nillumnoom5000
Member
 Offline
Posts: 45
|
 |
« Reply #1000 on: October 10, 2009, 05:42:34 PM » |
|
Good stuff Craig! Good stuff Aldo! Keep it up! Let's fight the New World Order!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
grapecrusher1
|
|
« Reply #1002 on: January 26, 2010, 12:22:03 PM » |
|
Well done --
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The meek shall inherit NOTHING" -- Zappa
|
|
|
|
|
|
DAVIDE MTL
|
|
« Reply #1004 on: January 26, 2010, 02:08:45 PM » |
|
FOR LATER
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jimd3100
|
|
« Reply #1005 on: January 26, 2010, 02:29:14 PM » |
|
The only problem I see with the videos are the maker seems to imply a north side approach was possible. I believe the plane approached on the south side. However the maker of the movie, could also be implying that either way it could still cause the damage done. CIT's method is to get you to agree that the plane was north of citgo...that is most important, and then agree that it could not cause the damage done and therefor flew over the pentagon. I don't give a rats ass about the citgo station. I don't care if the plane flew 10 feet north of the citgo, or 8 feet south of the citgo. I care about wether or not a plane hit the pentagon and what kind of plane it was. Some people described a south of citgo approach, some described a north of citgo approach, some described the plane as white, some described it as silver, but they all agreed it was a passenger jet and they all agreed they watched it hit the pentagon. The physical evidence confirmed what they said. Which is why physical evidence is more important than eyewitness testimony. And is why CIT insist you ignore it. Part two was particularly impressive when it deals with Roosevelt Roberts testimony, that CIT tries to say he was a flyover witness. He was never a fly over witness. But his testimony was always puzzling. Some suggested he saw the c 130, I thought possibly it was the e4b, loose nuke a mod at 9/11 blogger suggested it was actually the plane coming in that hit the pentagon...I wondered about that myself, and will admit I was wrong and loose nuke was right, I believe he was witnessing the plane approach, and the maker does a good job of explaining that. The CIT Deception - pt. 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31LTIqcoTUgErik L. (known as loose nuke at 9/11 blogger, and rancho truth at truth action) also went to pay a visit to some witnesses CIT talked with and has an interesting report on what he found..... http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6292I want to give you pentagon no planers an example of why you are not helping the truth movement........ "JAMIE McINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There are still people who don't believe a plane really hit the Pentagon on September 11th. I was there, I saw the wreckage, I photographed it with my digital camera."
"I was surprised to find that my own words are part of the conspiracy presentation. You can see on the Internet clips of me saying on September 11th, from my own close up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane crashing anywhere near the Pentagon. But I was answering a question, and the point I was making was about an eyewitness who thought a plane crashed near the Pentagon. I was saying no, not near the Pentagon. The only plane that crashed was at the Pentagon."http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/20/tt.01.htmlHere's the clip you no planers don't like to show...it's unedited..at the 2:35 mark the question was asked about a plane crashing NEAR the pentagon, he is answering that question, no plane crashed NEAR the pentagon, ..the unedited clip proves he's telling the truth despite the fact you no planers claim he changed his story and is a liar. He's not. You no planers are with your edited clips and BS. You turned the 9/11 truth movement into a 9/11 lie movement, and some of us are no longer going to sit around and let you get away with it...... Here's the UNEDITED clip...he reported on the plane crash all day long.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlBpChvzD8 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Brocke
Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Posts: 9,403
I am not a number, I am a free man!
|
|
« Reply #1006 on: January 26, 2010, 02:35:13 PM » |
|
I want to give you pentagon no planers an example of why you are not helping the truth movement........
Alex has implied he is a "no planer", at the least that no commercial 757 was involved. Comments? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. ~Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
Scootle
|
|
« Reply #1007 on: January 26, 2010, 02:41:28 PM » |
|
Alex has implied he is a "no planer", at the least that no commercial 757 was involved.
Comments?
But Alex also has warned that Pentagon no plane theories distract us from hard evidence... in terrorstorm he said something like "the new videos, as if by design, fueled more speculation, the media is all to willing to focus on the pentagon but they won't touch building 7" |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jimd3100
|
|
« Reply #1008 on: January 26, 2010, 03:00:32 PM » |
|
Alex has implied he is a "no planer", at the least that no commercial 757 was involved.
Comments?
Do you agree with every word AJ has ever said? If so maybe you should try thinking more for yourself. I don't agree with every word AJ has ever said. I don't even agree with every word I've ever said. He also thinks Agent Stubblebine is credible. I don't. I can think for myself and provide sources for my conclusions. I would also strongly suggest you don't believe every word in every so called truther movie. And don't believe every word a mod says either. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Brocke
Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Posts: 9,403
I am not a number, I am a free man!
|
|
« Reply #1009 on: January 26, 2010, 03:33:50 PM » |
|
Ok, thanks for the comments.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. ~Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
|
|
Freeski
|
|
« Reply #1011 on: January 26, 2010, 09:29:42 PM » |
|
You know, it doesn't even matter when you think about it, whether the planes were or were not what we think they were (or were not). The "justice system" doesn't care about the simplest stuff, like the collapses, WTC7, and all of the lies, so why would it consider detailed plane/no-plane evidence and theories, or explosives or foreknowledge? That's not to say that this research shouldn't be done (because it's vital), anyway thanks for all the info here guys... fascinating stuff!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.
|
|
|
|
trailhound
|
|
« Reply #1012 on: January 26, 2010, 11:11:54 PM » |
|
jimd3100 wrote Part two was particularly impressive when it deals with Roosevelt Roberts testimony, that CIT tries to say he was a flyover witness. He was never a fly over witness. But his testimony was always puzzling. Some suggested he saw the c 130, I thought possibly it was the e4b, loose nuke a mod at 9/11 blogger suggested it was actually the plane coming in that hit the pentagon...I wondered about that myself, and will admit I was wrong and loose nuke was right, I believe he was witnessing the plane approach, and the maker does a good job of explaining that. The CIT Deception - pt. 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31LTIqcoTUg
The misdirection Im seeing is in part 2 that you are recommending is particularly stellar.
Roosevelt: It wasn't a- it wasn't a jet; it was a commercial aircraft. Aldo: Okay. Did it have propellers, or did it have jet engines? Roosevelt: It looked like jet engines, at that time. Aldo: Jet engines. Okay. Um, uh- so- uh- y- how close were you to running outside 'cause this seemed to be pretty qui-eh- at least from what your account sounded like; it sounded like literally the explosion happened, and then you ran outside. *01:33 Aldo: I mean do you remember how many seconds it was when you heard the explosion and then saw that plane? Roosevelt: From the time the explosion hit, 'til. . . I ran outside and saw- it's a loading dock, and you can run right out to the. . . look-out, and look off. Aldo: Uh-hum. Roosevelt: And then uh. . . you see the flickering lights. . . uh, and saw the area, and then. . . uh, real quick I realized that it was some sort of attack, and there was going to be a counter-measure with it. *02:02 Aldo: Right. So, how many seconds- Roosevelt: Uh. . . Aldo: -would you guess? Roosevelt: Maybe, uh. . . ten seconds tops. Aldo: Ten seconds tops? Roosevelt: Ten seconds tops. Aldo: So you- you heard the explosion and ten seconds later you were outside and you were able to see that plane? Roosevelt: Correct. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn't miss it. Aldo: Wha- what color was it; do you remember? Roosevelt: Uh, it was- to me at that time, it looked like it was silver in color. *02:30 Aldo: Like silver in color; but you saw it over the south parking lot. Roosevelt: Right; around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the, uh, light poles like. Aldo: Okay. And ho- Roosevelt: Had to been no more than- had to been no more than fifty feet or less than a hundred feet. Aldo: Wow. And s- ho- do you remember how many engines you saw on it? Roosevelt: Uh, couldn't tell for the engines. Aldo: And it was- was it moving fast? *02:59 Roosevelt: Oh, it was moving extremely fast. It was like, uh. . . maybe you saw the aircraft maybe for like, uh-a quick five seconds. Aldo: For a quick five seconds. But you definitely- and you saw it over the south parking lot. . . over lane one? Roosevelt: In the south- in the south parking lot over lane one. Aldo: Okay. Do you- do you remember which direction it was headed? Roosevelt: Uh, coming from the, uh 27 side 27 heading, uh. . . uh, east towards DC; coming from that area, uh, there's a highway. *03:33 Roosevelt: If you were to come up 395. . . uh, north heading towards the Pentagon, and you got off in south parking. . . you were like right there, 'cause 395 went right into 27. Aldo: So from where- from where it had headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading? Roosevelt: From the w- uh, can you repeat that one more time, please? Aldo: Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this- this second plane,-? Roosevelt: Right. Aldo: -wh- do you remember which- Roosevelt: Right. Aldo: -which direction it was heading? *04:01 Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest. . . coming out. Aldo: So like banking around; turning back around? Roosevelt: Correct. Aldo: Okay. Roosevelt: Banking- banking around, coming back out, turning southwest. . . and going straight across. *04:32 Aldo: Okay, so- Roosevelt: And that was- Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around? Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around; because you've got. . . the mall there, and then- where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon. Aldo: Sou- southwest away from the Pentagon, okay; so kind of doing a U-turn, in a way? *05:01 Roosevelt: Right. Aldo: Okay. Okay. Roosevelt: 'Cause it banked out, and it was like U-turning and coming around and coming out. It looked like, uh. . . for those brief seconds it looked like it- it- it, um. . . uh, how do I want to say this, uh. . . it missed the wrong target, and it was going, like. . . out of the way, like back to the airport, or something like that. Aldo: Oh, like- so it was headed towards the airport, it looked like. *05:27 Roosevelt: Well, no, not heading towards the airport; it's almost like if a. . . if a pilot misses good he'll try to do a banking and come around, because he missed the target: he missed the landing zone. Aldo: Got it. Got it. And you're, you're- are you a hundred percent sure it was a jet: an actual jet plane? Roosevelt: Commercial aircraft. Aldo: Commercial aircraft. Okay. So there was another- Roosevelt: Right. Aldo: -so there was another commercial aircraft in the area as- as the, uh. . . the plane hit then, basically. Is that what you think? Roosevelt: Yes, sir, that's not what I think: I saw it. It was two aircraft. That's for sure. *06:00 Aldo: Okay. Craig Ranke: Now where- where did it seem like it came from? Roosevelt: It seemed like, uh- when I saw it, by the time I got to the dock, it was already in the parking lot at lane one. And it was so large, you couldn't miss from seeing it. Craig: Right, but from what- Roosevelt: And that- Craig: -direction did it seem like it came from? Aldo: He said it came f- Roosevelt: It seemed like. . . that it came from, um. . . it- hold on a second. *06:25 Roosevelt: It seemed like it came from, um. . . southwest-lookin- the same way it came in, or appeared that it came in, it seemed like it was southwe- (indistinguishable) came in. . . uh. . . almost like where that ne- that first plane had, um. . . flew into the, um, Pentagon right there. It- it- di- it looked like it came from that direction. Craig: So from the same direction as- as- as the f- Aldo: -From the impact side, basically, from that direction. Roosevelt: Everything- right. Aldo: Got- Roosevelt: Exactly. Aldo: -got it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 "Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." Qur'an 5:2 At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value..." -RFK |
|
|
|
trailhound
|
|
« Reply #1013 on: January 26, 2010, 11:21:27 PM » |
|
Brocke Alex has implied he is a "no planer", at the least that no commercial 757 was involved.
Comments?
Ok, thanks for the comments. +1 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." Qur'an 5:2 At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value..." -RFK |
|
|
|
jimd3100
|
|
« Reply #1014 on: January 27, 2010, 05:04:52 AM » |
|
jimd3100 wrote
jimd Roosevelt clearly implies the explosion he heard was the first plane hitting the pentagon because he assumes the one he saw was a second plane. He also describes it flying away from the pentagon.
The misdirection Im seeing is in part 2 that you are recommending is particularly stellar.
Roosevelt: It wasn't a- it wasn't a jet; it was a commercial aircraft.
Aldo: Okay. Did it have propellers, or did it have jet engines?
Roosevelt: It looked like jet engines, at that time.
Roosevelt: Correct. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn't miss it.
Aldo: Wha- what color was it; do you remember?
Roosevelt: Uh, it was- to me at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.
Roosevelt: Right; around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the, uh, light poles like.
Roosevelt: 'Cause it banked out, and it was like U-turning and coming around and coming out. It looked like, uh. . . for those brief seconds it looked like it- it- it, um. . . uh, how do I want to say this, uh. . . it missed the wrong target, and it was going, like. . . out of the way, like back to the airport, or something like that.
Roosevelt: Well, no, not heading towards the airport; it's almost like if a. . . if a pilot misses good he'll try to do a banking and come around, because he missed the target: he missed the landing zone.
Aldo: Got it. Got it. And you're, you're- are you a hundred percent sure it was a jet: an actual jet plane?
Roosevelt: Commercial aircraft.
Craig Ranke: Now where- where did it seem like it came from?
 You got pentaconned, and loved it! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
trailhound
|
 |
« Reply #1015 on: January 27, 2010, 06:54:31 AM » |
|
Jimd3100 lostdog2323: jimd3100 wrote Quote Part two was particularly impressive when it deals with Roosevelt Roberts testimony, that CIT tries to say he was a flyover witness. He was never a fly over witness. But his testimony was always puzzling. Some suggested he saw the c 130, I thought possibly it was the e4b, loose nuke a mod at 9/11 blogger suggested it was actually the plane coming in that hit the pentagon...I wondered about that myself, and will admit I was wrong and loose nuke was right, I believe he was witnessing the plane approach, and the maker does a good job of explaining that. The CIT Deception - pt. 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31LTIqcoTUgjimd Roosevelt clearly implies the explosion he heard was the first plane hitting the pentagon because he assumes the one he saw was a second plane. He also describes it flying away from the pentagon. The misdirection Im seeing is in part 2 that you are recommending is particularly stellar. Roosevelt: It wasn't a- it wasn't a jet; it was a commercial aircraft. Aldo: Okay. Did it have propellers, or did it have jet engines? Roosevelt: It looked like jet engines, at that time. Aldo: Jet engines. Okay. Um, uh- so- uh- y- how close were you to running outside 'cause this seemed to be pretty qui-eh- at least from what your account sounded like; it sounded like literally the explosion happened, and then you ran outside. *01:33 Aldo: I mean do you remember how many seconds it was when you heard the explosion and then saw that plane? Roosevelt: From the time the explosion hit, 'til. . . I ran outside and saw- it's a loading dock, and you can run right out to the. . . look-out, and look off. Aldo: Uh-hum. Roosevelt: And then uh. . . you see the flickering lights. . . uh, and saw the area, and then. . . uh, real quick I realized that it was some sort of attack, and there was going to be a counter-measure with it. *02:02 Aldo: Right. So, how many seconds- Roosevelt: Uh. . . Aldo: -would you guess? Roosevelt: Maybe, uh. . . ten seconds tops. Aldo: Ten seconds tops? Roosevelt: Ten seconds tops. Aldo: So you- you heard the explosion and ten seconds later you were outside and you were able to see that plane? Roosevelt: Correct. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn't miss it. Aldo: Wha- what color was it; do you remember? Roosevelt: Uh, it was- to me at that time, it looked like it was silver in color. *02:30 Aldo: Like silver in color; but you saw it over the south parking lot. Roosevelt: Right; around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the, uh, light poles like. Aldo: Okay. And ho- Roosevelt: Had to been no more than- had to been no more than fifty feet or less than a hundred feet. Aldo: Wow. And s- ho- do you remember how many engines you saw on it? Roosevelt: Uh, couldn't tell for the engines. Aldo: And it was- was it moving fast? *02:59 Roosevelt: Oh, it was moving extremely fast. It was like, uh. . . maybe you saw the aircraft maybe for like, uh-a quick five seconds. Aldo: For a quick five seconds. But you definitely- and you saw it over the south parking lot. . . over lane one? Roosevelt: In the south- in the south parking lot over lane one. Aldo: Okay. Do you- do you remember which direction it was headed? Roosevelt: Uh, coming from the, uh 27 side 27 heading, uh. . . uh, east towards DC; coming from that area, uh, there's a highway. *03:33 Roosevelt: If you were to come up 395. . . uh, north heading towards the Pentagon, and you got off in south parking. . . you were like right there, 'cause 395 went right into 27. Aldo: So from where- from where it had headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading? Roosevelt: From the w- uh, can you repeat that one more time, please? Aldo: Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this- this second plane,-? Roosevelt: Right. Aldo: -wh- do you remember which- Roosevelt: Right. Aldo: -which direction it was heading? *04:01 Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest. . . coming out. Aldo: So like banking around; turning back around? Roosevelt: Correct. Aldo: Okay. Roosevelt: Banking- banking around, coming back out, turning southwest. . . and going straight across. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." Qur'an 5:2 At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value..." -RFK |
|
|
|
trailhound
|
|
« Reply #1016 on: January 27, 2010, 11:59:21 AM » |
|
So the argument is that the plane was just above the lamp posts at the beginning of this turnaround jimd100? *Tries to swallow disbelief, lodges in throat... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." Qur'an 5:2 At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value..." -RFK |
|
|
|
jimd3100
|
|
« Reply #1017 on: January 27, 2010, 06:38:56 PM » |
|
CIT did a good job of completely f**king up this interview due to their mental illness but....... Roosevelt: It wasn't a- it wasn't a jet; it was a commercial aircraft.Aldo: Okay. Did it have propellers, or did it have jet engines?
Roosevelt: It looked like jet engines, at that time.
Aldo: Jet engines. Okay. Um, uh- so- uh- y- how close were you to running outside 'cause this seemed to be pretty qui-eh- at least from what your account sounded like; it sounded like literally the explosion happened, and then you ran outside.Aldo: I mean do you remember how many seconds it was when you heard the explosion and then saw that plane?Roosevelt: From the time the explosion hit, 'til. . . I ran outside and saw- it's a loading dock, and you can run right out to the. . . look-out, and look off.The video explains this explosion as the one he just saw on TV.....CIT pretends it's at the pentagon 4:50 mark of video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31LTIqcoTUgAldo: Uh-hum.Roosevelt: And then uh. . . you see the flickering lights. . . uh, and saw the area, and then. . . uh, real quick I realized that it was some sort of attack, and there was going to be a counter-measure with it.Aldo: Right. So, how many seconds-Roosevelt: Uh. . . Aldo: -would you guess?Roosevelt: Maybe, uh. . . ten seconds tops.Aldo: Ten seconds tops?Roosevelt: Ten seconds tops.Aldo: So you- you heard the explosion and ten seconds later you were outside and you were able to see that plane?Roosevelt: Correct. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn't miss it.Aldo: Wha- what color was it; do you remember?Roosevelt: Uh, it was- to me at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.Flight 77  Aldo: Like silver in color; but you saw it over the south parking lot.Roosevelt: Right; around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the, uh, light poles like.The video points out where this is just before it's impact... 7:45 mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31LTIqcoTUgAldo: Okay. And ho-Roosevelt: Had to been no more than- had to been no more than fifty feet or less than a hundred feet.video shows this as where flight 77 hit the poles where Penny Eglas was at.... 7:53 Mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31LTIqcoTUgPenny Eglas was near these lightpoles and confirms this as well, she said 40 to 50 feet....4:50 mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNY2x9FbdWAAldo: Wow. And s- ho- do you remember how many engines you saw on it?Roosevelt: Uh, couldn't tell for the engines.Aldo: And it was- was it moving fast?Roosevelt: Oh, it was moving extremely fast. It was like, uh. . . maybe you saw the aircraft maybe for like, uh-a quick five seconds.Aldo: For a quick five seconds. But you definitely- and you saw it over the south parking lot. . . over lane one?Roosevelt: In the south- in the south parking lot over lane one.Aldo: Okay. Do you- do you remember which direction it was headed?Roosevelt: Uh, coming from the, uh 27 side 27 heading, uh. . . uh, east towards DC; coming from that area, uh, there's a highway.Roosevelt: If you were to come up 395. . . uh, north heading towards the Pentagon, and you got off in south parking. . . you were like right there, 'cause 395 went right into 27.The video (the bonus video)points out this is flt 77 flight path just before impact.... 7:40 mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMSQ1YYRkHI&feature=relatedAldo: So from where- from where it had headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading?Roosevelt: From the w- uh, can you repeat that one more time, please?It flew into the pentagon of course so this question confuses Roberts, but Alpo will point out to him that now he's talking about the second plane..there was a second plane you know, and CIT knows this as well... Aldo: Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this- this second plane,-?Roosevelt: Right.Aldo: -wh- do you remember which-Roosevelt: Right.Aldo: -which direction it was heading?Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest. . . coming out.Aldo: So like banking around; turning back around?Roosevelt: Correct.Aldo: Okay.Roosevelt: Banking- banking around, coming back out, turning southwest. . . and going straight across.That would be the c 130  Wheelhouse saw the c 130 as well, and is an excellent witness. He even knew it was a c 130. But CIT claims he's a NWO agent. An accomplice to mass murder, like England, Walter, and McGraw.... This is particularly disgusting, because Wheelhouse, was seemingly sympathetic to our cause or could have been. He was obviously thinking that c 130 could have been trying to conceal the other plane from radar, meaning he was suspicious of the government and what it was doing on 9/11. In fact because of Wheelhouse and his excellent observations that day, the Gov was asked about that plane. This was embarrassing because they didn't want to advertise the idea that an hour after the first hit a plane hit the pentagon while being tracked by an old slow c 130. Where were the fighters!?!? It took several weeks for the Gov to in fact confirm what Wheelhouse had already told the press. "Sep 15, 2001
At the same time, [Keith Wheelhouse] and his sister, Pam Young, who lives in Surry, were preparing to leave a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, which is less than a mile from the Pentagon, when they watched the jet approach and slam into the Pentagon. Both of them, as well as at least one other person at the funeral, insist that there was another plane flying near the hijacked jet...."http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/dailypress/access/81771249.html?dids=8177124... "Daily Press, 17 October 2001
The crew of a military cargo plane watched helplessly on Sept. 11 as a hijacked airliner plunged into the Pentagon, a defense official confirmed Tuesday. Keith Wheelhouse, of Virginia Beach, still has a vivid image of that fireball etched in his mind.But Wheelhouse, a three-year Army veteran, thought it looked like a C-130, although he wasn't certain. Tuesday, he was pleased to hear the military is finally verifying what he's been telling people. Wheelhouse and at least two other witnesses to the Pentagon attack were troubled that Pentagon spokesmen had until now said they were unaware of a C-130 being in the area at the time. "So I wasn't losing my mind," he said. In the days immediately following the Sept. 11 hijackings, the Pentagon had no knowledge of the C-130's encounter, because all reports were classified by the Air National Guard, the Pentagon spokesman said. "It was very hard to get any information out," McClellan said.http://www.ratical.com/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/C130sawF772P.htmlWheelhouse draws the flight paths so perfect that he is accused of "being a plant", or maybe going on the internet for research, to "get it right". This is particularly disgusting because if he had gone on the internet and done his research one would expect he would have come across CIT calling him a liar and Gov operative. He didn't because this decent and nice man was emailing Ranke in order to assist more with their so called research project, as I've already documented in this thread and can be seen here..... "Just thought you would like to see a few photos.
Take care
Keith D. Wheelhouse" CIT's response... "The charade is over."
"There is really nothing more to discuss unless you want to confess, Kieth." Wheelhouse... "You guys need to come clean and stop the charade.
Best wishes in your search.
Craig you need help
Keith D. Wheelhouse" http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/936873/1/CIT and their supporters have disgraced themselves promoting this disgusting garbage. BTW--even if you insist on ignoring the fact that every witness they talked to said they saw a passenger jet fly into the pentagon, and even if you insist on ignoring all the physical evidence confirming what they saw, and even if you desperately want to believe the plane Roberts saw was the same plane that approached the west wedge of the pentagon then (according to the CIT loons)flew over the pentagon (and fooled everybody  ) you are aware aren't you that it is physically impossible for it to appear a few seconds later in the area (South parking lot near the lightpoles)in which Roberts says....right? There is not a person on this or any other planet that claims to have seen a missile hit the pentagon, or a plane fly over it.....what does that tell you? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
trailhound
|
|
« Reply #1018 on: January 27, 2010, 07:43:28 PM » |
|
jimd3100 look again, clearly the 'second plane' is a 'commercial airliner' according to Roosevelt. Aldo: So from where- from where it had headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading? Roosevelt: From the w- uh, can you repeat that one more time, please? Aldo: Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this- this second plane,-?
Roosevelt: Right. >talking about the second plane which jim would have you believe is the c130<Aldo: -wh- do you remember which- Roosevelt: Right. Aldo: -which direction it was heading? *04:01 Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest. . . coming out.
>think about this folks, Roosevelt is in the south of the pentagon and this plane is in the south parking lot just above the lamposts heading southwest<Aldo: So like banking around; turning back around? Roosevelt: Correct. Aldo: Okay. Roosevelt: Banking- banking around, coming back out, turning southwest. . . and going straight across. *04:32 Aldo: Okay, so- Roosevelt: And that was- Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around? Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around; because you've got. . . the mall there, and then- where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon. Aldo: Sou- southwest away from the Pentagon, okay; so kind of doing a U-turn, in a way? *05:01 Roosevelt: Right. Aldo: Okay. Okay. Roosevelt: 'Cause it banked out, and it was like U-turning and coming around and coming out. It looked like, uh. . . for those brief seconds it looked like it- it- it, um. . . uh, how do I want to say this, uh. . . it missed the wrong target, and it was going, like. . . out of the way, like back to the airport, or something like that. Aldo: Oh, like- so it was headed towards the airport, it looked like. *05:27 Roosevelt: Well, no, not heading towards the airport; it's almost like if a. . . if a pilot misses good he'll try to do a banking and come around, because he missed the target: he missed the landing zone. Aldo: Got it. Got it. And you're, you're- are you a hundred percent sure it was a jet: an actual jet plane?
Roosevelt: Commercial aircraft.Aldo: Commercial aircraft. Okay. So there was another-
Roosevelt: Right. Also I must point out that this flight path comes no where near the south parking lot of the pentagon.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." Qur'an 5:2 At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value..." -RFK |
|
|
|
jimd3100
|
|
« Reply #1019 on: January 27, 2010, 07:54:02 PM » |
|
jimd3100 look again, clearly the 'second plane' is a 'commercial airliner' according to Roosevelt.
I don't need to look again. You look again. He makes it clear. There were two planes, and I just told you what they were. The c 130 was further away, Brooks said the plane he saw was white with a united logo...guess what? Brooks was wrong. Roberts assumed the c 130 that he didn't get as close a look at was commercial, I know this is yet another thing you refuse to accept but he was wrong. Yes, I know you wont accept it. You wont accept that there is massive physical evidence. You wont accept that everyone saw the plane hit the pentagon. You wont accept that it's impossible that the plane can be on the west wedge approaching at 500 miles an hour then seconds later appear in the south west part of the pentagon, you wont accept that there is no witness seeing a flyover or missile, just a plane impact. I get it. That's why I call you cultists. None of this matters. It's just your beliefs that matter. You don't believe a plane hit so it didn't. Also I must point out that this flight path comes no where near the south parking lot of the pentagon. So? Again I must point out that you also wont accept that the flight path ends at the pentagon because that's where the plane hit. The Air traffic controllers didn't track it any further....guess why? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
luckee1
Guest
|
|
« Reply #1020 on: January 28, 2010, 12:14:25 AM » |
|
How can anyone confuse this  with this??? Flight 77  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jimd3100
|
|
« Reply #1021 on: January 28, 2010, 01:30:29 AM » |
|
They wouldn't, sitting right next to each other. But I supplied the video marks and spelled it out for you in a post a few back. One was going 500 miles an hour a couple hundred feet away if less, and the other was a mile or two away in the sky, they were both there, this has been confirmed over and over, but I have a question for you luckee1. Have you done your part for "operation accountability"? Have you purchased 500 CIT DVDs for the great low price of only $1000? Could you please do me a favor and when you give your DVD to your local congressman explaining to him how every witness talked to by our "9/11 truth reporters" claimed to have seen a passenger jet hit the pentagon therby proving as a scientific fact that no plane hit the pentagon, and you demand that he arrest the cab driver, could you please do a youtube video of it so we can have it on the record forever your "contribution" for 9/11 truth, and something I can check out now and again for a laugh?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
grapecrusher1
|
|
« Reply #1022 on: January 28, 2010, 01:42:55 AM » |
|
Where is the CITGO cheerleading club to come to its defense? I want to see pompoms.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The meek shall inherit NOTHING" -- Zappa
|
|
|
|
trailhound
|
|
« Reply #1023 on: January 28, 2010, 07:08:20 AM » |
|
I don't need to look again. You look again. He makes it clear. There were two planes, and I just told you what they were. The c 130 was further away, Brooks said the plane he saw was white with a united logo...guess what? Brooks was wrong. Roberts assumed the c 130 that he didn't get as close a look at was commercial, I know this is yet another thing you refuse to accept but he was wrong. Yes, I know you wont accept it. You wont accept that there is massive physical evidence. You wont accept that everyone saw the plane hit the pentagon. You wont accept that it's impossible that the plane can be on the west wedge approaching at 500 miles an hour then seconds later appear in the south west part of the pentagon, you wont accept that there is no witness seeing a flyover or missile, just a plane impact. I get it. That's why I call you cultists. None of this matters. It's just your beliefs that matter. You don't believe a plane hit so it didn't.
So? Again I must point out that you also wont accept that the flight path ends at the pentagon because that's where the plane hit. The Air traffic controllers didn't track it any further....guess why?
Im not saying I have it all figured out Jim. You were arguing that Roosevelt saw the plane that hit the pentagon a few posts ago. I dont see any evidence to suggest that is true. If you want to argue Roosevelt saw the c130 (i dont think so) or the doomsday plane (flying just above the lightposts in the south parking lot, and thought it was silver commercial jet, also strongly doubt) I have room for that in my mind .(not much) Also I still strongly suspect the explosion Roosevelt talked about was at the pentagon, but until someone runs him down to clarify I suppose this other theory has, although shaky imo, ground. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." Qur'an 5:2 At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value..." -RFK |
|
|
|
Scootle
|
|
« Reply #1024 on: January 28, 2010, 07:41:33 AM » |
|
HAHA ... here's CIT's rebuttal ... not surprisingly brokenstyx has been labelled "another paid shill". I think I agree though that a north of citgo double bank into the lightpoles is impossible. The witnessess must be mistaken. http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1003 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jimd3100
|
|
« Reply #1025 on: January 28, 2010, 05:07:06 PM » |
|
You were arguing that Roosevelt saw the plane that hit the pentagon a few posts ago. I dont see any evidence to suggest that is true.
Then go back and read the post, but don't just read the post, go to the links provided, as you come to them, and go to the parts I've marked. Follow it along slowly....The picture should come together... http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=4298.msg934655#msg934655 If you want to argue Roosevelt saw the c130 (i dont think so) or the doomsday plane (flying just above the lightposts in the south parking lot, I'm not saying that. Don't fall for CIT's BS. Read it carefully, check out the links provided. There are TWO planes. Roberts says this and so does CIT if you pay attention. The two planes are flt 77 and the c 130. This isn't a theory. It's a fact that is well documented. Roberts saw both, CIT is deliberately trying to confuse the issue. The plane near the lamp poles was flt 77, it hit them. The c 130 is further away in the sky. Here is the c 130 and the pilot who flew it....once again this no plane garbage is used against us, as Fetzer makes an ass out of himself (as usual) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFTNPEmZHXE Also I still strongly suspect the explosion Roosevelt talked about was at the pentagon, but until someone runs him down to clarify I suppose this other theory has, although shaky imo, ground. His story makes no sense, if that was the case. Broken stix did a great job exposing he was WATCHING TELEVISION, and was referring to that. No doubt you think I'm an asshole. This is nothing new when I try to snap you guys out of your no plane trance, but you should be pissed at the people who fooled you into believing this garbage, not me. You think 9/11 would happen and a disInfo campaign not be run on a truth movement? Well, it's right here in front of your face and it was extremely successfull. No Plane at the pentagon. It was so successfull, it was even tried to see if "truthers" would be dumb enough to fall for no planes at all. And sure enough some did. Don't be embarrassed,.... get pissed and expose it! Almost everyone fell for it at some time. Hoffman and Wosley both admit even they did at first. These are the voices you hear on Scootles excellent CIT Deception trailer, and this trailer alone gives you the reasons why it is so damaging, and why it was done. You should listen to these guys, they have done much for the truth movement and are trying to expose the disinfo, it would be nice if you could help us. CIT Deception mock Trailerhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DqDBPmV5qcHere's how it's done. Most if not all the people promoting this no plane garbage mean well. They see a video like this one... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeckThat's some pretty convincing evidence of no plane at the pentagon. But it's a lie! It's edited to give a false impression of what is really being reported. As JAMIE McINTYRE said later (and more proof of how damaging this is).... "JAMIE McINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There are still people who don't believe a plane really hit the Pentagon on September 11th. I was there, I saw the wreckage, I photographed it with my digital camera."
"I was surprised to find that my own words are part of the conspiracy presentation. You can see on the Internet clips of me saying on September 11th, from my own close up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane crashing anywhere near the Pentagon. But I was answering a question, and the point I was making was about an eyewitness who thought a plane crashed near the Pentagon. I was saying no, not near the Pentagon. The only plane that crashed was at the Pentagon."http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/20/tt.01.htmlNow, this is the UNEDITED report he was making...it proves he's telling the truth. There was and never has been any doubt at all he knew a plane crashed there..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlBpChvzD8They edited it at the 2:50 mark in order to fool truthers into being no planers. Stop letting the DisInfo agents get away with this. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
trailhound
|
|
« Reply #1026 on: January 28, 2010, 06:34:17 PM » |
|
Then go back and read the post, but don't just read the post, go to the links provided, as you come to them, and go to the parts I've marked. Follow it along slowly....The picture should come together... http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=4298.msg934655#msg934655I'm not saying that. Don't fall for CIT's BS. Read it carefully, check out the links provided. There are TWO planes. Roberts says this and so does CIT if you pay attention. The two planes are flt 77 and the c 130. This isn't a theory. It's a fact that is well documented. Roberts saw both, CIT is deliberately trying to confuse the issue. The plane near the lamp poles was flt 77, it hit them. The c 130 is further away in the sky. Here is the c 130 and the pilot who flew it....once again this no plane garbage is used against us, as Fetzer makes an ass out of himself (as usual) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFTNPEmZHXE His story makes no sense, if that was the case. Broken stix did a great job exposing he was WATCHING TELEVISION, and was referring to that. No doubt you think I'm an asshole. This is nothing new when I try to snap you guys out of your no plane trance, but you should be pissed at the people who fooled you into believing this garbage, not me. You think 9/11 would happen and a disInfo campaign not be run on a truth movement? Well, it's right here in front of your face and it was extremely successfull. No Plane at the pentagon. It was so successfull, it was even tried to see if "truthers" would be dumb enough to fall for no planes at all. And sure enough some did. Don't be embarrassed,.... get pissed and expose it! Almost everyone fell for it at some time. Hoffman and Wosley both admit even they did at first. These are the voices you hear on Scootles excellent CIT Deception trailer, and this trailer alone gives you the reasons why it is so damaging, and why it was done. You should listen to these guys, they have done much for the truth movement and are trying to expose the disinfo, it would be nice if you could help us. CIT Deception mock Trailerhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DqDBPmV5qcHere's how it's done. Most if not all the people promoting this no plane garbage mean well. They see a video like this one... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeckThat's some pretty convincing evidence of no plane at the pentagon. But it's a lie! It's edited to give a false impression of what is really being reported. As JAMIE McINTYRE said later (and more proof of how damaging this is).... "JAMIE McINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There are still people who don't believe a plane really hit the Pentagon on September 11th. I was there, I saw the wreckage, I photographed it with my digital camera."
"I was surprised to find that my own words are part of the conspiracy presentation. You can see on the Internet clips of me saying on September 11th, from my own close up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane crashing anywhere near the Pentagon. But I was answering a question, and the point I was making was about an eyewitness who thought a plane crashed near the Pentagon. I was saying no, not near the Pentagon. The only plane that crashed was at the Pentagon."http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/20/tt.01.htmlNow, this is the UNEDITED report he was making...it proves he's telling the truth. There was and never has been any doubt at all he knew a plane crashed there..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlBpChvzD8They edited it at the 2:50 mark in order to fool truthers into being no planers. Stop letting the DisInfo agents get away with this. As a preliminary statement let me say that I am not here to defend CIT or their final analysis,proselytize, or make blanket statements about what happened at the pentagon. Also I did follow your links and see what you are falling for.. That being said this is what I see here. Roosevelt did not claim to see the c130. If he did please show where. What he did describe was seeing a silver commercial airliner in the south parking lot heading southwest. In the flight path there is no time that the commercial airliner alleged to have hit the pentagon is anywhere in the vicinity of the south parking lot. Also , very important point in regards to your theory, is that the second plane is the one Roosevelt is talking about when he is asked to confirm that he is talking about a commercial jet. Read it again and this time notice that they are talking about the second plane when Aldo asks him to confirm it was a commercial jet. This point^makes the explosion argument in the debunking video meaningless. I think Roosevelt is talking about an explosion at the pentagon, why the hell would he run outside to look wtf was going on from watching replays of happenings in NY? But if you read again you will notice that Roosevelt is talking about the second plane describing it as a commercial jet. Aldo: Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this- this second plane,-? Roosevelt: Right. Aldo: -wh- do you remember which- Roosevelt: Right. Aldo: -which direction it was heading? *04:01 Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest. . . coming out. Aldo: So like banking around; turning back around? Roosevelt: Correct. Aldo: Okay. Roosevelt: Banking- banking around, coming back out, turning southwest. . . and going straight across. *04:32 Aldo: Okay, so- Roosevelt: And that was- Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around? Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around; because you've got. . . the mall there, and then- where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon. Aldo: Sou- southwest away from the Pentagon, okay; so kind of doing a U-turn, in a way? *05:01 Roosevelt: Right.Aldo: Okay. Okay. Roosevelt: 'Cause it banked out, and it was like U-turning and coming around and coming out. It looked like, uh. . . for those brief seconds it looked like it- it- it, um. . . uh, how do I want to say this, uh. . . it missed the wrong target, and it was going, like. . . out of the way, like back to the airport, or something like that. Aldo: Oh, like- so it was headed towards the airport, it looked like. *05:27 Roosevelt: Well, no, not heading towards the airport; it's almost like if a. . . if a pilot misses good he'll try to do a banking and come around, because he missed the target: he missed the landing zone. Aldo: Got it. Got it. And you're, you're- are you a hundred percent sure it was a jet: an actual jet plane? Roosevelt: Commercial aircraft.Aldo: Commercial aircraft. Okay. So there was another-Roosevelt: Right. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." Qur'an 5:2 At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value..." -RFK |
|
|
|
jimd3100
|
|
« Reply #1027 on: January 28, 2010, 08:07:55 PM » |
|
Roosevelt did not claim to see the c130. If he did please show where.
He described two planes. The silver commercial airliner that he placed heading EAST (toward the pentagon) traveling very fast and at the exact location where Penny Eglas was where the lightpoles are, this was flight 77 and it's about to hit the pentagon. What he did describe was seeing a silver commercial airliner in the south parking lot heading southwest. No, he describes the silver commercial airliner heading EAST and it's where Penny Eglas was and where the lightpoles are.... Aldo Marquis:
Like silver in color, but you saw it over the south parking lot.Roosevelt Roberts:
Right, around the lane one area, and it was like banking, just above the light poles like.Roosevelt Roberts:
Had to been no more than, had to been no more than 50 feet less than a 100 feet.Roosevelt Roberts:
It was moving extremely fast. It was like maybe you saw that aircraft maybe for like a quick five seconds.Aldo Marquis:
Okay. Do you remember in which direction it was headed?Roosevelt Roberts:
Coming from the 27 side 27 heading, uh... uh east towards DC, coming from that area ..uh.. was the highway. If you would have come out 395 North heading towards the Pentagon you got off in south parking. You were like right there, except 395 went right into 27.http://www.911blogger.com/node/20826In the flight path there is no time that the commercial airliner alleged to have hit the pentagon is anywhere in the vicinity of the south parking lot. Wrong. Roosevelt Roberts: Right, around the lane one area, and it was like banking, just above the light poles like. Those light poles were hit. Also , very important point in regards to your theory, is that the second plane is the one Roosevelt is talking about when he is asked to confirm that he is talking about a commercial jet. Read it again and this time notice that they are talking about the second plane when Aldo asks him to confirm it was a commercial jet. You keep saying "my theory" it's not my theory. It's a fact. There was a c 130. There were two planes. It isn't a theory. It's a fact. There was flight 77 and the c 130. They are talking about two planes. He just described flight 77. He never describes the other plane as silver. He does say it's commercial. It was 3000 feet in the air. Steve Chaconas is in another of their DisInfo movies, where they make a fake flight path for flight 77. He saw the c 130 as well, but says he assumes it was a commercial airliner. It was 3000 feet in the air, this is an assumption. Well, we know the flight path of the c 130 and that is what he is describing. See the flight path of the c 130 and where Chaconas was here..the green dots are the c 130 flight path and the blue dots are flight 77, from the radar data....... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnsM6Z-jHC4Brooks and Laggasse both describe the same plane they saw Brooks: white with united logo Laggase : silver American Airlines Well.....they can't both be right can they? Lagassee was correct. We also have Steve Chaconas and R Roberts describing that second plane as commerical, and Wheelhouse saying it was a c 130. Wheelhouse spent 3 yars in the military which might explain why he was correct. Witnesses are not perfect but they are all pretty good frankly. The second plane is the c 130 that Roberts describes..... Now the second plane (c 130) Aldo Marquis:
Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this .. this second plane, do you remember which direction it was heading?Roosevelt Roberts:
It was heading.. back across 27, and it looks like, it appeared to me I was in the south, and that plane was heading like uh... south west.. coming out.Aldo Marquis:
So like banking around, turning back around?Roosevelt Roberts:
Correct.Roosevelt Roberts:
It looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turning around because you got the mall there and then where I was was south, and the plane from the direction it was heading it was facing west so it went south west away from the pentagon.Aldo Marquis:
south west away from the Pentagon, okay, so kinda doing a U-turn in a way?Roosevelt Roberts:
Right.http://www.911blogger.com/node/20826See the flight paths of both planes again... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnsM6Z-jHC4The c 130 was 3000 feet in the air, the "commercial" description was an assumption. Steve Chaconas said the same thing. The C 130 flying away from the pentagon.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXj066J4JUQ |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
trailhound
|
|
« Reply #1028 on: January 28, 2010, 09:38:34 PM » |
|
jimd3100 wrote No doubt you think I'm an asshole. This is nothing new when I try to snap you guys out of your no plane trance, but you should be pissed at the people who fooled you into believing this garbage, not me. You think 9/11 would happen and a disInfo campaign not be run on a truth movement? Well, it's right here in front of your face and it was extremely successfull. No Plane at the pentagon. It was so successfull, it was even tried to see if "truthers" would be dumb enough to fall for no planes at all. And sure enough some did. Don't be embarrassed,.... get pissed and expose it! Almost everyone fell for it at some time. Hoffman and Wosley both admit even they did at first. These are the voices you hear on Scootles excellent CIT Deception trailer, and this trailer alone gives you the reasons why it is so damaging, and why it was done. You should listen to these guys, they have done much for the truth movement and are trying to expose the disinfo, it would be nice if you could help us. Thanks Jim. A follow up interview with Roosevelt Roberts would be nice...the more I look at this the more confused I get. I cant find a transcript of Roosevelt Roberts original testimony, I know I have seen it before. I listened to the interview with him from 2001 here. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?afc911bib:14:./temp/~ammem_l8OR:: This is from .gov site. Notice even the summary is confusing. WTF?
Summary: Roosevelt Roberts was listening to news reports of the World Trade Center attacks when the Pentagon was hit. He talks about watching the plane before impact, his immediate reaction, the removal of people from the scene, the injuries and physical condition of survivors, misinformation, rescue workers, and other aspects of the attack. Which is it? He was watching tv when the pentagon was hit, or outside watching it prior to impact. Also when he describes coming out of the pentagon he calls the first plane he sees 'another plane'.. I admit I now have room in my mind that he meant 'another attack plane' like the ones he was just watching in NY. Damn confusing! I also wonder why he didnt describe hearing the explosion at the pentagon...I always assumed it happened while he was inside.  Jim I appreciate your work and efforts to keep our shit straight. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." Qur'an 5:2 At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value..." -RFK |
|
|
|
jimd3100
|
|
« Reply #1029 on: January 29, 2010, 06:28:32 PM » |
|
Jim I appreciate your work and efforts to keep our shit straight. Thanks.
No Prob. This was a good thing to get out because it's a bit cumbersome, but you weren't the only one confused, lots were and some were completely conned. What's hysterical is R Roberts, their "star" witness really was a star witness to expose their fraud, once you break it down. He saw both planes but not only that placed the plane at the lightpoles where CIT claims the plane never was so CIT claims they planted the poles and accused the old cabbie, and others of being "in on it". Flyover witness LOL! Except this isn't funny what these frauds did, and it's about time 9/11 truth conducted an "Operation Accountability" on CIT and their cohorts Pilots 4 truth. They accused innocent people of being mass murder accomplices, and need to atone for that. Jim Hoffman said what their doing is despicable, I think Hoffman's being nice. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
grapecrusher1
|
|
« Reply #1030 on: January 30, 2010, 12:08:54 AM » |
|
No Prob. This was a good thing to get out because it's a bit cumbersome, but you weren't the only one confused, lots were and some were completely conned. What's hysterical is R Roberts, their "star" witness really was a star witness to expose their fraud, once you break it down. He saw both planes but not only that placed the plane at the lightpoles where CIT claims the plane never was so CIT claims they planted the poles and accused the old cabbie, and others of being "in on it". Flyover witness LOL! Except this isn't funny what these frauds did, and it's about time 9/11 truth conducted an "Operation Accountability" on CIT and their cohorts Pilots 4 truth. They accused innocent people of being mass murder accomplices, and need to atone for that. Jim Hoffman said what their doing is despicable, I think Hoffman's being nice. Really this 2 plane theory and the video with the pilot should be be brought to the forefront of CITGO exposure. Thread title something like "CITGO Slamdown" or "CIT Shredded" or "The CIT Jig is Up." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The meek shall inherit NOTHING" -- Zappa
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #1031 on: February 03, 2010, 07:05:46 AM » |
|
No Prob. This was a good thing to get out because it's a bit cumbersome, but you weren't the only one confused, lots were and some were completely conned. What's hysterical is R Roberts, their "star" witness really was a star witness to expose their fraud, once you break it down. He saw both planes but not only that placed the plane at the lightpoles where CIT claims the plane never was so CIT claims they planted the poles and accused the old cabbie, and others of being "in on it". Flyover witness LOL! Except this isn't funny what these frauds did, and it's about time 9/11 truth conducted an "Operation Accountability" on CIT and their cohorts Pilots 4 truth. They accused innocent people of being mass murder accomplices, and need to atone for that. Jim Hoffman said what their doing is despicable, I think Hoffman's being nice. Just an fyi for all of ya, I was pentaconned too by the CIT nutsos and jimd3100 set my ass straight as well. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
DAVIDE MTL
|
|
« Reply #1032 on: February 03, 2010, 08:44:20 AM » |
|
I think the 9/11 truth stance on the pentagon should be we don't know what hit the pentagon, is it the contention here that the 737 hit the pentagon and the gov't is purposefully holding the video evidence so as to further discredit the truth movement with wild conspiracies?
question
do you consider the no planers of the pentagon to be
a. just as discrediting
b.more discrediting
c.less discrediting
as compared to the no planers of the twin towers
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scootle
|
|
« Reply #1033 on: February 03, 2010, 09:13:58 AM » |
|
I think the pentagon no-plane stuff is potentially even more damaging because its more widespread. Denying planes hit the towers is like denying the holocaust... completely ridiculous. So ridiculous the debunkers dont really pay that much attention to it. But questioning whethere or not a plane hit the pentagon is like questioning the moon landing. It's worryingly widespread.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jimd3100
|
|
« Reply #1034 on: February 03, 2010, 05:45:48 PM » |
|
I think the 9/11 truth stance on the pentagon should be we don't know what hit the pentagon,
That's been said a lot, and I wont really argue against it, but I don't take that stand, because I see no reason to. Did planes fly into the WTC? I'm not afraid to say yes they did. I would say a missile most likely hit the pentagon, if there was a reason to say it. There isn't. I'd say an f- 16 or global hawk hit, but I'd need a reason to say that. There isn't any. CIT has actually proven that an American Airlines passenger jet hit. Lagasse saw it, so did Wheelhouse, and Walter, and bunches of others. The parts recovered were from a passenger jet. And we have a missing Passenger Jet, it aint hard to figure out what happened to it. There were rescue crews who went in and discovered the grisly scene inside, and have been interviewed. So when someone asks me what I think happened at the Pentagon, I say the same thing that happened at the WTC a passenger jet flew into it. Because on 9/11 planes flew into buildings. Frankly I don't know why anyone would pay any attention to 9/11 truth if after 10 years we still can't admit that planes flew into buildings on 9/11. is it the contention here that the 737 hit the pentagon and the gov't is purposefully holding the video evidence so as to further discredit the truth movement with wild conspiracies? I don't think they have a video showing the plane impacting the pentagon...that's my guess....everything you ever wanted to know about what videos they have is here..... http://www.flight77.info/85videos.htmlquestion
do you consider the no planers of the pentagon to be
a. just as discrediting
b.more discrediting
c.less discrediting
as compared to the no planers of the twin towers They're just not informed and fell for BS, and Disinfo. They just need educated on real facts. That's why I try and give them information.....i.e...it's not a 16 foot hole...it didn't go through 6 walls....the witnesses....the parts found.....common sense....radar tracks.....that stuff...there is still hope for them...they've just been conned....but for WTC no planers....I wont waste my time. I have no hope for them. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
i811st
|
|
« Reply #1035 on: February 03, 2010, 11:18:06 PM » |
|
I believe the "eyewitnesses" about as much as I believe the President, past or present.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Egypt me,so Iraq'd 'em, then Iran. Kuwait a minute, Israel?
|
|
|
|
vlamingi
|
|
« Reply #1036 on: June 29, 2010, 12:13:33 PM » |
|
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/08/30/investigation-pentagon-attack-show-monstClick the link above to watch the presentation. Researchers present new eyewitness testimony which they say proves the government's story to be a "monstrous lie" A three year independent investigation into the September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon has yielded new eyewitness evidence which, according to the Southern California-based researchers who conducted the investigation, "conclusively (and unfortunately) establishes as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a military black operation involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception." They have compiled the most pertinent testimony into an 81 minute video presentation entitled National Security Alert, which has earned the respect and praise of a growing number of distinguished academics, journalists, writers, entertainers, pilots, and military personnel. The investigation involved multiple trips to the scene of the crime in Arlington, Virginia, close scrutiny of all official and unofficial data related to the event, and, most importantly, first-person interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses, many of which were conducted and filmed in the exact locations from which they witnessed the plane that allegedly struck the building that day. It was primarily conducted by two men named Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, also known as Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT. "There were a growing number of people in the United States and around the world who were suspicious of the government's story about what had happened at the Pentagon that day," Ranke explains. "The doubts were initially fueled by the dubious damage to the building, which seemed incompatible with a 757 crash, the deliberate lack of transparency by the authorities, and many other issues, but they really intensified after a team of professional pilots (Pilots for 9/11 Truth) analyzed the data obtained from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) via a Freedom of Information Act request in 2006, which was supposedly from the black box of American Airlines Flight 77, and found that the last reported altitude of the plane was far too high to have struck the light poles or the building. This meant that either the plane did not cause the observed physical damage, that the government had released fraudulent data, or both." "We were tired of the cover-up, but we were also frustrated with the dead-end theorizing that was taking place", says Marquis of the project's genesis. "We knew that the only way we were ever going to know what had really happened was if we actually went to the area, knocked on doors, and interviewed everyday people about what they saw." When these eyewitness accounts are aggregated, they paint a very disturbing picture, say the researchers. "To put it as concisely as possible, the plane had to have flown on a very specific flight path in the final seconds before it reached the Pentagon in order to have caused the observed damage, starting with the light poles that were photographed on the ground and ending with the directional damage to the building itself which was outlined in detail by the American Society of Civil Engineers," explains Ranke. "The government claims the plane flew on this flight path and hit the building. The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally report a drastically different flight path, proving that the plane absolutely could not have hit the light poles or the building. It is a non-controversial scientific fact that a strike from this trajectory would have caused a very different damage path." It wasn't just witnesses who watched the plane approach the building that the team spoke with, however. "We've also published our interview with a Pentagon police officer who saw the plane flying away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion", says Marquis. "We already knew that the plane could not have hit based on the testimony of the witnesses on the other side of the building who watched it approach, but it was still vindicating to get this kind of confirmation." A 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll found that "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East." Nevertheless, Ranke and Marquis acknowledge it is still quite controversial to claim, as they do, that "criminal elements within the U.S. government" were complicit in the attacks. "If you are skeptical of (or even incensed by) this statement we do not blame you," reads a note on the front page of their website, CitizenInvestigationTeam.com. "We are not asking you to take our word for it, nor do we want you to do that. We want you to view the evidence and see with your own eyes that this is the case. We want you to hear it directly from the eyewitnesses who were there, just as we did." Many people seem to be taking them up on this offer. Their video has already received almost 70,000 views online since it was first posted to their website a few weeks ago with only a grass roots promotional effort behind it. Perhaps more notable than the size of the audience, however, is the caliber of some of the people in it. A newly-published compendium of endorsements on the CitizenInvestigationTeam.com website includes praise from a wide array of distinguished and well-respected Americans. Emmy-award winning actor and former president of The Screen actors Guild, Ed Asner, calls the film a "reasoned, and methodical look at witness testimony the day the Pentagon was attacked on Sept. 11th". Prolific non-ficition author Dr. Peter Dale Scott, Professor Emeritus of the University of California, Berkeley affirms that the film "successfully rebuts the official account of Flight 77's flight path on 9/11 as it approached the Pentagon". "If you accept the placement of the plane as independently and unanimously reported by the witnesses presented in CIT's video National Security Alert, science proves that it did not cause the physical damage at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001", says FAA certified pilot Robert Balsamo. Dr. David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé and many other titles, says he is "pleased to be able to recommend this important film with enthusiasm", while scholar, author, and radio host Dr. Kevin Barrett says that the film proves "that the official version of the attack on the Pentagon is false, and that the attack must have been a deceptive military operation, not the kamakaze crash of a hijacked commercial jet." Scott McKinsey, an award-winning network television director, says "The DVD offers no theorizing or speculation; only corroborated eyewitness evidence contradicting the official flight data to support an overwhelming argument that a plane did not slam into the Pentagon on 9/11". Architect Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth.org), a coalition of over 700 professional architects and engineers calling for a new independent investigation of the destruction of the three skyscrapers in New York on 9/11 (the third was World Trade Center 7), calls the film "long overdue, but worth waiting for" and says that it "deserves serious attention". Retired Navy Commander and aviator James R. Compton calls National Security Alert "the best reporting I've seen in a long, long time" and "a must see for every citizen in our country". "Government and media figures who dare ignore evidence this conclusive do so at their own peril", warns Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford, a retired Marine pilot who has flown 303 combat missions. The full quotes from these individuals and others can be read at here. National Security Alert can be viewed for free online here. -###- PRLog http://www.prlog.org:80/10322926-independent-investigation-into-pentagon-attack-yields-alarming-information.html - We are an organization of independent citizens who have embarked on a guerrilla reporting effort to get to the bottom of the truth behind the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #1037 on: June 29, 2010, 12:56:22 PM » |
|
It was primarily conducted by two men named Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, also known as Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT.
those guys are belligerent and aggressive agitators. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
vlamingi
|
|
« Reply #1038 on: June 29, 2010, 03:09:35 PM » |
|
I just saw that video and was blown away at the overwhelming evidence..... Everyone here in amerika should watch this!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jimd3100
|
|
« Reply #1039 on: June 29, 2010, 03:44:54 PM » |
|
It was primarily conducted by two men named Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, also known as Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT.
All you're doing is making a fool of yourself by trying to promote this BS. As part of CIT's "Operation Accountability" program (yes, I agree with CIT, we should have an "Operation Accountability" but the target is CIT) because of the damage and BS they created.......... The "mysteroius cabbie and his FBI Wife..... He told me that he misses his late first wife (the mother of all his children) and when I asked him what Shirley does for the FBI he said "we don't talk about it". --Craig Stinke CIT (another 3 letter agency) http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread436840/pg See? His wife works for the FBI in a "secret" role. "I'm not sure about his FBI employee wife though."
"For all we know even she could be compartmentalized as to his exact level of involvement." --Craig Stinke CIT (another 3 letter agency) http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2506#comment-18202 His "FBI employee" wife....LOL the FBI employed wifeSubmitted by Tahooey on Sun, 2009-11-08 19:57. Any ideas what her role is at the FBI? employee is a pretty broad category...http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2506#comment-18206 Submitted by Craig Ranke on Sun, 2009-11-08 20:21. She wouldn't say and when I asked Lloyde he simply said "we don't talk about it".http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2506#comment-18206 See? It's very secretive.... In fact when I asked Lloyde what she does for the FBI he said , "we don't talk about it". -- Craig Stinke CIT (another 3 letter agency) http://letsrollforums.com/national-security-alert-critical-t19045p2.html?s=9656d05da9a0dcf71c73c7f671c9505a& "But I did ask Lloyde when we were in the car on the way to the cab and he said "we don't talk about it". -- Craig Stinke CIT (another 3 letter agency) http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread406249/pg10 "Yes she not only works for the FBI but when I asked Lloyde what she does for them he said "we don't talk about it"." -- Craig Stinke CIT (another 3 letter agency) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17378&pid=10772565&mode=threaded&start=#entry10772565 She works for the FBI and it's a "secret" as to what she does. LOL! According to inspector Ranke "When I asked him what she does for them later he said, "we don't talk about it".
Keep in mind that they were NOT married or living together on 9/11. They got married a year or two later. Lloyde's wife of 40 years and the mother of all his
children had passed and he specifically told me that he misses her. Now as far as finding out what she did....I think that is pretty much impossible.
Feel free to call the FBI and ask them! Her name is Shirley Hughes." --- Craig Stinke CIT (another 3 letter agency) http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread459527/pg7 I wonder what would happen if someone else asked Lloyd about his wife? What if she is just a cleaning lady? 38:50 mark Q: Isn't your wife an FBI agent?
A: No, My wife is a cleaner.
Q: Oh, OK...
A: She works at the FBI building...she is a cleaner. http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/ll_061510.mp3http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3464077/1/CIT and their retarded flyover theory it doesn't get any dumber than this. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
