Pentaconned spreads disinfo (ranke CIT disinfo )

[Voskhod3]

No one is lying(except CIT)

Where do CIT lie in that video.

Lots of people saw the plane, and they all have their own interpretation of the events just like at any other event.
None of these people are lying and yet they don't say the exact same thing....

But if the cops were where they say they were then they couldn't see the plane south of Citgo.

I think some of the other witnesses who say they saw the impact have been shown that their statements are impossible from where they say they were.

Are the cops lying?

They really couldn't see a south of Citgo path.

[Voskhod3]

Dude, why are you here? CIT is disinfo, they refute their own witnesses.

The cops Sane.. what about the cops?

I know nothing about CIT, however I do know that after watching the witnesses themselves in that video that if what they are saying is true then they couldn't see a south of Citgo path.

"Zero chance".

[Voskhod3]

there were over 100 witnesses that CIT dismisses, that corroborate the physical evidence..
and slightly more than a dozen who don't..

But out of that dozen, there are two cops.... who could not see a plane if it was south of Citgo and are adamant about what they saw and were in a position where it was IMPOSSIBLE to see a south of Citgo plane.

You can't watch the CIT video and not wonder what is going on.

It's just not possible that the cops are mistaken, so they must be lying right?

[Mike Philbin]

It's just not possible that the cops are mistaken, so they must be lying right?

No, you're wrong, the cops are lying for C.I.T.

[Voskhod3]

No, you're wrong, the cops are lying for C.I.T.

How do you know that?

[Mike Philbin]

How do you know that?

it's the only logical conclusion from the MOD AGENDA on this thread. I guess the mods are saying, "Look it's only thirteen EYE WITNESSES. How much would it take? A grand each? That's only a $13,000 hike on their budget. That's a managable overhead."

No? Yes? I still don't see any evidence why this thread had to have MOD ATTACK. We canmake up our own minds about eye witness testimony. If they'd have been allowed to take this to court, this would have been strong evidence for a north-Citgo flyby. Whether you like CIT or not, it just would. That's the EVIDENTIAL SYSTEM, paid off or not paid off. Fact.

[Voskhod3]

it's the only logical conclusion from the MOD AGENDA on this thread.

Ah.. OK.

[jimd3100]

If they'd have been allowed to take this to court, this would have been strong evidence for a north-Citgo flyby.  

LOL! "In summary ladies and gentlemen of the jury although all our witnesses say they watched the plane fly into the building they were simply fooled and the debris was planted"

Perry Mason you're not.
Here's a hint of what your star witness would say on the stand...
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/6-27-03/discussion.cgi.98.html

[Voskhod3]

We have 13 witnesses that definitely confirm a north of citgo path.

There supposedly approx 100 witnesses.

How many of those witness statements are north/south neutral?

How many north path statements are we left with after that?

Has anyone attempted to speak to these witnesses like CIT did?

[mym]

agh lol man everyone seems to be convincing....I almost believe this "Keith" guy I mean, those who saw the plane hit would most definitely NOT see the other plane overhead since it was headed the other direction at the time of impact.  Those who saw it right over them and hit, were not concentrating on the planes at all, just the one that came near them directly so they wouldn't be able to see the other smaller plane correct?

Also, when I look at advancing planes in the sky or when you know they have taken off, it looks like the plane goes in slow motion.  That could be the reason why Keith said he saw the plane for about a minute.  He, to me looked genuine.  I dunno!  The other plane witness also said it was higher and heard it.  agh lol


Why are people not able to get their stories straight for us ordinary people eh? lol


mym



 

[Scootle]

Apro Po of what, exactly? You know, contrary to a certain mindset that needs to hold Kennedy up as some holier than thou superprophet and shit-doesn't-stink-god-creature, there is another that says you don't get to occupy that level of elected office without being just a teensy bit sly & manipulative (or at least being able to rely on a number of dodgy contacts facilitated through your father).

9/11 'truthers', or any other sort for that matter, should be the last people to hold up celebrities (which is what he was, let's face it) as the fount of all wisdom.

It's intellectual cowardice. Pure & simple.

Would you rather I quote Jim Fetzer then? lol

[pcc]

We have 13 witnesses that definitely confirm a north of citgo path.
definitely? has reason escaped you? throw out a hundred in favor of 13?
There supposedly approx 100 witnesses.
no more "supposedly" than the infamous 13..
How many of those witness statements are north/south neutral?
I'm quite disappointed with you.. considering the standards you set forth in the moon hoax thread..
How many north path statements are we left with after that?
here let me help..
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm
Has anyone attempted to speak to these witnesses like CIT did?
like CIT did? God I hope not.. the way they lead their witnesses and plant seeds into the testimony would make any law student cringe..

[Scootle]

How exactly would  these 13 witnesses hold any weight in court though ... If you were facing Rumsfield and Cheney etc and an army of highly paid new world order lawyers and witnesses they have bribed. Would you rather have:

a) 13 witnesses who give a different flight path?

b) An army of experts, architects and scientists with Anti_Illuminati an Kevin Ryan's research proving they flew the planes remotely and blew up the WTC with Nanothermite?

CIT's research gets us nowhere... even if the witnesses are right, their "evidence" is no more damning than Willie Rodriguez or Barry Jennings' testimony.

[mym]

how would one even know who is involved with who?  Sure there are names available, but judges, lawyers, how can one tell "if they are in on it"?

[Mike Philbin]

CIT's research gets us nowhere... their "evidence" is no more damning than Willie Rodriguez or Barry Jennings' testimony.

Truth Movement COMPROMISED alert (!)

f**king hell guys, this is (exceedingly) serious (!)

[mym]

   huh?  I can seriously say I am staying out of this LOL  yall figure this out lol

[Scootle]

CIT's research gets us nowhere... even if the witnesses are right, their "evidence" is no more damning than Willie Rodriguez or Barry Jennings' testimony.

Truth Movement COMPROMISED alert (!)

f**king hell guys, this is (exceedingly) serious (!)

So your saying their evidence IS more damning than Barry Jennings' testimony?

[Voskhod3]

All I know is there are 13 witnesses ON FILM, real people, talking, with their own words, drawing the flight path and they say north of Citgo.

I have not seen this with any other witnesses.

What someone needs to do is eliminate all the north/south path neutral statements from the list of 100+ witnesses and see what we are left with (did someone already do this?)

Then some digging needs to be done as to who these people are, where they where at the time just like CIT did for these 13 people.

Then we see what we are left with.

Until that happens I am in the "wtf" camp as far as the Pentagon goes.

[Scootle]

Penny Elgas Witness Testimony:
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=30

She describes an American Airlines plane, she doesn't describe it hitting the light poles BUT she does describe the exact moment of impact...

"At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building."

She also describes how a piece of plane ended up in her car...

"Then I went to my car and faced that piece of the plane that was in the back seat. It appeared to be a piece of the tail. There was no metal on it and it was very lightweight -- all plastic and fiberglass. It was 22" long and 15" wide. I have no idea how it got into my car because I do not remember seeing any rubble flying around while I was at the crash site. I assume that it dropped in through the sunroof or flipped in through a window. The plane piece consisted of a layer of white paint, and layers of yellow and gray fiberglass as well as a thin brown corrugated material."

How do CIT counter this? They say it's too detailed and she must be lying!

Penny Elgas has a significant position in government and a very high profile highly publicized account so should be instantly considered suspect."
~ Craig Ranke CIT (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread308807/pg1)

Well ... I guess that makes 5!

Bobby Eberbole (On the road in front of the Pentagon):

"As we slowly crept along in traffic at about 9:30 am, we rounded a bend and had the Pentagon in our sites -- right in front of us. ... Riding in a convertable with the top down, I then heard a tremendously loud noise from behind me and to my left. I looked back and saw a jet airliner flying very low and very fast. It's amazing what can run through your mind in just a matter of seconds. As a pilot, I can't help but look at an airplane and think about airplane topics. What I saw sent a shiver down my spine as I realized something was not right. The aircraft was so very low -- as an aircraft would be on its final approach to an airport. However, if you have watched any aircraft come in for a landing, even though the aircraft is descending, it is angled up slightly. This aircraft was angled downward. In addition, landing gear would also be visible on a aircraft so low and so near landing. This aircraft had its landing gear retracted. Finally, an aircraft on final approach is traveling rather slowly. This aircraft sped by very loudly and very quickly. All of this flashed in my mind as the aircraft passed from behind my left shoulder to in front of me. It was then that the other events of the morning crystallized in the realization that tragedy was about to occur. With all of these images spinning in my head, the only words that came out of my mouth were "Oh no!" With that, the airliner crashed into the Pentagon and exploded."

Behind him and to the left, flying over him to his front right and then crashing into Pentagon. Not consistent with a Northern flight path. The downward angle is also important as it proves the plane would have been less effected by Ground Effect.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/groundeffect.html

CIT's response: He's in on it too!

That makes 6!

[Dig]

it's the only logical conclusion from the MOD AGENDA on this thread. I guess the mods are saying, "Look it's only thirteen EYE WITNESSES. How much would it take? A grand each? That's only a $13,000 hike on their budget. That's a managable overhead."

No? Yes? I still don't see any evidence why this thread had to have MOD ATTACK. We canmake up our own minds about eye witness testimony. If they'd have been allowed to take this to court, this would have been strong evidence for a north-Citgo flyby. Whether you like CIT or not, it just would. That's the EVIDENTIAL SYSTEM, paid off or not paid off. Fact.

MOD ATTACK

hide the children

MOD ATTACK

red alert

WTF?

[Scootle]

Yes the mods are gatekeeping the truth about the deaths of 150 people in washington on 9/11 but they're exposing everything else in the world that's 1000 times worse... makes sense.

[phasma]

For those who have not seen this, and those whom have but forgotten - this is a pretty good simulation of what a plane crash looks like (yeah i know its CGI, but still)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDqfmEd4fQ8&feature=fvw

I just cannot get my head around the lack of debris and that one picture from above the pentagon way back in this thread - that shows the outer ring damaged then a undamaged ring, then another damaged ring where the nose (or something) came out !

Also - who did change the title on this thread? Do we know?

[Voskhod3]

Appealing to ridicule doesn't explain the cops statements on the CIT video.

[Dig]

Appealing to ridicule doesn't explain the cops statements on the CIT video.

The cops statement is the cops statement. and the 100 other witness statements are their statements. are you getting all of these statements? how does CIT portray a witness who does not fully support their narrow definition of what happened? how is this helpful?

[Voskhod3]

The cops statement is the cops statement. and the 100 other witness statements are their statements. are you getting all of these statements? how does CIT portray a witness who does not fully support their narrow definition of what happened? how is this helpful?

The cops and others on this film are the only real people I've seen filmed and using their own words. That is what is so impressive about this film.

And the cops are CERTAIN that it wasn't a south citgo path, and the reason they are certain is because they couldn't see a south citgo path.

How many of the other statements not in the CIT film can be ruled out because they are north/south neutral?

What are we left with after that?

I think that would be an interesting excercise to find out.

[luckee1]

There is a severe deviation in the accounts of that day based on these witnesses.  I am furious that we have such a crooked government who will not allow a full investigation by a 3rd party.  But of course the government will not allow that, as they are the very one who committed the offenses. 

So at least with this video we have more to work with after we get the criminals on trial.  Perhaps this video should be included in our list of things to do once we get power back and have full investigative powers again.

Shall we?

I know this:  There were planes and there were bombs and there was nanothermite/mate, And most importantly, millions have since died as a result.

Do we have to be so absolute with the sides here no plane versus plane/s?   

[trailhound]

 I've been reading the '100's of other witnesses' statements i can find and havent seen much that contradicts the 13 in the video. Most who saw the impact suggest that the plane was going so fast that they saw it disappear in a fireball. Logically you would conclude the plane hit the building if you were a witness.  I keep hearing about 100's of witnesses that supposedly contradict the 13.  The 13 also believe the plane hit the building so throw out that strawman. Lets talk flight path. I have not read 100's of witnesses who dispute the flight path in CIT's video.  Im all for debunking CIT lets do it, i just havent seen it yet.   
 
 

 

[Scootle]

What about the guy on the 19th floor of the ABC libray to the north of the pentagon ... he saw the moment of impact and if a plane from the north side flew over he would have seen the plane flying over... he didn't!

Let's not forget the double tree video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H285_DWX_bQ

If there was a low flying plane flying over the pentagon at the moment the fireball occured wouldn't that video have caught it?

[phasma]

What about the guy on the 19th floor of the ABC libray to the north of the pentagon ... he saw the moment of impact and if a plane from the north side flew over he would have seen the plane flying over... he didn't!

Let's not forget the double tree video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H285_DWX_bQ

If there was a low flying plane flying over the pentagon at the moment the fireball occured wouldn't that video have caught it?

what vid?

And not necessarily ! It depends on the altitude and direction of course !

[Voskhod3]

What about the guy on the 19th floor of the ABC libray to the north of the pentagon ... he saw the moment of impact and if a plane from the north side flew over he would have seen the plane flying over... he didn't!

Let's see his statement.

Meanwhile "what about the cops?".

[DAVIDENGLAND]

Let's see his statement.

Meanwhile "what about the cops?".

Did you read this -

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/6-27-03/discussion.cgi.98.html

[Scootle]

From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. [...] Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon, exploding into a giant orange fireball.

~ Steve Anderson



If there was a flyover, he almost certainly would have seen it ... but he didn't... noone did.

[Voskhod3]

From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. [...] Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon, exploding into a giant orange fireball.

~ Steve Anderson

If there was a flyover, he almost certainly would have seen it ... but he didn't... noone did.

" I heard jet engines pass our building" - fail

"the plane flew at treetop level" - fail

"banked slightly to the left" - fail (although some of the 13 witnesses have the bank).

"drug it's wing along the ground" - fail

This guy is reliable?

He fails the official story test.

[DAVIDENGLAND]

If the plane flew over the Pentagon don't you think that it would have aroused a hell of a lot of interest/suspicion when it landed seeing as it on the news that morning that it had been hijacked? The flyover scenario, like the missile scenario, makes zero sense.

[Voskhod3]

If the plane flew over the Pentagon don't you think that it would have aroused a hell of a lot of interest/suspicion when it landed seeing as it on the news that morning that it had been hijacked? The flyover scenario, like the missile scenario, makes zero sense.

The flyover is secondary.

First if a north of Citgo is proved then the rest is up for grabs because it means they faked the lamposts. If they faked the lamposts then you have to ask "why"?

Did you ever look at the lamposts? They hardly moved from their bases, even thought supposedly they had been ripped off (and in two) by a plane travelling at over 500mph.

At the moment north of Citgo deserves very serious consideration.

[DAVIDENGLAND]

The flyover is secondary.

First if a north of Citgo is proved then the rest is up for grabs because it means they faked the lamposts. If they faked the lamposts then you have to ask "why"?

Did you ever look at the lamposts? They hardly moved from their bases, even thought supposedly they had been ripped off (and in two) by a plane travelling at over 500mph.

At the moment north of Citgo deserves very serious consideration.

How do you know that the lamp posts were not moved after they were knocked down?

[phigsy]

Dude, why are you here?

That's what's known as a philosophical question.

please at least read through the damn thread, then ask away if you feel the need.

I have & I've responded numerous times to specific points raised (most of them before the mods decided to join in). It's just that the asking hasn't always met with entirely plausible responses.

Wow are you on the CIT team?

Not that I recall.

Because you definitely have that rare talent of just blasting whoever does not agree with you,

Thanks - it's nice to be recognised.

and even blasting the last somewhat elected president of this country as collateral damage.

What can I say......... I was on a roll.

Look, it's like this: do you ever think you're going to discover the exact truth? If you accept that the answer is no then all you really need is enough evidence that shows the official story to be a lie. All else can then follow on from that. But if you continue to refuse to accept carefully & concisely presented testimony that exposes the event being planned with foreknowledge, then I can't ever see you getting anywhere.

But that's just my opinion. Sorry if the JFK thing caused offence to American sensibilities by the way.

[phigsy]

" I heard jet engines pass our building" - fail

"the plane flew at treetop level" - fail

"banked slightly to the left" - fail (although some of the 13 witnesses have the bank).

"drug it's wing along the ground" - fail

This guy is reliable?

He fails the official story test.

In addition to all of that, I made the point some pages back now (if you're listening Sane  ) that wouldn't he have had trouble seeing that much detail from that far away? It was a direct response to the same testimony repeated by Scootle, but like much else on here it wasn't answered.

And imo anything coming from the offices of USA Today should be treated with scepticism as they are a NWO mouthpiece up to the eyeballs from what I've seen.

[Voskhod3]

How do you know that the lamp posts were not moved after they were knocked down?

They moved them back to their bases?

yeah.. that would make a lot of sense!

[Dig]

100 witnesses, cherry pick a few and call even that select group disinfo agents for not providing the exact testimony you want....MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

the whole thing is a joke.

hey, what happened to building 7.

LCFC sid it best, out of 300 cameras we are given a few images.

show us the video, that is all we need everything else is speculation.