IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
What Made The Pilot Fly North Of Citgo?, A blunder or.....?

TrueOrFalse
post Nov 17 2007, 08:50 PM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 10-November 07
Member No.: 2,466



Hi everyone.

I think CIT's research is very good and it may just be the thing that will bust 9/11 inside job wide open, but I'm puzzled by this, and I would like to hear your opinions. Maybe you've already discussed this issue, so I apologize if I missed it.

What made the pilot fly north of Citgo if they were staging south of Citgo approach? It does not make sense at all. Why not fly the plane over light poles or at least closer to them or just say that the plane was flying north of Citgo before it "crashed" in Pentagon?

Was "north of Citgo" the only possible approach in this case? I know they can cover it all up very well, but the question is - was "north of Citgo" a blunder or simply a part of the plan?

Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 17 2007, 10:34 PM
Post #2





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



We highly doubt there was a pilot at all since the evidence shows that it was definitely NOT flight 77.

This is primarily due to the fact that the plane was white and since of course we know that flight 77 completely disappeared as early as 8:56.

What's also notable is how the 9/11 commission has changed their story about when it was located again on radar ultimately settling on not locating it again until about a minute or two before the attack.


Now......

They used a decoy plane to fool people into believing it hit the building and make sure the people of the neighborhoods heard and saw a large plane.

But the deception couldn't rely on the sleight of hand alone so a 2nd plane cover story was necessary.

They had accounts of other "mysterious" planes including the E4B and the C-130 in the area and even had an ambiguous "2nd plane/jet" that was allegedly "following" the AA jet and "veered away" at the time of the explosion. This was later revealed as supposedly being the C-130 but the pilot himself tells a very different story.

Basically if the decoy jet didn't fool everyone they could simply say it was another plane and that AA77 hit the building.

So they fabricated a flight path and slowly leaked data to support it including the 2006 NTSB data and now the recently released RADES data but in reality this decoy jet took a completely different flight path.


It sounds confusing but the bottom line is this:

They had it fly north of the citgo so it could be blended with accounts of the C-130 and the E4B and an ambiguous non-existent "2nd plane/jet" that "followed" AA77 as an explanation for anyone who saw it fly over the building.

Or perhaps it was simply a last moment mistake.

Either way it proves a military deception.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Nov 17 2007, 10:37 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Nov 18 2007, 06:16 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE (TrueOrFalse @ Nov 18 2007, 01:50 PM)
Hi everyone.

I think CIT's research is very good and it may just be the thing that will bust 9/11 inside job wide open, but I'm puzzled by this, and I would like to hear your opinions. Maybe you've already discussed this issue, so I apologize if I missed it.

What made the pilot fly north of Citgo if they were staging south of Citgo approach? It does not make sense at all. Why not fly the plane over light poles or at least closer to them or just say that the plane was flying north of Citgo before it "crashed" in Pentagon?

Was "north of Citgo" the only possible approach in this case? I know they can cover it all up very well, but the question is - was "north of Citgo" a blunder or simply a part of the plan?

Thanks.

Well if it was deliberate, it makes more sense than flying the flight path of the poles. It is close enough to confuse but not so close that there is a chance of a random witness swearing it was not low enough to hit the poles.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Nov 19 2007, 10:10 PM
Post #4





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



this is a very good question --

you have to think to yourself -- did the 9/11 "plot" go off as planned, or were there unexpected glitches, delays, accidents, etc?

if so, what would the "Fallback" or contingency plan be?

here's how I would have done it....

the Pentagon was supposed to be struck FIRST
it would be alleged that the Pentagon strike crippled defense response.
then WTC1, 2 etc.

we can't conclude the the "plan" went off without a glitch. if you look at AA77 radar track, see the wierd northward jug-handle turn early in the flight. then it goes back on course... what was that>?

Finally AA77 'disappears' from radar at 8:56...

so anything that happens at Pentagon after that may, or may not, have f-all to do with AA77 plane.

The plane seen over/near/flying by/flying into Pentagon (take your pick) appears NOT to have been AA77.

as craig says, either way, the massive loose ends, unexplained features, planted witnesses cry out "military psychological operation"

that's pretty much all you need to know.

the rest is just curiosity..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Nov 20 2007, 10:11 PM
Post #5


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (KP50 @ Nov 18 2007, 10:16 PM)
QUOTE (TrueOrFalse @ Nov 18 2007, 01:50 PM)
Hi everyone.

I think CIT's research is very good and it may just be the thing that will bust 9/11 inside job wide open, but I'm puzzled by this, and I would like to hear your opinions. Maybe you've already discussed this issue, so I apologize if I missed it.

What made the pilot fly north of Citgo if they were staging south of Citgo approach? It does not make sense at all. Why not fly the plane over light poles or at least closer to them or just say that the plane was flying north of Citgo before it "crashed" in Pentagon?

Was "north of Citgo" the only possible approach in this case? I know they can cover it all up very well, but the question is - was "north of Citgo" a blunder or simply a part of the plan?

Thanks.

Well if it was deliberate, it makes more sense than flying the flight path of the poles. It is close enough to confuse but not so close that there is a chance of a random witness swearing it was not low enough to hit the poles.

yes1.gif

Hand this man a prize. Perhaps a case of JackD's corndogs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Nov 22 2007, 03:25 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 21 2007, 03:11 PM)
QUOTE (KP50 @ Nov 18 2007, 10:16 PM)
QUOTE (TrueOrFalse @ Nov 18 2007, 01:50 PM)
Hi everyone.

I think CIT's research is very good and it may just be the thing that will bust 9/11 inside job wide open, but I'm puzzled by this, and I would like to hear your opinions. Maybe you've already discussed this issue, so I apologize if I missed it.

What made the pilot fly north of Citgo if they were staging south of Citgo approach? It does not make sense at all. Why not fly the plane over light poles or at least closer to them or just say that the plane was flying north of Citgo before it "crashed" in Pentagon?

Was "north of Citgo" the only possible approach in this case? I know they can cover it all up very well, but the question is - was "north of Citgo" a blunder or simply a part of the plan?

Thanks.

Well if it was deliberate, it makes more sense than flying the flight path of the poles. It is close enough to confuse but not so close that there is a chance of a random witness swearing it was not low enough to hit the poles.

yes1.gif

Hand this man a prize. Perhaps a case of JackD's corndogs.

A prize? Woohoo!

My prize today is having an American friend here in New Zealand who invites us for Thanksgiving every year.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Nov 22 2007, 09:34 PM
Post #7





Group: Contributor
Posts: 312
Joined: 28-August 07
Member No.: 1,875



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 20 2007, 09:11 PM)
QUOTE (KP50 @ Nov 18 2007, 10:16 PM)
QUOTE (TrueOrFalse @ Nov 18 2007, 01:50 PM)
Hi everyone.

I think CIT's research is very good and it may just be the thing that will bust 9/11 inside job wide open, but I'm puzzled by this, and I would like to hear your opinions. Maybe you've already discussed this issue, so I apologize if I missed it.

What made the pilot fly north of Citgo if they were staging south of Citgo approach? It does not make sense at all. Why not fly the plane over light poles or at least closer to them or just say that the plane was flying north of Citgo before it "crashed" in Pentagon?

Was "north of Citgo" the only possible approach in this case? I know they can cover it all up very well, but the question is - was "north of Citgo" a blunder or simply a part of the plan?

Thanks.

Well if it was deliberate, it makes more sense than flying the flight path of the poles. It is close enough to confuse but not so close that there is a chance of a random witness swearing it was not low enough to hit the poles.

yes1.gif

Hand this man a prize. Perhaps a case of JackD's corndogs.

I have to agree.

The South approach would requite a much lower flying plane and possible impact and risks the whole operation as the slightest mistake could cause the actual plane to crash before impact and then the whole operation is blown.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Nov 26 2007, 02:12 PM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



The CornDogs are on their way, first class shipping, to New Zealand.

i suspect the flight path on North Side was either a partial error, a last-minute "fix" -- or as KP50 wrote, "if they really flew down south side, witness might say plane wasnt low enough to strike light poles"

Military & sensitive covert operations generally have one, two or three layers of "contingency" plans, in case Plan A falls through, there is an immediate Plan B.

We cant assume that what we saw at Pentagon was PLAN A. it may have been plan B, plan C, or some wierd combination of 2 or more.

however, the north side flight path was indeed close enough to confuse witnesses. the KEY would be to get the south-side witness & light pole story out in the news FIRST and then push it hard -- like Bobby Eberle did.

that way, any dissenting voices would be silenced.... out of uncertainty .. who is brave enough to go against the masses?

oh yeah, CIT is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Nov 30 2007, 05:20 AM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE (JackD @ Nov 27 2007, 07:12 AM)
The CornDogs are on their way, first class shipping, to New Zealand.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is a corn dog? Is it vegetarian?

A question for the CIT guys? How many people have now claimed the north of the Citgo route for the plane?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 30 2007, 11:27 AM
Post #10





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (KP50 @ Nov 30 2007, 09:20 AM)
QUOTE (JackD @ Nov 27 2007, 07:12 AM)
The CornDogs are on their way, first class shipping, to New Zealand.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is a corn dog? Is it vegetarian?

A question for the CIT guys? How many people have now claimed the north of the Citgo route for the plane?

laugh.gif

Not quite!



Don't worry....you don't have to eat them....it's just an inside joke.
tongue.gif



So far we have 6 genuine witnesses who all saw the plane on the north side.

See the new thread for the 2 most recent ones.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Nov 30 2007, 04:23 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 1 2007, 04:27 AM)
QUOTE (KP50 @ Nov 30 2007, 09:20 AM)
QUOTE (JackD @ Nov 27 2007, 07:12 AM)
The CornDogs are on their way, first class shipping, to New Zealand.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is a corn dog? Is it vegetarian?

A question for the CIT guys? How many people have now claimed the north of the Citgo route for the plane?

laugh.gif

Not quite!



Don't worry....you don't have to eat them....it's just an inside joke.
tongue.gif



So far we have 6 genuine witnesses who all saw the plane on the north side.

See the new thread for the 2 most recent ones.

Just woken up - that image will haunt me for the rest of the day now.

So 6 witnesses say north side. The Government apologists retort with "but they all say it hit the Pentagon" as if the key point is the hitting of the building not the fact that we have light poles unaccountably falling .....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd September 2019 - 06:37 AM