Ohhh so the NoC Flight Path is possible after all???

[TC329]

source (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread394264/pg4#pid5030426)
Exponents' example posted earlier is just an example. He only used two of the witnesses to show the ONLY possible flight path that could be flown North of the Citgo Station.


but i thought if a plane flew over to the NoC it would fall out of the air due to this maneuver being aerodynamically impossible regardless of where the plane approaches from?



Even it shows high bank angles and high G that NO ONE DESCRIBED.


oh wait now we're turning to the eyewitness accounts??????

really reheat??????

the same eyewitnesses who told us all that the plane was on the north side in the first place????

but some of those witnesses describe the bank, don't they reheat?

are you being intentionally dishonest or playing dumb and acting like you don't know?

However, when all of the witnesses are put together and multiple flight paths at varying speeds are attempted they ALL FAIL

well not all of the flight paths FAIL now do they reheat?

i thought we started this off with exponents flight path that DOESN'T FAIL?

slowly but surely more and more people are going to see you for what you're truly doing.......

so tell me how exponents noc flight path is possible and not possible at the same time reheat. please provide the math too so exponent can confirm your findings that his path is both simultaneously possible and not possible or admit to your intentional deception campaign with your fixed variants to achieve your desired results and how you've been pulling the wool over your own cult's eyes for months now.........

:D

[PhantomWolf]

No one ever said it was impossible to fly north of Citgo, it has always been said that flightpaths using your wittnesses are impossible, if you drop the number of witnesses to two and ignore the rest of the data then a path is definable, a number of people noted that months back and waited in anticipation of CIT starting to throw their witnesses under buses until they got to the least number they could to define a plausible flightpath.

By the way, how are you doing figuring out what to do about those witnesses that claim 77 came down, alongside, or crossed over I-395, all descriptions that require a flightpath SOUTH of the offical flightpath and well south of your NOC one.

[Horatius]

Wow. Quotemining at it's finest.

[Bobert]

Its like you have a guy caught red handed committing murder yet he tries to get out of it by arguing that he traveled North instead of South like the authorities claim to get to the murder scene.

[beachnut]

source (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread394264/pg4#pid5030426)

but i thought if a plane flew over to the NoC it would fall out of the air due to this maneuver being aerodynamically impossible regardless of where the plane approaches from?

oh wait now we're turning to the eyewitness accounts??????

really reheat??????

the same eyewitnesses who told us all that the plane was on the north side in the first place????

but some of those witnesses describe the bank, don't they reheat?

are you being intentionally dishonest or playing dumb and acting like you don't know?

well not all of the flight paths FAIL now do they reheat?

i thought we started this off with exponents flight path that DOESN'T FAIL?

slowly but surely more and more people are going to see you for what you're truly doing.......

so tell me how exponents noc flight path is possible and not possible at the same time reheat. please provide the math too so exponent can confirm your findings that his path is both simultaneously possible and not possible or admit to your intentional deception campaign with your fixed variants to achieve your desired results and how you've been pulling the wool over your own cult's eyes for months now.........


Perfect example of the quote mining failure to make rational point while it still refutes all you say.

Not one path is possible due to physics, FDR, RADAR data and or bank angles.

You see the last true track on the FDR, was 6.2 degrees, makes all your CIT paths FALSE. YOu have false junk to make a fantasy conclusion based on the FALSE junk.

So now forget to read for meaning and refute yourself trying to quote mine Reheat. Do you read this first?

Like Miller refuting all your 93 stuff, no, there are zero NoC flight paths possible!!!

Reheat said one or two can be flyable, not over 4 Gs or something, but the bank angle is STILL 75 degrees. Not impossible to fly, but impossible because the max bank on the FDR was 9 degrees, and the max bank acted out by your witnesses who you don't interpret correctly was 28 degree of bank, for a turn 10 miles wide.

Wake up, read for comprehension; do you need help?

Please present a path you think is possible. Gee, which one is; you have over 8 paths! In reality the paths are all un-flyable because you have Paik's path or the RADAR data, or the FDR headings, all make it impossible to connect to the FALSE flight paths.

Show me a path you think is it. Which one is it?

Just say no!

[TC329]

No one ever said it was impossible to fly north of Citgo, it has always been said that flightpaths using your wittnesses are impossible


WRONG.

the argument is that it was impossible.

no matter what flight path.

what the originating point.

what the altitude.

the speed.

the type of plane.

none of it mattered because it was "aerodynamically impossible" says reheat and beachnut and a whole slew of other anonymous armchair expert research professionals.

don't even try to spin it now.

[TC329]

Wow. Quotemining at it's finest.


ummmmmmmmmm are you saying reheat denies exponents NoC flight path and i'm misrepresenting something?

yes or no and don't be a coward.

[TC329]

Its like you have a guy caught red handed committing murder yet he tries to get out of it by arguing that he traveled North instead of South like the authorities claim to get to the murder scene.


ahhhhh bobby i just had to take you off ignore to see your brilliant contribution to this thread..........

hmmmmmmmmmmm.

but if the murder was committed from someone on the south side of the murder scene and it has been proven repeatedly through corroborated eyewitness accounts that the killer was always north of the murder scene i think that means you have the wrong guy.

come on bobby you got a little common sense, don't you?

[Tbone]

The thing to do now (since you didn't do it in your opening post) would be to quote and link the posts that say your North path was impossible.

[TC329]

Perfect example of the quote mining failure to make rational point while it still refutes all you say.


beachnut,

do you claim exponents NoC flight path is aerodynamically impossible?

if not then you need to retract your propaganda ******** accusation.

Not one path is possible due to physics,

oh so you do think exponents path is impossible. please explain to everyone here how.


FDR,

FAKE

RADAR

FAKE

data

FAKE

and or bank angles.

described perfectly by sean boger and other eyewitnesses............

You see the last true track on the FDR, was 6.2 degrees, makes all your CIT paths FALSE. YOu have false junk to make a fantasy conclusion based on the FALSE junk.


LMAO!!!!

the fdr is fake, stupid.

haven't you been paying attention for the last couple years? you been in a mental coma?

So now forget to read for meaning and refute yourself trying to quote mine Reheat. Do you read this first?

Like Miller refuting all your 93 stuff, no, there are zero NoC flight paths possible!!!


except for exponents. did you read that first?

Reheat said one or two can be flyable, not over 4 Gs or something, but the bank angle is STILL 75 degrees. Not impossible to fly, but impossible because the max bank on the FDR was 9 degrees, and the max bank acted out by your witnesses who you don't interpret correctly was 28 degree of bank, for a turn 10 miles wide.


ohhhhhhhhhhh so now beachnut says NoC is possible but it isn't possible because the fdr released by the people who would be covering up the crime doesn't show it......... :jaw-dropp

Wake up, read for comprehension; do you need help?

i think you do and i'm sure quite a few lurkers are coming to that same conclusion.

Please present a path you think is possible.

exponents. go "duh-bunk" it duh-bunker..........


Gee, which one is; you have over 8 paths! In reality the paths are all un-flyable because you have Paik's path or the RADAR data, or the FDR headings, all make it impossible to connect to the FALSE flight paths.


blah blah blah the government would give the public proof they carried out the attacks if they actually had...blah blah blah.

Show me a path you think is it. Which one is it?

exponents?

and now back on ignore you go. always nice to periodically remind all the lurkers why i have you on ignore in the first place. :D

[Reheat]

Perfect example of the quote mining failure to make rational point while it still refutes all you say.

He pulls this crap all of the time. It's similar to his "the US controls the BBC" thread.

The path I commented on was "exponents'" experiment which has been shown here and more recently at ATS. In order to come up with something that might work he completely LEFT OUT Morin's statements. He also showed an impact NORTH of the actual impact point and he DID NOT address a pull up for a stupid flyover.

I'm not going to waste any more time to explain as everyone else here understands. I could care less whether idiots understand or not.

[TC329]

The thing to do now (since you didn't do it in your opening post) would be to quote and link the posts that say your North path was impossible.


like in post 5 of this very thread?

Not one path is possible due to physics, FDR, RADAR data and or bank angles


there are threads and threads of this here and at ATS and god knows which other websites..........

there would be a thousand links because ever since reheat uttered it every single lemmon in the world has parroted it.

[TC329]

He pulls this crap all of the time. It's similar to his "the US controls the BBC" thread.

The path I commented on was "exponents'" experiment which has been shown here and more recently at ATS. In order to come up with something that might work he completely LEFT OUT Morin's statements. He also showed an impact NORTH of the actual impact point and he DID NOT address a pull up for a stupid flyover.

I'm not going to waste any more time to explain as everyone else here understands. I could care less whether idiots understand or not.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/pentagonleastforce801.jpg

so if morin is where he told cit he was how would he not see it?

[PhantomWolf]

WRONG.

the argument is that it was impossible.

no matter what flight path.

what the originating point.

what the altitude.

the speed.

the type of plane.

none of it mattered because it was "aerodynamically impossible" says reheat and beachnut and a whole slew of other anonymous armchair expert research professionals.

don't even try to spin it now.

Please link that any post that claims it is impossible to fly a plane North of the Citgo Station? Please explain what sort of strange physics makes it impossible to fly planes north of this station? Do they just drop out of the air? The "aerodynamically impossible" flightpaths that beachnut and reheat showed were paths that included the CIT "Paik direction" and then went North of Citgo. Remove Paik and have the plane start North of the Navy Annex and you have a possible flight path, just not one that agrees with any of the witnesses bar one or two, but it's certainly a possible flightpath. You are still confusing "flightpaths that agree with the CIT witness statements as they have them" and "any flightpath"

[PhantomWolf]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/pentagonleastforce801.jpg

How does this flightpath fit with those witnesses that claim Flight 77 flew down or next to I-395, or those that claim it flew right over the I-395 overpass?

[TC329]

Please link that any post that claims it is impossible to fly a plane North of the Citgo Station?


theres a search funcion here. try it out if you haven't been participating in this argument. i don't waste time on disingenious people. if you are sincere you'll read all the cit / noc threads and catch up with the rest of the class.

Please explain what sort of strange physics makes it impossible to fly planes north of this station?

i can't you need to ask reheat and the lemmings about that.

Do they just drop out of the air? The "aerodynamically impossible" flightpaths that beachnut and reheat showed were paths that included the CIT "Paik direction" and then went North of Citgo. Remove Paik and have the plane start North of the Navy Annex and you have a possible flight path, just not one that agrees with any of the witnesses bar one or two, but it's certainly a possible flightpath. You are still confusing "flightpaths that agree with the CIT witness statements as they have them" and "any flightpath"

no see reheat picks all his variants such as exact starting position and angle and so on and so on to achieve his desired outcome.

cit has repeatedly said these people are telling the truth.

reheat them claims he proves them all wrong and demands cit make a flight path based on eyewitness testimony.

cit says you can't get exact calculations from eyewitnesses but all the eyewitnesses corroborate each other and put the plane on the same flight path. now over a dozen.

reheat says until cit presents a flight path NoC is aerodynamically impossible.

lemmings rejoice.

circle jerk begins..........

[TC329]

How does this flightpath fit with those witnesses that claim Flight 77 flew down or next to I-395, or those that claim it flew right over the I-395 overpass?


it doesn't because there are no witnesses to that.

until you name those witnesses and go on location with them and document their accounts like the 12+ cit has done to date you're little one liners out of the usa today and washington post don't mean ****.

sorry.

[PhantomWolf]

theres a search funcion here. try it out if you haven't been participating in this argument. i don't waste time on disingenious people. if you are sincere you'll read all the cit / noc threads and catch up with the rest of the class.

You're the one claiming that people here have said that no flight path north of Citgo is possible, it's your burden of proof to show this is true.

[TC329]

You're the one claiming that people here have said that no flight path north of Citgo is possible, it's your burden of proof to show this is true.

ok.

dont believe me.

now will you go away from this thread?

Please tone down your frustration, and maintain a more civil approach in discussions.

[TC329]

He also showed an impact NORTH of the actual impact point


which would probably make sense if the plane didn't hit the *********** building anyways........... sheeeeesh.

[pomeroo]

ahhhhh bobby i just had to take you off ignore to see your brilliant contribution to this thread..........

hmmmmmmmmmmm.

but if the murder was committed from someone on the south side of the murder scene and it has been proven repeatedly through corroborated eyewitness accounts that the killer was always north of the murder scene i think that means you have the wrong guy.

come on bobby you got a little common sense, don't you?


Do you have any sense of how ridiculous your desperate spinning, dodging, and prevaricating makes you look? AA Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Wreckage of the plane was found inside the building and on the lawn. Human remains belonging to passengers and crew were identified by DNA testing. All of your side's eyewitnesses saw the crash. How long can you string out this silly charade?

The fools and frauds of the CIT refuse to ask their tiny handful of cherry-picked witnesses to resolve their mutually-exclusive assertions. The incompetents at pffft are woefully incapable of interpreting FDR data that is obviously damaged and incomplete. Nobody in your band of dunces is going to win any Pulitzer Prizes for breaking the biggest story in the history of journalism.

When does too much finally become enough?

[Horatius]

ummmmmmmmmm are you saying reheat denies exponents NoC flight path and i'm misrepresenting something?

yes or no and don't be a coward.



Wow, asking for "Yes or no", with the implication that a failure to answer as directed makes me a "coward", when you've actually asked two complexly interrelated questions.....No, you couldn't possibly be trying to set me up, could you? :rolleyes:

Let's look at Reheat's whole post, okay?


No one would be mystified at all if you could do the aerodynamic physics to confirm or deny what the witnesses say.

If you can't do the math get an Engineer or a Pilot who can do the math to show you how what the witnesses say is impossible. My analysis is linked in my signature. I invite you or anyone else to point out where it is incorrect.

Exponents' example posted earlier is just an example. He only used two of the witnesses to show the ONLY possible flight path that could be flown North of the Citgo Station. Even it shows high bank angles and high G that NO ONE DESCRIBED. However, when all of the witnesses are put together and multiple flight paths at varying speeds are attempted they ALL FAIL.




And if you continue to assert that your OP was an honest assessment of Reheat's post, well, that won't really surprise me.

[HyJinX]

ok.

dont believe me.

now will you go away from this thread?


Ok...we don't believe you. Nobody believes you. You theory borders on the insane and ridiculous. Sad to see, man, sad to see.

[TC329]

AA Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

no ron, you're wrong.

[TC329]

Wow, asking for "Yes or no", with the implication that a failure to answer as directed makes me a "coward", when you've actually asked two complexly interrelated questions.....No, you couldn't possibly be trying to set me up, could you? :rolleyes:

Let's look at Reheat's whole post, okay?

And if you continue to assert that your OP was an honest assessment of Reheat's post, well, that won't really surprise me.

ok.

looked at.

now did reheat acknowledge exponent proposed a viable [i.e. aerodynamically possible] NoC flight path?

once again only yes or no is necessary...........

[TC329]

Ok...we don't believe you. Nobody believes you. You theory borders on the insane and ridiculous. Sad to see, man, sad to see.

ok.

reheat the lemmings never said NoC was aerodynamically impossible. lemming beachnut didn't parrot it in post #5 of this very thread either.

don't believe me. i'm the "insane and ridiculous" one........... :boggled:

[pomeroo]

no ron, you're wrong.


No, your lies have all been exposed. Your evil, mindless movement can't account for the presence of the remains of passengers and crew inside the Pentagon. You are reduced to shrieking the deranged falsehood that the FBI, the rescue workers, and the forensic examiners at the Dover Port Mortuary are all part of your ridiculous imaginary conspiracy.

Remember, you have nothing--absolutely nothing--that lends any support whatever to your pernicious nonsense.

[SlightlyAbovePar]

It's great that you continue to seek the attention of JREF posters. My question is this: how does your obsession with JREF'ers help your cause in bringing the perps to justice? Who cares what we think, correct? After all, you don't need to convince us, just a jury.

I mean, this is what your interested in. Right?

Stop wasting time with baiting posts in internet forums and get to it. It's been seven years (and counting) and the total sum of your CT involves internet posts.

Bravo.

[Horatius]

ok.

looked at.

now did reheat acknowledge exponent proposed a viable NoC flight path?

once again only yes or no is necessary...........



No, more than "Yes or No" is necessary, as Reheat's post was [I]based on a conditional:


exponent proposed a viable NoC flight path, so long as you ignore all but two of CIT's own witnesses.*


The intellectual dishonesty of the twoofers, and one twoofer in particular, just keeps rolling along.




*ETA: and also, ignore what those two witnesses said about the bank angles of the plane.

[TC329]

Your evil, mindless movement can't account for the presence of the remains of passengers and crew inside the Pentagon.

ok ron,

you want to continue to use the dead to push your insane conspiracy theory go ahead but sooner or later someone is going to call you out on it.....

looks like sooner is here :


ron please identify one passenger/crew member inside the pentagon and present that photo to the rest of us with undeniable proof it is who you are claiming it is or admit you possess no evidence any of the passengers/crew were recovered inside the pentagon.

[beachnut]

WRONG.

the argument is that it was impossible.

no matter what flight path.

what the originating point.

what the altitude.

the speed.

the type of plane.

none of it mattered because it was "aerodynamically impossible" says reheat and beachnut and a whole slew of other anonymous armchair expert research professionals.

don't even try to spin it now.
They are all impossible you are not reading.

Some can't be flown.
All of them have the wrong heading.

You have no clue when it comes to physics you have big pile of paths, all of them WRONG, like your conclusions and Balsamo's 11.2 Gs, 10 G, and 34 Gs.

[Jonnyclueless]

Wow, truther research sure is easy. if something doesn't fit what you want, jsut dismiss it as fake.

And no one is listening to these crackpots? What a surprise.

[HyJinX]

NoC was aerodynamically impossible.
i'm the "insane and ridiculous" one.

Hey...quote mining IS fun! Thanks for the lesson, TC!

[PhantomWolf]

it doesn't because there are no witnesses to that.

until you name those witnesses and go on location with them and document their accounts like the 12+ cit has done to date you're little one liners out of the usa today and washington post don't mean ****.

sorry.

So you don't believe what the witnesses said on the day, you didn't bother reading their statments of where they said the plane was? Why do you think that 7 years later they would have better recall of where they believed the plane to be than they did the day or two after it?

[PhantomWolf]

theres a search funcion here. try it out if you haven't been participating in this argument. i don't waste time on disingenious people. if you are sincere you'll read all the cit / noc threads and catch up with the rest of the class.

I guess expecting a Truther to actually provide evidence for his claims was asking a little too much.

[TC329]

So you don't believe what the witnesses said on the day, you didn't bother reading their statments of where they said the plane was?

let me know if you figure out how cit identified the anc witnesses they interviewed and get back to me einstein.

[TC329]

I guess expecting a Truther to actually provide evidence for his claims was asking a little too much.

oh do i forget a duh-bunker can't find anything without a truther taking them by the hand and walking them through it.......

you do realize none of the lemmings are echoing your call, right?

why do you think that is?

[HyJinX]

let me know if you figure out how cit identified the anc witnesses they interviewed and get back to me einstein.

CIT? That's so funny. You align youself with a couple of twits that have strategically placed themselves into a corner by using witnesses that ALL say they saw the plane hit the building? You're a silly person. Funny. But very, very silly. You're very entertaining TC.

[Arus808]

again why do anyone reply to Dom? You know he's a CIT puppet. And he ony repeats what his masters tell him to say, since they are banned from this forum.

[PhantomWolf]

let me know if you figure out how cit identified the anc witnesses they interviewed and get back to me einstein.

So you are only willing to believe witnesses that support your fantasy, except for the bit where they say the plane hit the building, but if they claim it was over I-395 they can't really believe they saw that even if they say they did. Riiiiight.

[Caustic Logic]

Quote mining runs in the family - I have it on good authority the elder Domenick Dimaggio spent much of his life working deep in a Pennsylvania quote mine, and died there in a cave-in back in '92. You just can't break traditions like that.

ETA: for those unsure, I did indeed make that all up. This thread doesn't deserve a thoughtful response.

[pomeroo]

ok ron,

you want to continue to use the dead to push your insane conspiracy theory go ahead but sooner or later someone is going to call you out on it.....

looks like sooner is here :


ron please identify one passenger/crew member inside the pentagon and present that photo to the rest of us with undeniable proof it is who you are claiming it is or admit you possess no evidence any of the passengers/crew were recovered inside the pentagon.


Stop lying. The passengers and crew were, as you know, burned beyond recognition. They were identified by DNA testing. Everyone who boarded AA Flight 77 died when it hit the Pentagon. People in many walks of life saw and handled aircraft parts. Your deranged myth requires that all of them be members of your imaginary conspiracy. Either explain why and how the FBI suddenly became the personal plaything of George Bush, his own private secret police, or fold up your tent. Real people died and you vicious liars keep playing these disgusting, contemptible games. Go ask family members of crash victims if they have photos of the charred remains of their loved ones. Ask if they're sure that their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, or friends are really dead. Tell the cowardly, brainless scum of the CIT to interview the families of people murdered by the jihadists.

Does anybody wonder why I feel as I do about these creeps?

[Reheat]

Does anybody wonder why I feel as I do about these creeps?

No, not at all pomeroo. That's why I stay out of the threads that are obviously bait and serve no purpose but to gain attention to those who start them.

I hope you do the same because I'd hate to see you banned. If I expressed my real opinion about these idiots I'd be gone after about two posts.

[pomeroo]

No, not at all pomeroo. That's why I stay out of the threads that are obviously bait and serve no purpose but to gain attention to those who start them.

I hope you do the same because I'd hate to see you banned. If I expressed my real opinion about these idiots I'd be gone after about two posts.


Civility is a virtue to be prized, but how low must person sink to pretend--we won't insult every sane reader's intelligence by allowing for the possibility that he's serious--that he wants to see photos of blackened human flesh? He says he wants to see the sort of evidence that can't possibly exist. A plane hits reinforced concrete at 500 mph and gets smashed to bits, utterly destroyed and consumed by fire. What sort of mind can ask for photos of the people who were on that plane? What does he think they'll look like?

[e^n]

Here is my apology to Reheat and Beachnut that I posted over at ATS.

I'd like to post and apologise to Reheat and Beachnut. Craig is now taking responses to my scenario out of context in order to claim that you two have accepted his flight path is possible.

Craig, as I have repeatedly explained, my flight path ignores many critical elements and requires a severe rightward bank at all points in the plotted course.

There is no getting around this, you cannot say "aha it's possible" and then go on to quote witnesses which do not describe a plane in a radical (45 degree+) rightward bank. If we ignore all but 2 of your witnesses, one of whom watched the plane impact the pentagon from 100-200ft away then we can construct a plausible flight path.

However, this flight path needs some verification by determining the speed of the aircraft and as a result, the aerodynamic forces experienced. You and JDX have both refused to even speculate on this, despite your constant posting of eyewitness accounts, including those north of the plane who are supposed to accurately place its ground position without having any usable reference.

I would hope that any third party reading this notes that I do not support Craig's theory, and feel that he has a lot to explain before it can be considered a potential explanation.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Do you have any sense of how ridiculous your desperate spinning, dodging, and prevaricating makes you look? AA Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Wreckage of the plane was found inside the building and on the lawn.
Lie. Debris was found from something- there was no positive identification.
Human remains belonging to passengers and crew were identified by DNA testing.
Yes, but where did these body parts come from. The chain of custody is not known.
All of your side's eyewitnesses saw the crash.
No- ANC workers and others were in no position to see the crash. Those who saw the explosion were simply fooled. Subsequent brainwashing removed any lingering doubts and the initial witness reports (911 calls) were permenantly confiscated.

[Smackety]

Lie. Debris was found from something- there was no positive identification.

Yes, but where did these body parts come from. The chain of custody is not known.

No- ANC workers and others were in no position to see the crash. Those who saw the explosion were simply fooled. Subsequent brainwashing removed any lingering doubts and the initial witness reports (911 calls) were permenantly confiscated.

You might be wrong about that, some of your delusions might actually qualify as new lies.

[pomeroo]

Lie. Debris was found from something- there was no positive identification.


You are, once again, the liar. The debris was from an American Airlines commercial jetliner. One of them, Flight 77, happened to go missing at the time the debris was found. Remains of the passengers and crew of Flight 77 were found inside the Pentagon.



Yes, but where did these body parts come from. The chain of custody is not known.


You've been caught lying again. The chain of custody is known. Either explain how the FBI became George Bush's Gestapo or admit that your evil, mindless movement is dead.



No- ANC workers and others were in no position to see the crash. Those who saw the explosion were simply fooled. Subsequent brainwashing removed any lingering doubts and the initial witness reports (911 calls) were permenantly confiscated.


Liar. Many people saw and described the crash. The bumbling, hamfisted efforts of the cretins of the CIT have established that all witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon.
Your gibberish about brainwashing is nonsense. There are, as you know, pages of eyewitness accounts.
How exactly did the explosion caused by the crash of Flight 77 "fool" anybody? The agenda-driven morons you serve have produced absolutely nothing to support their insane flyover fantasy.

[PhantomWolf]

there was no positive identification.

Actually American Airlines informed the FAA that one of it's aircraft, Flight 77, had crashed into the Pentagon about 50 minutes after the crash on 9/11. That would certainly sound like a positive ID to me.

[pomeroo]

Actually American Airlines informed the FAA that one of it's aircraft, Flight 77, had crashed into the Pentagon about 50 minutes after the crash on 9/11. That would certainly sound like a positive ID to me.


Alas, no. For reasons that could not be comprehended by a living soul, American Airlines is yet another part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. After all, why shouldn't they sign off on a scheme that would bankrupt them?

[Caustic Logic]

Here is my apology to Reheat and Beachnut that I posted over at ATS.

Apology? Because your findings aren't made of steel and the Comedy Improv Team found a way to twist them? It's little wonder they try to take your "support." Their partners at PfffT haven't been any help in trying to reconcile the amalgamated wrong eyewitness trainwreck with physical reality. Their ally Mirage Of Deceit did try to apply science to NoC, and failed bad on CIT's behalf.
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/06/mirage-of-plausibility.html

On the critics side, Reheat's refutation has its problems with not really being what CIT propose, but established and popularized the general unfeasibility of anything like this happening.

But you have given them the most benefit of the doubt, and constructed the path with the best balance of accurate to the witnesses and physically possible. It's a way better help than MoD's suggestion, or PFT's awkward silence, but we can see that it doesn't fit all eyewitnesses very well at all, still requires the steep bank that they're only now getting people to mention, and that some specifically refute. It still leaves light poles and impact to be faked, worse problem of all. But it's that reason that makes CIT love it, and that it doesn't contradict all their witnesses, like MoD's did.

Out of curiosity, what speed again did you propose for this? CIT has started settling on a speed - slow. I think they have been suggesting based on Boger and Morin (off-the record) something like 150 mph, or fall-down speed, to make the maneuver possible.

[Caustic Logic]

Lie.

Sigh...

[bje]

Lie. Debris was found from something- there was no positive identification.

Yes, but where did these body parts come from. The chain of custody is not known.

No- ANC workers and others were in no position to see the crash. Those who saw the explosion were simply fooled. Subsequent brainwashing removed any lingering doubts and the initial witness reports (911 calls) were permenantly confiscated.

:rolleyes: Is that why CIT refused to interview the over 1,000 people with direct access to the wreckage inside the Pentagon, TLB?

Gosh.

How can you spew such nonsense as you do?

[bje]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/pentagonleastforce801.jpg

so if morin is where he told cit he was how would he not see it?

This is fun.

We've been through this before, Dom. See that yellow line you drew? Now, do you want to tell everyone here why you, Aldo, Craig, SPreston, Turbofan, Balsamo et al won't extend that flight path any further?

I mean a flyover is a flyover, n'est pas?

You won't extend that flight path because you already know the implications of doing so self-evidently refute your entire claims entirely.

But I'll give you another chance, Dom, knowing full well you are stumped.

What happens if AA77 - or any plane - flew over the Pentagon instead of hitting it?

[Hyperviolet]

Perhaps i'm being cynical, but I really can't see the alarm in this NoC nonsense.
At the end of the day, all the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony supports the fact that a plane flew into - not over - the Pentagon.

Arguing vehemently about which side of a gas station the plane flew past, is like arguing the colour of shoes Jeffrey Dahmer wore when grotesquely murdering innocent civilians.
It's just so far beyond the point of focus.

[jhunter1163]

Quote mining runs in the family - I have it on good authority the elder Domenick Dimaggio spent much of his life working deep in a Pennsylvania quote mine, and died there in a cave-in back in '92. You just can't break traditions like that.

ETA: for those unsure, I did indeed make that all up. This thread doesn't deserve a thoughtful response.

There was also this tragedy...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66760

[TC329]

So you are only willing to believe witnesses that support your fantasy, except for the bit where they say the plane hit the building, but if they claim it was over I-395 they can't really believe they saw that even if they say they did. Riiiiight.


please provide links to where i can hear/see these accounts or quit making up lies.

[TC329]

This thread doesn't deserve a thoughtful response.

Edit for civility

[TC329]

Stop lying. The passengers and crew were, as you know, burned beyond recognition. They were identified by DNA testing. Everyone who boarded AA Flight 77 died when it hit the Pentagon. People in many walks of life saw and handled aircraft parts. Your deranged myth requires that all of them be members of your imaginary conspiracy. Either explain why and how the FBI suddenly became the personal plaything of George Bush, his own private secret police, or fold up your tent. Real people died and you vicious liars keep playing these disgusting, contemptible games. Go ask family members of crash victims if they have photos of the charred remains of their loved ones. Ask if they're sure that their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, or friends are really dead. Tell the cowardly, brainless scum of the CIT to interview the families of people murdered by the jihadists.

Does anybody wonder why I feel as I do about these creeps?

i never said they weren't dead.

i asked for proof they were at the pentagon.

you have none.

noted.

[TC329]

Remains of the passengers and crew of Flight 77 were found inside the Pentagon.


Edited for civility

[TC329]

It's a way better help than MoD's suggestion, or PFT's awkward silence, but we can see that it doesn't fit all eyewitnesses very well at all, still requires the steep bank that they're only now getting people to mention, and that some specifically refute.

liar.

the interviews have been done recorded and released so cit is not "only now" getting people to mention a bank. cit did not get anyone to mention anything Edited for civility

not one single eyewitness specifically refutes a bank.

Edited for civility

Take heed of this warning, TC - stop being uncivil, and responding emotionally to members instead of the posts.

[bje]

please provide links to where i can hear/see these accounts or quit making up lies.

TC, please provide links to the statements of the over 1,000 people who saw, handled, removed, or sorted through the wreckage from inside the Pentagon so we can see their accounts. Why do you continue to refuse to do so?

[Smackety]

Link both the pre- and post- brainwashing statements so we can compare and contrast, m'kay?

[16.5]

please provide links to where i can hear/see these accounts or quit making up lies.

please provide links to where i can hear/see Morin's second interviwe or quit making up lies.

By the way, can someone tell me where exponent's analysis is? That ATS board is a complete headache.

Thanks.

[Jonnyclueless]

Not one witness refutes a giant banana either.

[ihaunter]

As a service to those with reading comprehension problems, I will rephrase a critical point that has been made by several individuals in this thread, including the person who created the flight path in question. (No apologies necessary)

This flight path completely disagrees with 10+ of your 12+ witnesses.

I realize that it partially disagrees with the witnesses that it did use, but stating that would just confuse them more.

If the graphic that TC posted is an accurate representation of the proposed path, I wouldn't really call it "North of." It's more "over top of the northern part." Maybe I'm just too picky.

[Reheat]

By the way, can someone tell me where exponent's analysis is? That ATS board is a complete headache.

Thanks.

Indeed, ATS is impossible. It is merely a path between Paik and somewhere near the impact point just barely north of the Citgo canopy that ignores Morin's statements as well as those from LaGasse and the ANC people. CIT/pfffft posted the same path some months ago prior to Morin entering the equation.

We've all seen it before. It requires about 60 degrees of bank all the way from Paik to the impact point at the Pentagon at all plausible speeds It ignores Morin, it ignores ANC people, it ignores the pull up, in other words "while adhering to the witnesses' statements all NoC flight paths are IMPOSSIBLE".

Even considering Morin's supposed revised statement for which there is no verification, it doesn't change anything. It is still impossible under the conditions their witnesses have specified.

[16.5]

It is merely a path between Paik and somewhere near the impact point just barely north of the Citgo canopy that ignores Morin's statements as well as those from LaGasse and the ANC people. CIT/pfffft posted the same path some months ago prior to Morin entering the equation.
Even considering Morin's supposed revised statement for which there is no verification, it doesn't change anything. It is still impossible under the conditions their witnesses have specified.

Hee hee, Craig's mystery second interview with Morin.

Anyhow, back to old Dom: why are you talking about the NOC flight path. We've said all along that CIT Flight path is impossible.

You know over the Annex, big swinging bank while descending north of the Citgo, dip below tree level, pull out of the bank, pull out of the descent, pull up and over the Pentagon at the impact site.

You guys know how important the math is, tell Craig and those mutts over at Pffft top make with the math.

ps: I LOVED your BBC thread Dom!

[TC329]

TC, please provide links to the statements of the over 1,000 people who saw, handled, removed, or sorted through the wreckage from inside the Pentagon so we can see their accounts. Why do you continue to refuse to do so?

because there aren't.

i can't prove a negative.

if there are statements of over a thousand people who handled debris as you claim there are then you should link them for us instead of lying.

[TC329]

Hee hee, Craig's mystery second interview with Morin.

Anyhow, back to old Dom: why are you talking about the NOC flight path. We've said all along that CIT Flight path is impossible.


it looked like the 65 yard field goal was good but the home team move the posts just before the ball could clear!!!


ps: I LOVED your BBC thread Dom!

glad you're a fan.

why didn't the bbc list where all the missing money went?

[bje]

because there aren't.

Because you all refused to interview them. And you and we know full well why you won't.

i can't prove a negative.It's not proving a negative. It's called doing a proper investigation of the evidence.

if there are statements of over a thousand people who handled debris as you claim there are then you should link them for us instead of lying.Sorry, snoots, you can't get out the burden of proof of doing your own investigation. It's entirely YOUR claim, that of CIT, and that of Balsamo et al that the wreckage was either planted, or not that of AA77, and that over 1,000 people were forced to shut up.

You can't support your own claims with evidence.

So stop lying about the evidence, TC329, ok? You know full well that the only reason why you will NOT provide or get any statements from the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage is because those people and wreckage completely debunk all of your claims. You have absolutely no ability to counter anything any of those witnesses would tell you and you dare not touch the subject with a ten-foot pole.

After all, if AA77 had flown over the Pentagon, you would have had 1,000 witnesses to support your claim. And a whole lot of actual eyewitnesses to a flyover around Metro Washington to boot. But you don't.

When will start telling the truth, Dom? You know full well we all see right through you.

[TC329]

Because you all refused to interview them. And you and we know full well why you won't.

who is you all?

i never refused to interview anyone.

please provide links to people refusing to interview the "thousand" people you invented in your head that you didn't even prove existed yet.

blah blah blah thousand people [no proof] blah blah blah thousand people thousand blah blah thousand people blah blah blah.

any proof there were a thousand people handling debris at the pentagon?

[beachnut]

who is you all?

i never refused to interview anyone.

please provide links to people refusing to interview the "thousand" people you invented in your head that you didn't even prove existed yet.

blah blah blah thousand people [no proof] blah blah blah thousand people thousand blah blah thousand people blah blah blah.

any proof there were a thousand people handling debris at the pentagon?
You lost again.

You have no path that is possible. ZERO!

If you disagree post the image of the path. Waiting.

[bje]

i never refused to interview anyone.


Then let's see your interviews of those who saw or removed the wreckage from inside the Pentagon.

Let's see your interviews of those who sorted through the wreckage on the Pentagon lawn in the days and weeks after 9/11.

In the open, under an open tent.

What did they see? What was the nature of the wreckage they brought out and sorted?

Where are your interview of these key eyewitnesses, TC329?

[pomeroo]

Perhaps i'm being cynical, but I really can't see the alarm in this NoC nonsense.
At the end of the day, all the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony supports the fact that a plane flew into - not over - the Pentagon.

Arguing vehemently about which side of a gas station the plane flew past, is like arguing the colour of shoes Jeffrey Dahmer wore when grotesquely murdering innocent civilians.
It's just so far beyond the point of focus.


Exactly! Right on the money!

[pomeroo]

because there aren't.

i can't prove a negative.

if there are statements of over a thousand people who handled debris as you claim there are then you should link them for us instead of lying.


The liars and morons of the CIT are too stupid to understand that discrepancies in eyewitness accounts mean very little. Survivors of the Titanic were divided over whether the ship went straight down or broke in half. Did their disagreement prove that it didn't sink at all. Explain your answer.

No, you won't answer. None of you frauds ever answer.

[16.5]

it looked like the 65 yard field goal was good but the home team move the posts just before the ball could clear!!!

glad you're a fan.

why didn't the bbc list where all the missing money went?

Dom, you were SO close and then went and got yourself banned!

Now who is going to be CIT's water boy and all around stooge?

Now who is going to give us the math for CIT's silly little flight path.

Now who is going to post hilarious threads like the BBC is controlled by the US and use as evidence an article from the BBC?

Dom, may you always fly as high as a SkyWarrior flying under a power line.

Farewell Sweet angry Prince.

[bje]

Dom, you were SO close and then went and got yourself banned!

That was the easiest way DOM could dodge taking any responsibility.

[Bobert]

ahhhhh bobby i just had to take you off ignore to see your brilliant contribution to this thread..........

hmmmmmmmmmmm.

but if the murder was committed from someone on the south side of the murder scene and it has been proven repeatedly through corroborated eyewitness accounts that the killer was always north of the murder scene i think that means you have the wrong guy.

come on bobby you got a little common sense, don't you?
LOL ouch you had me on ingnore?
Many more people here with more expertise who continuallly prove you to be the liar and fraud you are.
I am honored I made your ignore list.
Let me get a tissue to wipe away these tears of joy.
BTW I reported your post due to your constant rule violations of changing a persons handle and being disrespectful.
See ya after your ban.

[Bobert]

ok ron,

you want to continue to use the dead to push your insane conspiracy theory go ahead but sooner or later someone is going to call you out on it.....

looks like sooner is here :


ron please identify one passenger/crew member inside the pentagon and present that photo to the rest of us with undeniable proof it is who you are claiming it is or admit you possess no evidence any of the passengers/crew were recovered inside the pentagon.

It is very telling of you the amount of negative attention you seek.
It would be very interesting to learn more about how you grew up and what extremely negative events occured to shape you.
You will even go so far as to make jokes about the dead of flight 77 to furhter your negative attention seeking behavoir.
The CIT has claimed for well over 2 years now that they have smoking gun evidence yet still the same dance of nothing but forum posts and no traction moving forward getting this evidence to a court.
I am sure if it were for 9-11 there would be another CT you would have latched onto.....bigfoot, UFO's, JFK, little green people living under your bed, etc.

[pomeroo]

It's really irritating that these clowns always seem to get banned when they're hopelessly trapped. Then they skulk off to the loon sites and trumpet their "victory." Frankly, I don't see the point. If we don't want to discuss these matters only with other rationalists, we have to include loons who will inevitably behave badly. Why weed them out for displaying precisely the sort of behavior that defines them?

[PhantomWolf]

please provide links to where i can hear/see these accounts or quit making up lies.

Not that it really matters now cause he got himself banned, but for the lurkers and those interested, the funny thing is that when we went over this in a different thread TC asked the same question after being given the names and then obviously totally ignored the response because he still seems obvious to the quotes. For this that are interested I actually posted them in the other thread; here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4072434&postcount=181).

There are others quoted on the site I reference in that post that also say that Flight 77 crossed I-395, at least one reporting that it flew over the overpass of I-395 before heading down into the Pentagon. CIT and TC totally ignore these witness that all have the Flightpath too far south simply because they can't mesh their accounts with the NoC claim they want so much. It is far easier to simply claim they don't exist because then they can avoid trying to figure out how to claim those that had a too far south flight path were Government stooges when they weren't telling the story the Government would have told them too. Oh well.

[GT/CS]

Why do y'all put up with and respond to such an obvious troll? He doesn't even try to hide the fact!!!

[A W Smith]

after four tries at suicide by mod.


hang himself with yarn
jump off a bridge but turns out it was a culvert
OD on baby aspirin
attempt a head on collision on an abandoned section of the pa turnpike (http://www.pahighways.com/toll/abandonedturnpike.html)
Dumbenick succeeds by repeatedly pounding himself on his bald head with a large rock of stupid.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Somebody fill me in. Was flight 77 NoC or not?

Was it once claimed it wasn't but now isn't important and might have been. Or is it still not NoC?

[A W Smith]

Somebody fill me in. Was flight 77 NoC or not?

Was it once claimed it wasn't but now isn't important and might have been. Or is it still not NoC?

Flight 77 was never NoC

[doobiedoright]

Flight 77 was never NoC

You would think a no-planer would know this.....oh wait.....

[e^n]

please provide links to where i can hear/see Morin's second interviwe or quit making up lies.

By the way, can someone tell me where exponent's analysis is? That ATS board is a complete headache.

Thanks.

My analysis was a simple circular flight path so we could apply the simple equations for a level turn to determine the bank angle required. I don't have a handy link to the post unfortunately, but this is the flight path I constructed:

http://xs128.xs.to/xs128/08243/pentagonleastforce801.jpg.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08243&f=pentagonleastforce801.jpg)

[gc051360]

Is the entire theory of this CIT group, based on a few comments by witnesses?

[Cobalt]

Is the entire theory of this CIT group, based on a few comments by witnesses?

I believe so. If I'm not mistaken, however, all of the witnesses they refer to say the plane hit the Pentagon.

Others around here know better than I would, having dealt with their particular brand of crap numerous times.

[e^n]

Is the entire theory of this CIT group, based on a few comments by witnesses?

Yes. Essentially the bulk of their claim is made up from 3 witnesses. All three were at the Citgo station on 911 and identify the plane as passing North of their position, which would result in the plane being unable to impact light poles or hit the building as described.

They have inflated this number to 13, by including everyone they can who can possibly disagree with the "official story" in any manner. This includes people who were north of either flight path and unable to judge, people who watched the plane impact the building, people who did not see the impact nor the Citgo at all etc.

It's a difficult claim to counter though, because they will push radically to require that you find people who specifically mention the plane passing south of the Citgo. Despite the fact that the plane impacting the pentagon is mutually exclusive with the North of Citgo claim, finding more than 13 eyewitnesses to the plane actually impacting does not convince them. Their rationale for this is that these people were simply fooled by the plane flying over followed by a large explosion. To provide evidence for this they use dubious computer renderings, misrepresent accounts and selectively quote witnesses. They also accuse people of lying and being part of a coverup, including an elderly cab driver whos car was hit by a light pole hit by the plane.

The balance of evidence shows them to be wrong, but accurately illustrating this for the third person is difficult.

[gc051360]

The balance of evidence shows them to be wrong, but accurately illustrating this for the third person is difficult.
But essentially the claim is that the plane flew towards the Pentagon....and then veered up?

What hit the Pentagon in their scenario? A missile?

I don't usually go into specifics, because "DNA evidence of passengers identified at scene" pretty much closes the door for me. And if someone counters with "that is faked"...I don't quite know how to respond. So the debate usually ends right there.

eta: I usually try to ask some questions about why they believe the evidence was faked....but it's tough to get a straight answer a lot of times. And it's hard to stay on one topic when arguing with truthers. They change the subject quite a bit.

[e^n]

But essentially the claim is that the plane flew towards the Pentagon....and then veered up?
Yes, the plane originated roughly on the "official flight path", veered north a bit (or a lot, depending on which witness you talk to) then flew over the Pentagon (actually pulling up at the last second, that's one hell of a pilot!)

What hit the Pentagon in their scenario? A missile?
Preplanted bombs exploded.

I don't usually go into specifics, because "DNA evidence of passengers identified at scene" pretty much closes the door for me. And if someone counters with "that is faked"...I don't quite know how to respond. So the debate usually ends right there.
Well you can start by quoting one of the first responders who specifically mentioned and confirmed seeing airline passengers bodies strapped into seats, but yeah at that point you should pretty much give up.

eta: I usually try to ask some questions about why they believe the evidence was faked....but it's tough to get a straight answer a lot of times. And it's hard to stay on one topic when arguing with truthers. They change the subject quite a bit.
Indeed, it's a sad case. I've been trying to get the motivation together for a long time to produce some sort of resource which can easily show them to be wrong right up to the limit of credulity. Unfortunately there are so few new claims, and so many quite crazy people out there that nobody (including me) cares enough :)

[Reheat]

Here's a list of the things that prove the CIT crap wrong.

1. The physical evidence (FDR, flight path damage, wreckage, DNA, etc.)
2. 84th RADES data (Radar Records)
3. Reagan National Radar records
4. Andrews AFB Radar Records
5. ATC Communications Recordings
6. Tribby Video
7. Looney Photographs
8. Aerodynamic Analysis of required flight paths
9. Common Sense

[gc051360]

Yes, the plane originated roughly on the "official flight path", veered north a bit (or a lot, depending on which witness you talk to) then flew over the Pentagon (actually pulling up at the last second, that's one hell of a pilot!)

Preplanted bombs exploded.
So....the plan was to fly a plane towards the Pentagon...make it look like it was going to hit, but then pull up at the last minute, and have explosives go off that make it look like the plane hit the building?

That'd be the dumbest plan ever.

Also. Wouldn't people be able to see the plane flying away? In the distance? If it flew over the Pentagon, it didn't just disappear, did it?


Well you can start by quoting one of the first responders who specifically mentioned and confirmed seeing airline passengers bodies strapped into seats, but yeah at that point you should pretty much give up.
If someone can claim that DNA evidence is fabricated, what's to stop them from claiming everything is fabricated? That everyone is in on it?

That's a bridge you cross, that there's really no going back. When any evidence you present is met with "Yeah, but that's fake"....there's no point.

[e^n]

So....the plan was to fly a plane towards the Pentagon...make it look like it was going to hit, but then pull up at the last minute, and have explosives go off that make it look like the plane hit the building?
Precisely. They've also called into conflict the identity of the plane, because lets face it if you're going to do such a ludicrous plan, why not switch the original plane and incur even more potential problems!

Also. Wouldn't people be able to see the plane flying away? In the distance? If it flew over the Pentagon, it didn't just disappear, did it?
They have one witness who they claim saw it, but their explanation for the rest is that it would 'mix in with traffic from the nearby airport'.

If someone can claim that DNA evidence is fabricated, what's to stop them from claiming everything is fabricated? That everyone is in on it?
Nothing at all, and you've identified one of the key problems with conspiracy theories, at some point, when you start claiming everything that disagrees with you is fake, you lose any ability to be disproven and slip into the realms of faith, rather than evidence.

[Reheat]

That's a bridge you cross, that there's really no going back. When any evidence you present is met with "Yeah, but that's fake"....there's no point.

That the gist of it... When I did the aerodynamic analysis to show that a Transport Category COULD NOT fly the paths the witnesses indicated, it was labeled as a strawman, with fabricated values, etc, etc.

All I did was take the witnesses statements regarding the aircraft location, connect that position to the next witness etc. and then apply various speeds to that. All done using simply aerodynamic physics. NONE of the paths are feasible.

Both CIT and their followers don't understand the math and attempt to counter it with LIES and personal attacks.

[Horatius]

eta: I usually try to ask some questions about why they believe the evidence was faked....but it's tough to get a straight answer a lot of times.



From what I've seen, their argument essentially boils down to: "We know the evidence is fake, because we know the plane didn't hit the Pentagon."

The evidence is fake because the evidence has to be fake for their beliefs to be true. Therefore, it is fake.

[CptColumbo]

Flight 77 was never NoCJust to be clear, it was at one time North of the Citgo, just not during the period under discussion. :)

ETA: IAD is Northwest of the Pentagon and DCA.

[16.5]

Here's a list of the things that prove the CIT crap wrong.

You are forgetting the testimony of all of CIT's witnesses who said the plane hit the building. hee hee hee!

We seem to spend a lot of time talking about CIT, but they are really just a tick on the ass end of a bug that just hit the windshield.

You know who really hates CIT? Other truthers. Beyond the fact that Aldo and Dom have such horrible personalities, their stupid NoC theory is just so baseless that it actually embarrasses other truthers!

I miss Dom already. Who is going to keep us up to date on breaking BBC reporting about the BBC being censored by the USA as reported in the BBC by the BBC. BBC.

Good night funny man.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So....the plan was to fly a plane towards the Pentagon...make it look like it was going to hit, but then pull up at the last minute, and have explosives go off that make it look like the plane hit the building?

That'd be the dumbest plan ever.


It gets better. I don't know if this was proposed by any member of CIT, but there is/was a variation in which, instead of bombs planted in the Pentagon, a second plane was flying ahead of the "decoy" jet. Basically, the first jet would impact the Pentagon causing the explosion, while the second jet would be the one all the witnesses would notice on the approach. This second jet, of course, would then pull up over the Pentagon and through the fireball caused by the first jet.

At this point I'm wondering why the NWO didn't just throw in a genetically created monster...

Also. Wouldn't people be able to see the plane flying away? In the distance? If it flew over the Pentagon, it didn't just disappear, did it?


According to CIT, they would have been too fixated on the explosion at the Pentagon to notice a commercial airliner screaming just over their heads. :rolleyes:

[PhantomWolf]

They have inflated this number to 13, by including everyone they can who can possibly disagree with the "official story" in any manner.

Not quite true, they refuse to even acknowledge the existance of those that claim that 77 flew over or down I-395, and thus south of the "Offical Flight Path"

[Homeland Insurgency]

You would think a no-planer would know this.....oh wait.....

Who is a no planer?

[beachnut]

Who is a no planer?
Not you? You are the no evidence man.

Is this what you post when you have no clue about a subject?
Will you ever understand the thread, or 9/11?
Great post, thank you very much.


CIT terrorist apologists prove again, they cherry pick, quote mine and make up fantasy conclusions.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Not you? You are the no evidence man.

Is this what you post when you have no clue about a subject?
Will you ever understand the thread, or 9/11?
Great post, thank you very much.


CIT terrorist apologists prove again, they cherry pick, quote mine and make up fantasy conclusions.

What?

[beachnut]

What?
Exactly, you need help to realize you posted in a thread and you have zero to contribute.

Why are all the NoC flight paths impossible? Name three reasons.