Ok I will say this again... SEVERAL witnesses
1) Saw the plane knock down the light poles
Wrong.
Repeating false information does not make it true.
Did you not even read
my last post, or are you just lying now?
As I said...
"CIT has repeatedly demonstrated why it is so important to talk to witnesses directly instead of going on out of context and often ambiguous media quotes. Ironically, one of the clearest examples of this can be seen in their debunk of one of your main sources, Arabesque, who in the same article that you quote from tries to claim that over 20 people saw the light poles get hit when it fact it turns out that NONE of these people saw it. Some were not even witnesses at all!
See here:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=51As you will see Craig from CIT links to a post by Arabesque on AboveTopSecret.com from 2007 promising to correct these errors but he has still to this day left them up there, obfuscating the truth, yet this is the person you are copy and pasting information from in order to somehow try to prove the official story true."
2) Saw the Plane hit the Pentagon
FAQ: What about all of the eyewitnesses cited in various media reports as having seen the plane hit the Pentagon? Aren't there hundreds of them?
http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-alleged_impact_witnesses.html3) Mentioned inhaling jet fuel
If you're just going to keep making the same inept arguments over and over I'm just going to keep pasting my rebuttals until you read and acknowledge it. As I already said...
"Yes people reported smelling jet fuel but this is not evidence against the north of the gas station approach, nor is it evidence that a plane hit the building. Jet fuel is pretty much the same thing as Diesel fuel. As most people here probably know there was a Diesel generator that was spewing major amounts of smoke for hours.
In addition, this was right next to the heliport tower, and we have reports of "aviation fuel tanks" exploding:
"We ran to the end of our building, turned left and saw nothing but huge, billowing black smoke, and a brilliant, brilliant explosion of fire." (...) One of the Pentagon's two fire trucks was parked only 50 feet from the crash site, and it was "totally engulfed in flames," Anderson says.
Nearby, tanks full of propane and aviation fuel had begun igniting, and they soon began exploding, one by one.http://www.newsweek.com/id/75861And what of those 13 witnesses who saw the plane come in from the north side... they didnt see the plane hit the pentagon!
Please explain how this makes them all wrong in the same way about the plane flying north of the gas station.
If the plane flew north of the gas station as they all insist that it did it not hit the building, perod.
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-can_north_side_plane_hit.htmlTheir interviews may not of changed since they were officially interviewed but they were officially interviewed in november/december .... 2 to 3 months later.... Now as some people here are aware, I have a pretty good memory... but even I would probably forget exact details relating to the motion of a plane I only saw for a few seconds several months after the event.
I don't think I even need to respond to this. If they were confused, they would contradict each other. They wouldn't unanimously corroborate each other on the north side flight path from a variety of multiple, excellent vantage points, let alone with so much certainty. Virtually any intellectually honest person can watch the video in the OP and see how lucid and detailed and obviously correct these people are. To imply that they all had the same vivid hallucination or the same vivid false memory is absurd. People can watch the video and judge for themselves if your “mass identical hallucination” (or “mass misremembering) theory holds any water. It seems many here already have and know that it doesn’t.
CIT makes it seem like there's no witnesses who confirm the official story when there are
loads!
First of all, all of these accounts do NOT "confirm the official story" as you are implying, and in fact many of them contradict it. You have even posted numerous accounts from these lists that do so. Do you not understand this, or are you just trying to confuse people?
Second of all, as CIT has repeatedly demonstrated, and as I showed you in my last post, secondhand out of context media quotes are subject to misrepresentation, embelishment, and downright fabrication.
CIT has scrutinized ALL of these accounts in the same detail as shown in my post. They have not ignored anyone. One again,
here is a comprehensive breakdown of the witness list by CIT. They have attempted to contact virtually all of these people, and succeeded at reaching dozens and dozens of them and interviewing them. Many of these interviews have been video recorded on location. Every single eyewitness on record in a first hand, recorded account and who was in a position to tell where the plane was in relation to the Citgo and/or Navy Annex
insist that the plane was on the north side,
proving that it did not hit the building.
You are not able to provide a single firsthand account to the contrary because that's where the plane flew. You've tried and failed at even providing a secondhand account to the contrary.
Why you are so hellbent on convincing people that the official Pentagon story is true when we have conclusive, independent evidence proving it false is beyond me. You have not scrutinized these accounts and you are doing a huge disservice to the truth by continually throwing out misleading information.
And there is one very good theory that we have all been overlooking... It's known as the
Plane Bomb Theory and it was put forward by the guy who compiled all the eyewitness accounts. It's the theory that there was a plane, likely Flight 77... and it was crashed into the Pentagon... BUT a split second before, it was blown up by explosives on board the plane to MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO THE BUILDING!
So this is a “very good theory” in your mind but then you say:
My opinion on 9/11 is that a plane hit the pentagon
If there “Plane Bomb Theory” is so good why don’t you believe it. Is it because it’s not substantiated by the evidence? If it’s not, why do you consider it to be “very good”?
The theory is the best I have heard
Is it better than your “plane hit the pentagon” theory? If so, why do you still endorse that one. The fact is that the evidence disproves both.
But lets see why you think it’s not only good, but “very good”, and not only very good, but “the best”...
because...
1) It fits with the eyewitness testimony more than any other alternative theory.
First of all, this *theory* is not mutually exclusive with the north side aspect of the testimony. Hypothetically the plane could approach from the north side of the gas station and still “blow up” as your “very good theory” postulates. But second of all, and more importantly, it does NOT fit with the eyewitness testimony, because Roosevelt Roberts Jr. saw the plane still in flight seconds after the alleged “impact”.
Your “backup” (pcc) claims that Roosevelt “could have easily mistaken that for the C130 that was in the air at the time”, but this is not true at all.
To begin with, the C-130 was NOT “in the air at the time”, unless you add “...miles away, nowhere near where Roosevelt saw the plane”
Pcc, did you even watch this video? Be honest.
As they explain in the epilogue, the C-130 was not on the scene until approximately three full minutes later, and it was at a much, much higher altitude. This fact has been confirmed by video, photographs, many firsthand confirmed eyewitness accounts, and the pilots himself Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien.
Roosevelt was in the Pentagon when he heard and felt the alleged impact. He took approximately seven steps to the loading dock and saw the plane. This was literally just seconds after the explosion of the alleged impact. He describes this plane as a “commercial aircraft” that he saw “as clear as day” flying away “like it missed the wrong target... like it missed the landing zone” at approximately 50 feet altitude.
It is impossible for him to “mistake” this for the completely-different-looking C-130 that did not show up on the scene for another three minutes at a much higher altitude. Unless you want to postulate yet another insane hallucination that day (which happens to corroborate all of the other insane hallucinations) there is absolutely no explanation for what Roosevelt saw other than that the plane flew over the building and did not “blow up” as your “very good” and “best” theory supposes.
Pcc, you said to scootle “hang in there.. we have to be patient with those that haven't researched this far.. remember you cant change someones mind who refuses to look.. you have to just present evidence.. to counteract the BS”
The evidence for what I have just said is shown in the epilogue of National Security Alert (the video in the OP), as well as in these two videos:
http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-htpio.htmlhttp://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-northsideflyover.htmlThe question is now that
your BS claim about Roosevelt Roberts possibly seeing the C-130, which you falsely (or at least misleadingly) claim was “in the air at the time”, has been refuted, will
you refuse to look at the evidence, or will you do some more research and then man up and concede this point?
2) It can potentially explain the anomolies at the crash site (lack of external debris, smell of cordite, silvery red flash, small hole, witness accounts of it exploding a split second before it hit the building etc).
If it explains all the anomalies so well why don’t you subscribe to it?
3) It could explain why they would want to withhold video evidence.
All else being equal there are lots of potential reasons for them to withhold the video evidence, as you yourself have admitted. This "Plane Bomb" theory doesn’t “fit” with the withholding of said evidence any better than any other theory, so this point is invalid. As a matter of fact though, all else is
not equal. We now have conclusive, independent, verifiable evidence that the plane flew over the Navy Annex, north of the Citgo station, and then flew over the building and flew away. That is the reason that they have withheld the video evidence, not because there was a missile, or a "plane bomb", or a 757 impact as you and the government claim.
4) IT'S SIMPLE! ... It doesnt involve perfectly timed missile strikes, flyovers, corrupting of forensic investigators, blowing up light poles, planting debris, disposing of passengers etc
Who is arguing for a perfectly timed missile strike or blowing up light poles in real time? Certainly not CIT or anyone who has studied the evidence they have gathered and presented.
FAQ: [http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-were_light_poles_downed_in_real_time.html]Since the plane did not hit the light poles do you think that they were somehow knocked down in real-time as the plane passed by? Maybe with explosives, or by the vortex of the plane or a missile or something?]Since the plane did not hit the light poles do you think that they were somehow knocked down in real-time as the plane passed by? Maybe with explosives, or by the vortex of the plane or a missile or something? [/url]
See also:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=621You’re like the “debunkers” who say things like “I don’t believe you conspiracy kooks’ convoluted theory that the towers were demolished, the planes were flown by aliens, NORAD stood down, The queen of England masterminded the plot, etc.” They do that all the time... throw strawman garbage in with legitimate claims to try to discredit it all. Please stop using these cheap and dishonest tactics.
