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 )

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
More jthomas Speculation that Aa77 Did Not Fly Over The Pentagon, Edited due to over-ambitious use of the word "proof"

jthomas
post Oct 26 2008, 08:38 AM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 62
Joined: 15-March 08
Member No.: 2,952



Pentagon View Shed Analysis #1

I'm going to take a look at CIT's claim of a "flyover" from a realistic perspective by showing a View Shed analysis of the topography around the Pentagon to demonstrate the visibility of any aircraft flying over the Pentagon from any location in the area.

This analysis is not needed in any way to refute CIT's claims. Numerous individuals have easily refuted all of CIT's claims (despite angry denials to the contrary) here and on other forums. Reheat has done a masterful job right here. I am doing this because it just further illustrates why CIT refuses to deal with evidence and eyewitness reports.

A View Shed Analysis is a common feature of GIS software and is used to determine the optimal placement and height of transmission antennas intended for television, radio, public utility, microwave, phone, and cell phone usage. It's use is intended for hilly or mountainous areas where topography presents obstructions in direct line-of-sight transmissions, or broadest area coverage, between transmitters and receivers.

I've done a View Shed analysis to illustrate a fundamental problem CIT has with its claims that a "flyover" took place - but no such "flyover" has ever been reported.

CIT claims that one eyewitness, one Roosevelt Roberts, stated that he saw a jet fly over the Pentagon and then took a route to the left over the Potomac River, flying south of The Mall. This is the only eyewitness CIT has ever presented to a so-called "flyover" after persistent requests for eyewitnesses for a long time.

CIT now claims that this sole, apparent eyewitness, "proves" that a "flyover" took place in a planned, calculated deception by the "government" to deceive people into believing a passenger jet, American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon.

CIT has stated, for the record, that interviews with 13 other "eyewitnesses" have demonstrated conclusively that AA77 flew on the "north side of the Citgo gas station rather than the south side as the government has claimed," thereby flying a route to the Pentagon that, if it had crashed into the Pentagon, would have produced damage entirely inconsistent with the observed damage. (Not insignificantly, each of CIT's 13 eyewitnesses were in a position to see an aircraft approach the Pentagon.)

Therefore, CIT concludes, the observed jet could not have flown into the Pentagon but, consistent with the statements of 14 "eyewitnesses" CIT found, the jet must have flown over the Pentagon to land in parts unknown. Furthermore, CIT claims, a deliberate deception was planned so that, as the jet began its flyover, a pre-planted bomb in the Pentagon, at the intersection of the flight path of the jet, was detonated producing both an explosion and smoke that obscured the view of the 13 apparent eyewitnesses CIT relies on for its claim that a flyover took place.

I have confined my study to the claim that a "flyover" could have taken place without there being eyewitnesses anywhere on the far side of the Pentagon whose views would never have been obscured by the explosion and subsequent smoke column.

Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, sole members of CIT, the "Citizens Investigation Team," have declared individually and separately that no other eyewitnesses to a "flyover" are required. They put their sole trust in 13 eyewitnesses whom they readily acknowledge whose views of an actual flyover would have been obscured by the "explosion" and resultant smoke column at the Pentagon. There remains the one eyewitness, Roosevelt Roberts, on whom CIT's entire claim that a "flyover" took place rests.

The observation comes immediately to mind that if a flyover took place whose flight path would take the jet over and within view of a densely populated geographic area as it flew away from the Pentagon - and the explosion that took place - including heavily-travelled freeways and bridges, should there not be eyewitness reports from a wide geographic area on the other side of the Pentagon in which no topographical obstructions existed? CIT has been asked that question repeatedly and the response has either been that those eyewitnesses are not needed or, "do your own investigation."

The topography around Washington includes obvious obstructions of buildings, trees, overpasses, etc., which are not included in this first run. Obviously, a person standing behind trees or buildings obstructing the view toward the Pentagon, or looking in a different direction altogether, isn't going to witness a plane over the Pentagon as an explosion takes place there. That changes, of course, as the plane moves forward, climbs, and turns.

What is the probability that a such "flyover" could take place in a densely populated metropolis, with many drivers on various roads and bridges around the Pentagon, a spectacular explosion and smoke alerting numerous motorists, and unrefuted testimony that a jet was seen approaching and crashing into the Pentagon at high speed?

I am not in a position to calculate such a probability, but I am in a position to define the extent of the geographic area in which a plane over the Pentagon could have been easily seen.

In this view, I have deliberately limited the range to the jet to two miles, a reasonable distance in which an aircraft the size of a 757 would draw attention moving away from the Pentagon after an explosion. Of course, the jet can been easily at a further distance away.

This instantaneous view places the jet at 100 feet above ground level (not above the building itself) over the central courtyard of the Pentagon. The yellow-shaded area shows the geographic areas up to two miles away from that jet in which a person whose eyesight is five feet above the ground could see that jet, given the observation limitations of structures and vegetation outlined above. Any person within the two-mile range not shaded yellow would be unable to see a jet 100 feet above the ground over the Pentagon courtyard. As one can see, these are very few. It should be obvious as the jet moves forward, and climbs, on a flight path away from the Pentagon, the geographical area at a two-mile range expands, opportunity for it to be observed increases, and the number of potential eyewitnesses increases.




It should also be obvious how the potential for drivers on the freeways and bridges, whose positions are changing and whose attention is necessarily on their surroundings, are in an excellent position to see a jet fly away from the Pentagon, many of whom would see the jet in a direct line of sight to the fireball rising from the Pentagon.

Yet there are no such reports.

This View Shed analysis illustrates the tremendous problem CIT has in facing the probability that many numbers of eyewitnesses would most certainly have seen a flyover take place from a large geographic area and that no such reports have ever surfaced. It also illustrates why CIT refuses to look for any such eyewitnesses. We can imagine many drivers stuck in freeway traffic seeing the explosion at the Pentagon, immediately followed by a jet flying fast and climbing from the direction of the Pentagon. Some would reasonably think there is a connection - perhaps the aircraft dropped a bomb.

But the big problem for CIT is a very reasonable situation. These people who would have seen a flyover would wonder why there were no subsequent media reports of a flyover. Would not even a handful contact media outlets, each competing with each other for breaking news, and say, "Wait a minute! There was a jet flying away from the Pentagon right after the explosion!"

Furthermore, CIT's reliance on Roosevelt Roberts' description of the jet's turn to the left over the river actually puts CIT in a no-win position of having a jet visible from a large area.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Oct 26 2008, 09:42 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (jthomas @ Oct 26 2008, 05:38 AM) *
Pentagon View Shed Analysis #1

I'm going to take a look at CIT's claim of a "flyover" from a realistic perspective by showing a View Shed analysis of the topography around the Pentagon to demonstrate the visibility of any aircraft flying over the Pentagon from any location in the area.

This analysis is not needed in any way to refute CIT's claims. Numerous individuals have easily refuted all of CIT's claims (despite angry denials to the contrary) here and on other forums. Reheat has done a masterful job right here. I am doing this because it just further illustrates why CIT refuses to deal with evidence and eyewitness reports.

A View Shed Analysis is a common feature of GIS software and is used to determine the optimal placement and height of transmission antennas intended for television, radio, public utility, microwave, phone, and cell phone usage. It's use is intended for hilly or mountainous areas where topography presents obstructions in direct line-of-sight transmissions, or broadest area coverage, between transmitters and receivers.

I've done a View Shed analysis to illustrate a fundamental problem CIT has with its claims that a "flyover" took place - but no such "flyover" has ever been reported.

CIT claims that one eyewitness, one Roosevelt Roberts, stated that he saw a jet fly over the Pentagon and then took a route to the left over the Potomac River, flying south of The Mall. This is the only eyewitness CIT has ever presented to a so-called "flyover" after persistent requests for eyewitnesses for a long time.

CIT now claims that this sole, apparent eyewitness, "proves" that a "flyover" took place in a planned, calculated deception by the "government" to deceive people into believing a passenger jet, American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon.

CIT has stated, for the record, that interviews with 13 other "eyewitnesses" have demonstrated conclusively that AA77 flew on the "north side of the Citgo gas station rather than the south side as the government has claimed," thereby flying a route to the Pentagon that, if it had crashed into the Pentagon, would have produced damage entirely inconsistent with the observed damage. (Not insignificantly, each of CIT's 13 eyewitnesses were in a position to see an aircraft approach the Pentagon.)

Therefore, CIT concludes, the observed jet could not have flown into the Pentagon but, consistent with the statements of 14 "eyewitnesses" CIT found, the jet must have flown over the Pentagon to land in parts unknown. Furthermore, CIT claims, a deliberate deception was planned so that, as the jet began its flyover, a pre-planted bomb in the Pentagon, at the intersection of the flight path of the jet, was detonated producing both an explosion and smoke that obscured the view of the 13 apparent eyewitnesses CIT relies on for its claim that a flyover took place.

I have confined my study to the claim that a "flyover" could have taken place without there being eyewitnesses anywhere on the far side of the Pentagon whose views would never have been obscured by the explosion and subsequent smoke column.

Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, sole members of CIT, the "Citizens Investigation Team," have declared individually and separately that no other eyewitnesses to a "flyover" are required. They put their sole trust in 13 eyewitnesses whom they readily acknowledge whose views of an actual flyover would have been obscured by the "explosion" and resultant smoke column at the Pentagon. There remains the one eyewitness, Roosevelt Roberts, on whom CIT's entire claim that a "flyover" took place rests.

The observation comes immediately to mind that if a flyover took place whose flight path would take the jet over and within view of a densely populated geographic area as it flew away from the Pentagon - and the explosion that took place - including heavily-travelled freeways and bridges, should there not be eyewitness reports from a wide geographic area on the other side of the Pentagon in which no topographical obstructions existed? CIT has been asked that question repeatedly and the response has either been that those eyewitnesses are not needed or, "do your own investigation."

The topography around Washington includes obvious obstructions of buildings, trees, overpasses, etc., which are not included in this first run. Obviously, a person standing behind trees or buildings obstructing the view toward the Pentagon, or looking in a different direction altogether, isn't going to witness a plane over the Pentagon as an explosion takes place there. That changes, of course, as the plane moves forward, climbs, and turns.

What is the probability that a such "flyover" could take place in a densely populated metropolis, with many drivers on various roads and bridges around the Pentagon, a spectacular explosion and smoke alerting numerous motorists, and unrefuted testimony that a jet was seen approaching and crashing into the Pentagon at high speed?

I am not in a position to calculate such a probability, but I am in a position to define the extent of the geographic area in which a plane over the Pentagon could have been easily seen.

In this view, I have deliberately limited the range to the jet to two miles, a reasonable distance in which an aircraft the size of a 757 would draw attention moving away from the Pentagon after an explosion. Of course, the jet can been easily at a further distance away.

This instantaneous view places the jet at 100 feet above ground level (not above the building itself) over the central courtyard of the Pentagon. The yellow-shaded area shows the geographic areas up to two miles away from that jet in which a person whose eyesight is five feet above the ground could see that jet, given the observation limitations of structures and vegetation outlined above. Any person within the two-mile range not shaded yellow would be unable to see a jet 100 feet above the ground over the Pentagon courtyard. As one can see, these are very few. It should be obvious as the jet moves forward, and climbs, on a flight path away from the Pentagon, the geographical area at a two-mile range expands, opportunity for it to be observed increases, and the number of potential eyewitnesses increases.




It should also be obvious how the potential for drivers on the freeways and bridges, whose positions are changing and whose attention is necessarily on their surroundings, are in an excellent position to see a jet fly away from the Pentagon, many of whom would see the jet in a direct line of sight to the fireball rising from the Pentagon.

Yet there are no such reports.

This View Shed analysis illustrates the tremendous problem CIT has in facing the probability that many numbers of eyewitnesses would most certainly have seen a flyover take place from a large geographic area and that no such reports have ever surfaced. It also illustrates why CIT refuses to look for any such eyewitnesses. We can imagine many drivers stuck in freeway traffic seeing the explosion at the Pentagon, immediately followed by a jet flying fast and climbing from the direction of the Pentagon. Some would reasonably think there is a connection - perhaps the aircraft dropped a bomb.

But the big problem for CIT is a very reasonable situation. These people who would have seen a flyover would wonder why there were no subsequent media reports of a flyover. Would not even a handful contact media outlets, each competing with each other for breaking news, and say, "Wait a minute! There was a jet flying away from the Pentagon right after the explosion!"

Furthermore, CIT's reliance on Roosevelt Roberts' description of the jet's turn to the left over the river actually puts CIT in a no-win position of having a jet visible from a large area.


5 frames of video is all the evidence anyone needs to see,
from the most secure building in the world,
that must be covered by security cameras running 24/7.
National security for a hidden agenda?
Give it up.

It's hard to notice a gorilla walking out of the room,
when there is a giant explosion followed
by more explosions and great balls of fire!

Misdirection: and old magician trick.




imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jthomas
post Oct 26 2008, 04:18 PM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 62
Joined: 15-March 08
Member No.: 2,952



QUOTE (lunk @ Oct 26 2008, 09:42 AM) *
5 frames of video is all the evidence anyone needs to see,


No video is needed. We have all the evidence which demonstrates that AA77 hit the Pentagon. My analysis above demonstrates conclusively the absurdity of thinking there would be no eyewitnesses seeing AA77 fly over and away from the Pentagon.

CIT claimed there was a flyover yet cannot demonstrate it with evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Oct 26 2008, 07:31 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (jthomas @ Oct 26 2008, 01:18 PM) *
No video is needed. We have all the evidence which demonstrates that AA77 hit the Pentagon. My analysis above demonstrates conclusively the absurdity of thinking there would be no eyewitnesses seeing AA77 fly over and away from the Pentagon.

CIT claimed there was a flyover yet cannot demonstrate it with evidence.


Well, if this is the case, in your analysis,
why haven't they release other video,
that they have.

Cordite smelling, liquidizing airplanes, folding wings, vaporizing engines,
leaving a hole only 16 rabbits wide, and sliding horizontally along the floor
from flying in at any altitude...

...what's wrong with this picture.

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
richard cranium
post Oct 26 2008, 07:44 PM
Post #5





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 276
Joined: 30-December 06
From: california
Member No.: 390



QUOTE (lunk @ Oct 24 2008, 09:31 PM) *
Well, if this is the case, in your analysis,
why haven't they release other video,
that they have.

Cordite smelling, liquidizing airplanes, folding wings, vaporizing engines,
leaving a hole only 16 rabbits wide, and sliding horizontally along the floor
from flying in at any altitude...

...what's wrong with this picture.

imo, lunk



YEAH!! GO LUNK!

rc
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leslie Landry
post Oct 26 2008, 08:56 PM
Post #6





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 2-May 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,264



Lets not forget the Flight Data Recorder...Are you saying that's something to dismiss as well Jthomas? or have you not studied that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Oct 27 2008, 01:59 AM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (jthomas @ Oct 30 2008, 03:18 PM) *
No video is needed. We have all the evidence which demonstrates that AA77 hit the Pentagon.



You're serious???

I file that theory with the one that the sun revolves around the earth.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jthomas
post Oct 27 2008, 08:54 AM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 62
Joined: 15-March 08
Member No.: 2,952



QUOTE (lunk @ Oct 26 2008, 07:31 PM) *
Well, if this is the case, in your analysis,
why haven't they release other video,
that they have.


Whether there are videos or not is irrelevant to knowing that AA77 hit the Pentagon. I repeat, video is not needed to know whether AA77 hit the Pentagon or not. This is an obvious fact since we have all the other evidence that already demonstrates AA77 hit the Pentagon.

QUOTE
Cordite smelling, liquidizing airplanes, folding wings, vaporizing engines,
leaving a hole only 16 rabbits wide, and sliding horizontally along the floor
from flying in at any altitude...

...what's wrong with this picture.


What's wrong is that you believe it and that you can't produce evidence that AA77 flew over the Pentagon.

Pretty simple, wouldn't you agree?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jthomas
post Oct 27 2008, 09:01 AM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 62
Joined: 15-March 08
Member No.: 2,952



QUOTE (Leslie Landry @ Oct 26 2008, 08:56 PM) *
Lets not forget the Flight Data Recorder...Are you saying that's something to dismiss as well Jthomas? or have you not studied that?


You need to provide positive proof that AA 77 flew over the Pentagon. If you think the FDR data raises questions that AA 77 might not have hit the Pentagon but, instead, flew over it, then you need to provide positive evidence that it flew over the Pentagon. Absolutely none has been presented.

My analysis clearly demonstrates the absurdity of believing that AA77 flew over and away from the Pentagon without a single eyewitness or media report. That is why CIT evades the subject altogether.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jthomas
post Oct 27 2008, 09:06 AM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 62
Joined: 15-March 08
Member No.: 2,952



QUOTE (Sanders @ Oct 27 2008, 01:59 AM) *
You're serious???

Entirely serious. No one needs any video whatsoever to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. That should be obvious.

QUOTE
I file that theory with the one that the sun revolves around the earth.


It is fact, my friend. You are welcome to explain why you believe one would have to have video to know that AA 77 hit the Pentagon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carl Bank
post Oct 27 2008, 09:57 AM
Post #11





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,114
Joined: 21-October 06
From: Berlin
Member No.: 121



QUOTE (jthomas @ Oct 27 2008, 03:01 PM) *
You need to provide positive proof that AA 77 flew over the Pentagon. If you think the FDR data raises questions that AA 77 might not have hit the Pentagon but, instead, flew over it, then you need to provide positive evidence that it flew over the Pentagon. Absolutely none has been presented.


jThomas, I might remember you. that the CIT analysis wasn't some US military/govt. analysis that
caused millions of deaths within the Iraqi, the Afghan and the US citizens and eliminataed the Bill of rights
aqnd the US Constitution. If your above quote would be applied to their official assumption, that
AA77 hit the Pentagon, you just have to change a few words:

You need to provide positive proof that AA 77 hit the Pentagon. If you think the FDR data raises not enough questions that AA 77 might have hit the Pentagon but, instead, hit it, then you need to provide positive evidence that it hit the Pentagon. Absolutely none has been presented.

...And if you would have said these words, you would also have shown that you care for the people's life, for your
constitution and for the future of our children and everyone would applause you.
Everyone, except maybe some morons who refuse to think putside their tiny box and who's only fun it is
to raise emotions in the honest concerned brave people's minds.

Why did you never question the official absurdity from behind your screen?
Is it because you are afraid they could track you down over your IP and some DHS trucks could show up
in your street to get you?
Maybe.

is it beacuse you feel more save to attac brave but peaceful minorities instead of
big crowds of violent cowards?
Certainly.

Is it beacuse you have no balls?
Definetely.

We are glad that heroes like the CIT risks everything to stop this insanity and we call them heroes, because they
simply are.


2euro ct. from: Carl
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Oct 27 2008, 12:20 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (jthomas @ Oct 31 2008, 08:06 AM) *
It is fact, my friend...




Are you an idiot or a shill?

...no-matter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Oct 27 2008, 08:11 PM
Post #13



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (jthomas @ Oct 27 2008, 01:38 AM) *
Pentagon View Shed Analysis #1

I'm going to take a look at CIT's claim of a "flyover" from a realistic perspective by showing a View Shed analysis of the topography around the Pentagon to demonstrate the visibility of any aircraft flying over the Pentagon from any location in the area.


Dear John,

I think you need to take an exercise in logical thinking. The flyover is not the "proof" of an inside job, it is the logical conclusion to be drawn from the available evidence.

But let's try to think like you for a moment. As you think that witnesses "must" have seen a flyover plane, surely that extends to the light pole striking the cab on a busy highway. Can you find a single witness other than the taxi driver to support his claim? If I was there, it would be undoubtedly the most astonishing thing I had seen in my entire life and as such, I'd have been blabbing about it to anyone who would listen. As there does not seem to be another such eye-witness, is it safe to conclude that the pole did not strike the cab?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
keroseneaddict
post Oct 27 2008, 08:27 PM
Post #14





Group: Core Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 12-September 08
From: An Island off the coast of RSW
Member No.: 3,813



QUOTE (Sanders @ Oct 27 2008, 12:20 PM) *


Are you an idiot or a shill?

...no-matter.


what is this picture supposed to prove?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leslie Landry
post Oct 27 2008, 08:46 PM
Post #15





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 2-May 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,264



QUOTE (jthomas @ Oct 26 2008, 08:38 AM) *


Im more concerned on what this picture is suppose to prove.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
keroseneaddict
post Oct 27 2008, 08:57 PM
Post #16





Group: Core Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 12-September 08
From: An Island off the coast of RSW
Member No.: 3,813



QUOTE (Leslie Landry @ Oct 27 2008, 08:46 PM) *
Im more concerned on what this picture is suppose to prove.


I think I know, but I would like to hear the poster's (who seems to understand GIS analysis) explanation. After all, this is supposed to be an investigation, evidence and truth site, not just opinions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Oct 27 2008, 11:01 PM
Post #17


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



wasnt jthomas supposed to come to Arlington and interview some "official path" south of citgo witnesses? or was that somebody else? whatever happened with that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Oct 28 2008, 12:50 AM
Post #18





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



it continues to be a problem for me. no one that i know wants to consider that everything that they know about that day is fraudulent.

for me, the lies became most pronounced in november 1963. because i had encountered the spooks in nola.

and the lying hasn't stopped. in fact, it has metastasized.

with very rare exception, no one that i know wants to grapple with reality. they all want to murder wogs. they think that this will make them feel better. and none of them want to consider that their universe is predicated upon a plethora of lies.

i have been defenestrated once again for my refusal to adopt the official lies. the last time this happened was in 1967 when i persisted in my opposition to the invasion of seasia.

i make no peace with the warmongers. if i must exist without friends[sic] because of my understanding of history, so be it.

and that is one of the keys to living the just life. to be able and willing to live on your own terms.

short of that, enduring ignorant assholes is no virtue
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leslie Landry
post Oct 28 2008, 01:19 AM
Post #19





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 2-May 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,264



QUOTE (Turbofan @ Oct 28 2008, 01:01 AM) *
Maybe we need to change the topic title?

If multiple witness accounts on video isn't proof of NOC, then overlaying an image of a half eaten cookie on Google maps is HANDS DOWN the right
way to show an impact SOC! laughing1.gif


LOL good one!

On another note...there was a woman who believed the plane hit on top of the pentagon. I don't know about you, but i think this would lean very close to the "flyover witnesses" list. Besides, as much as you like to just Dismiss the Flight Data Recorder, the fact is, that this information was released by the NTSB via FOIA. There's no dismissing this. Its Evidence...whether it fits with the "official" flight Path or not...this is proof that "they" have something to hide and "they" have some serious explainning to do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Oct 28 2008, 01:44 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (keroseneaddict @ Oct 31 2008, 07:27 PM) *
what is this picture supposed to prove?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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: 14th November 2019 - 01:09 PM