photo doesn't even show the Pentagon. It's entirely unclear what is being obscured or what the lines of sight are. You can't even see the mound in your second photo. And the number of cameras on tripods kind of suggests you can see something from there.

In the the third photo you can clearly see most of the impact point despite the mound.

Have a look at the photo at the top of this page. Loads of witnesses would still have been able to see the impact point. What's the point of obscuring just some of them?

But this isn't the most important thing here. What's at issue is your willingness to formulate conclusions based on pictures that don't show what you would like them to. I see that another of your assertions about a mound being removed "straight after 9/11" has turned out to be nonsense too.

Originally posted by ANOK

The view was blocked from most areas, not just some. The pentagon impact point is not easy to see from the road when you are sitting down low in a car. They would only have to block areas with direct views, as anyone not directly under the path of the plane would not have noticed anything until they heard the blast, and then it's too late to see the impact. All the views we see are from a higher point, and makes it look like the impact point is visible when it really isn't.

DING DING DING BS ARTIST ALERT!!!

Here's a photo of what the field of view is from the highway only minutes after the attack. A highway I might add is flipping right next to the impact area-



The only thing between the highway and the impact area is a highway barrier and an open field so this is literally as direct a view as a direct view gets. Plus, you can see right away how many witnesses were there from the people who stopped their cars to gawk at what was going on. Go ahead, accuse the photographer of being a secret gov't agent. I double dog dare you.

At what point will it finally dawn on you that you've been raped by those damned fool conspiracy web sites, and raped badly?

reply to post by ANOK


Hows about someone coming Southbound on VA 27?

View southbound on VA 27

Perfect view of a plane coming in and crashing into the Pentagon.

Or here:

View looking North

Or how about here driving Northbound on the Pike:

Northbound on Pike

Oh man, how can anyone miss the view here:

Ringside seats for the crash

Lets go Southbound on the VA 27:
Southbound farther south view VA 27

Northbound again on 27 off the Pike
Northbound on 27 off Pike

Just be sure to turn the little view guy towards the Pentagon.

You mean to tell me all of these views were magically blocked on that day?

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by waypastvne

 

OK so the dirt mound by the Chitgo is still there, the others are not.

Again though it still means the CIT witnesses could not have seen the impact point from the gas station as some have claimed. If you're not still claiming this then forget it.

Is this one still there?....



No it isn't. Your excuses are not addressing my point.

ANOK I'm willing to bet you have never even set foot in DC or the area around the Pentagon. If you have and still are pushing these BS excuses and made up nonsense, then either you are really incompetent (which I doubt) or you are knowingly warping truth and spreading lies and disinfo to keep this train wreck Truther movement on the tracks, even though its been long derailed and destroyed. Which is it ANOK? I know you are not incompetent. Are you an agent of disinfo?

I have been to DC. I was also at Arlington. The view of the Pentagon from Robert E. Lee's house overlooking the Pentagon is amazing. In fact there are always quite a few people up there at any given time. I've rode and driven by the Pentagon in the morning traffic mess, and have seen firsthand the approach taken by Flight 77 and the different view points of eyewitnesses which would have seen a perfect view of the crash. I have been by the Citgo. I've been by the Navy Annex. Hell, the amounts of people on those roads at that time of day, and to think that faking a plane crash in the middle of it all, makes me think that those pushing this BS nonsense of no plane crash or faked crash or whatever are seriously either disinfo con artists, or genuine mentally unbalanced persons. To fake a plane crash in the middle of that is like trying to fake a plane crash in the middle of a Superbowl Stadium.

But lets not forget the other sights that offer views of the Pentagon. The backside of the Lincoln Memorial. I saw lots of people sitting on that side just looking out towards the Pentagon. Along the river looking towards the Pentagon. Perfect views for any magical flyovers. To risk such exposure? Come on!

reply to post by pteridine

CIT also disregards some of their own NOC witnesses who said that they also saw the plane hit. Penny Elgas saw the plane hit and recovered a wingtip. Her version is a SOC path. I can look at old posts for other witness names but it is not important.

CIT hardly "disregards" the few NOC witnesses to believe that the aircraft allegedly struck the building and were in a position to see the final second of the flight before the explosion.
Their entire interviews are on record, warts and all.

You're delusional to claim that Penny Elgas saw "an SOC flightpath". There's only one "SOC flightpath" by the way

The piece that she handed in to the Smithsonian has never been identified as coming from "Flight 77".

And who claimed that it was a "wingtip"? She was told that it was a portion of the tail

ELGAS: ¨ No, I didn't see it hit. I heard on the news that it hit a light pole. But that's how I ended up with a piece of the plane, is that it clipped the pole. The tail -- that was actually the tail that a turned into the Smithsonian. A piece of the tail

You work that one out.

Now are you going to answer my valid question as to how William Middleton described the "SOC flightpath" when he couldn't physically see it? Or how he could physically see the aircraft bank over the ANC carpark area from his POV and be corroborated multiple times?