QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 5 2009, 10:03 PM)
Thank you. This is a claim made by Craig and Aldo that is simply not valid.
It's hypothetically possible. We have never denied that.
But the physical damage proves that the plane did not hit from the north side.
There is no more or less evidence for an impact from either direction.
In the "plane hit the Pentagon" scenario, or the flyover scenario, the damage was the result of explosives either in part or entirely.
ALL of the damage REQUIRES an impact from the south side.
That is the point.
All researchers including CIT detractors agree that the plane can ONLY approach from south of the gas station to cause the physical damage.
You are the lone dissenting voice but you are unable to articulate a coherent or feasible hypothesis because you do not have one and you are wrong.
Furthermore you have admitted an unprovoked personal grudge against us and have a clear confirmation bias against the flyover proving you are not objective or even a reasonable/civil human being.
Proof that the light poles were staged has been around since 2005. [I can't find the URL right now]
There are no gouges in the lawn. If the pole were hit by a plane going 460 mph it would have made gouges as it skidded to a stop. I suggest this evidence be used in conjunction with the evidence P4T has complied.
Actually Killtown has been harping about this for years so it's funny to watch you all the sudden act like it's some big discovery of yours!
Yes the light poles were staged but a lack of gouge in the lawn is not "proof" of it in the least.
The eyewitness evidence uncovered by CIT is the proof.
P4T does not assert that the light poles were staged or any hypothesis at all. They present facts and professional analysis regarding the official NTSB data and aircraft capabilities.
The wingspan of a 737 is 112 feet shorter and the tail 3 feet lower than a 757. Explosive could account for the vertical stabilizer not making a mark and the lack of large pieces. I'm not saying this is a fact, I only offer it as a possibility.
The measurements were determined using the known height of 77'.
Why didn't the exploding 737 leave ANY trace of recognizable 737 debris ANYWHERE? Bombs inside the plane would not disintegrate the entire plane including tail section and wings. Those appendages would be sent flying.
And why didn't this plane bomb leave a crater in the lawn or the foundation of the building?
I'll tell you why, your ridiculous theory that you admit has no evidence to support it is false.
I agree that there is no proof a plane hit the Pentagon but it doesn't matter what we think. There are enough government claims of evidence and spin to completely fog the issue. The proof is in the videos and without them it cannot be said for certain what if anything hit the Pentagon.
No govt controlled evidence released after the fact will ever prove anything.
The north side approach evidence, if accepted as valid, is scientific proof the plane did not hit.
Just ask Hoffman, Legge, Caustic Logic, or any of the other CIT detractors who have looked at this infintiely more closely than you have.
You are not smarter than any of them.
In fact you have shown yourself to be nothing but an illogical angry man with an agenda to attack CIT personally.
I have looked at the evidence for flyover and found that there is none.
Yes there is.
That would be ALL of the north side approach witnesses who have been corroborated by Roosevelt Roberts and Erik Dihle.
Please read the transcript of the interview with Roosevelt. There was a serious problem with his understanding the questions and the information is disjointed. Only by picking out and assembling the statements describing the path of the plane he saw can one determine what he thought the flight path was. The following is what I assembled. If you can show where he says something else, please post it and say why it says something else.
coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC . . . it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around . . . . the plane . . . was facing west, so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon. . . around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the light poles like. It was heading . . .back across 27. . . and it looks like . . . that plane was heading . . . southwest.
No matter how many times you post it it does not change the fact that WHEREVER the plane exactly flew you must agree that Roosevelt's account confirms a flyover unless you are willing to accuse him of fabricating his story with no motive.
CIT misrepresented the second hand witness accounts by including the person who thought the plane kept going and left out the part where someone said the plane hit the building.
“The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building."
No we didn't. We provide the full audio publicly on our forum.http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...ic=499&st=0
Furthermore we do not claim that Dihle was telling the CMH that he BELIEVES the plane flew over and the beginning is included where he specifically states there was a lot of confusion and people weren't sure what happened.
This is what facilitated the deception.
It's clear that most people were DECEIVED into believing the plane hit exactly like they were deceived into believing the plane impacts and subsequent fires at the wtc caused the buildings to collapse.
Nothing was "misrepresented" so cease your baseless accusations due to your admitted personal grudge against us now.
It is not known if the people saying the plane kept going saw it themselves or heard it from someone else. These conflicting second hand accounts cancel each other out. They do not qualify as evidence of anything.
You can't really be this dumb.
"Cancel each other out"????
This isn't a game.
This is evidence of a psychological black operation of deception.
We KNOW that people were DECEIVED into believing the plane hit but if it did NOBODY would think it flew over.
This can't be so difficult for your stubborn brain to comprehend.
Three of CIT's witnesses confirm the plane did NOT fly over the Pentagon.
So you really ARE this dumb!
of the north side witnesses believed the plane hit.
That is why they talked to us in the first place.
They did not understand the implications of what they saw and they were successfully deceived as intended. They would have never talked to us if they thought the plane flew over.
We have never denied this and in fact it only adds to their credibility because they are not pushing a conspiracy.
But it does not change the fact that it is scientifically impossible for a plane on the north side to cause ANY of the directional physical damage that requires a south side approach.
You are not more intelligent than the entire organization of Pilots for 9/11 Truth and every CIT detractor who has ever published anything on this issue.
That much is as clear as is your unprovoked yet admitted personal grudge against CIT that is keeping you from looking at this information objectively.