CIT Losing It

As amazing as it may seem for a supposedly "open" discussion website, but I've just been banished to the "Debate Only" forum at the http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?act=idx">bogus CIT/Pentacon web page.

A number of my questions were getting under their skin and they had nothing but their stock off-the-shelf answers which weren't answers at all but recitations of bullshit and bloviation designed to confuse and obfuscate. The phrase "If you can't amaze them with facts, baffle them with bullshit" comes to mind.

They hate to be accused of the "selective witness" program, primarily because it is true (they only interview and post information from those individuals who agree with their theory and then, if their witness has a contrary information, they ignore that).

http://www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm">Terry Morin is a classic one. Morin was a Deputy Operations Manager for a systems engineer company in the Arlington area and was working in the Navy Annex, barely a half mile up the hill to the west and above the Pentagon.

Morin's first money 'graf is this:



Now I have no idea why the morons at CIT chose to highlight this testimony because so many things blatantly contradict their crazy theory.

The main crux of their theory is that the airliner flew on a flight path north of the Citgo gas station and never impacted the building, but rather flew OVER the building.

Morin stated specifically that the aircraft flew on a "flight path parallel to the OUTER EDGE OF THE FOB" (caps mine). FOB stands for Federal Office Building, or the Navy Annex.

Taking a look at the location of the FOB/Annex complex in relation to both the Pentagon and the Citgo gas station shows there is no freaking way an aircraft could "parallel the outer edge of the FOB" and still make it to a flight path north of the Citgo.

Below is my image showing what this "CIT" interpretation of the Morin flight path would have to have been like:



No one - nobody - *anyone* - not even their "selective witnesses" - has ever said there was a couple of huge honking banked turns of a 180,000 lb jet airliners going 350 mph 100 feet off the ground as it tried to travel from a "flight path parallel to the outer edge of the FOB" to a flight path north of the Citgo.

That whole "parallel to the outer edge of the FOB" has really screwed these CIT morons up. So what do they do? They just ignore the "parallel" part of the testimony. Indeed, ol' Aldo, another of the brilliant "Citizen Researchers" (notice how they try to get a sort of French Revolutionary Jacobin thing going?), http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=137">posted THIS image, showing the world what HIS interpretation of what the word "parallel" means:



Yeah, Aldo-baby...that blue line sure "parallels" the "outer edge of the FOB. I don't know where you live, but check with the local community college. I'm sure they have refresher courses on Geometry you can try and take.

Craig (or Lyle) and the other lovable rogues over at CIT also claim the aircraft was white, and have a few "witnesses" who claim such. Morin, in the quote above, clearly states "The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure." Eyewitness information that directly contradicts their theory. Do the CIT Boys even discuss that? Nope.

Another quick paragraph snippet from Morin's written account:



Anyone who is familiar with the Navy Annex and that whole area (I've been in the Annex many, many times) know the dynamics of what the CIT Boys claim and what Morin says he saw do not mesh. If Morin is going to be able to SEE the aircraft "clear the 8th Wing of BMDO", which is the closest wing of
the complex to the Pentagon, then the aircraft is NOT going to be headed on a path similar to what Ol' Aldo posted in the above image. If Morin is going to "lose sight of the actual airframe" behind the row of trees to the "Northeast" of the FOB, then the airplane is NOT going to be headed on a path to the north of the Citgo.

How do they argue against this? Again, Ol' Aldo:



Problem is, Aldo-baby, positioning Morin where he said he was standing that morning, there is no fucking WAY he could see the Citgo or even in that direction - all he could see was a direct path straight down towards the Pentagon. If he could watch the aircraft while it passed over head, continued watching it as it headed downhill, continued watching it as it began to disappear behind the trees, saw a flash as it hit light poles, saw only the tail as it hit the building and exploded, the damn aircraft is NOT going to be north of the Citgo.

Their entire shtick is built of things like this - half interviews, wacky stories, screwed up accounts from people that in any other world would be considered an outlier, but in the CIT world they become Sacrosanct - the Holy Grail of the Pentagon Event - never mind that it contradicts dozens of others.

Its like the CIT Boys missed watching the Super Bowl, and they really wanted the Patriots to win. So, they ask around, hoping to find the score, and the keep getting the answer "Manning threw a winning TD in the last minute!" They ignore those, and keep looking until they find someone who tells them "Manning threw an interception in the last minute!" Doesn't matter if it isn't what actually happened, they have the "truth" they are looking for and as such, case closed. And if anyone comes along and tries to point out the obvious flaws in their theory, OFF they go, banished to the debate-only forum of an obscure web page.

I asked them what did Morin say during their interview, since I was *positive* they interviewed him since they were featuring him so strongly in the bogusness. What was Craig/Lyle's response?



Laugh my fucking ass off.

Smart man.

CIT are liars - all of them - lying SOBs - pure and simple, and are doing this probably to scam some coin off people by eventually selling t-shirts and hoodies and ball caps and baby-tees and the like.

Their buds over at Pilots for *cough cough* Truth do it. Monkey see, monkey do.

Edited to add URL.

Kick back up for others to see.

Sid

Ask Morin.....if the CIT have tried to call him.

Can't be that difficult can it?

I have no problem with his account. It sounds exactly like what happened.

The CIT Rocket Scientists (and your buds over at P4T) are the ones who have trouble figuring out what the word "parallel" means when used in the phrase "flight path parallel to the outer edge of the FOB".

The REAL funny thing is that their MAJOR new find, promoted BREATHLESSLY on the Air America interview they had, render their sainted and untouchable North of the Citgo theory null and void and full of crap (not that wasn't already).

Their MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH (new witness), a Pentagon police officer who heard and felt the impact explosion, walked 7 or so steps over to the edge of a loading dock on the south side of the building and said he saw an aircraft over the south parking lot, flying away.

"PROOF!!!" cry the CIT Poltroons! "PROOF of a second plane fly-over!!!!" they chant!

Problem is, their "North of the Citgo" manta says there is no way possible, humanly nor aerodynamically, that a 180,000 lb jet flying at 350 mph could make that right hand turn around the Citgo, aim towards the south parking lot and fly away over the lot, as their MAJOR NEW WITNESS(!) states.

The other problems is that NOBOY ELSE.....NOBODY....NO ONE....Zip...nadda....saw this airplane pass over the South parking lot. Now, I don't know how many people here have been in the Pentagon south parking much, especially at that time (0930), but I have and there are at any time dozens of people walking to and from cars in that parking lot and over by the Pentagon Mall parking lots. And NOBODY else saw this jet airliner pass over the south parking.

These CIT dolts are more screwed up than Hogan's goat. They don't know which end of their ass they're holding when it is handed to them.

If there were an airliner over flying the Pentagon and flying "really low" and "heading straight for congress" 10,000 people would have seen it and talked about it.

What is it with you CIT devotees who think a single statement from an obscure, unknown individual makes something so?

"If there were an airliner over flying the Pentagon and flying "really low" and "heading straight for congress" 10,000 people would have seen it and talked about it."

Yes, that's *your* single statement, isn't it?

Here's *my* statement, as an "obscure, unknown individual":

"Maybe NO ONE noticed it because they were glued to their TVs watching the towers burn, or, in the case of drivers near the Pentagon, had their eyes glued to the burning fucking building, not watching the sky for a plane flying over."

Seriously, do some of you guys even *think* before you speak? It doesn't seem like it to me... try thinking something all the way through for once. Hey look! A burning building! Lets watch the sky! :eyes:

yet would miss a low flying 757 flying directly at them? They wouldn't see, hear or even feel it as it flew directly over them? The building and the plane would be in the same field of view - there is no need to look up.

that everyone was *aware* of what was happening and that they were *stopped and watching* the Pentagon OR the sky. Most people I know, myself included, watch the freakin' ROAD and drivers in front of them when they're driving... how many of them would really pay attention to a plane flying overhead if they know an airport is right there?

Again, think it all the way through... planes fly over the interstate all the time at the ones I've lived near, which would be Hartsfield in Atlanta, Miami International & Ft. Lauderdale. We never blinked, or thought twice about an airplane flying low overhead....

...but have you thought this all the way through, Ghost?

See my post #9. Do you think that was the driver holding the video camera?



This is where the video starts. The family on their website say they were just south of the actual explosion when it happened. The blue X is where they got the camera turned on approximately.

I don't have 3 hours to waste downloading a movie. When I had my high speed, no problem. When I get it back, no problem. For now, big problem, but we do what we have to in this economy.

Have I thought it all the way through? Yes, of course I have. What you need to understand though, is the fact that I'm not saying a plane *did* fly over the Pentagon, I'm just stating that Sweet_Pea's assertion that "10,000 people would have seen it" is bogus. You know, just another "statement by an obscure, unknown individual". Do you agree or disagree?

However, wouldn't you agree that every passenger in a car driving past the Pentagon would have been free to observe the Pentagon from the moment the explosion caught their attention?

And of those that did so, wouldn't you agree that an airplane actually flying over the Pentagon at this moment would have attracted their attention as well?

And wouldn't you agree that the natural assumption of anyone turning in response to an explosion and seeing an aircraft flying away from the explosion would be that the aircraft caused the explosion itself?

You partly answered your own question there. If their attention was on the explosion/fire/smoke, it wasn't on the sky above the Pentagon. Are all explosions caused by airplanes? Are all building fires caused by airplanes smashing into them, or bombs blowing up in them?



No, not exactly. As I stated earlier, some people wouldn't give it a second thought, with an airport being right there and all. Was it common knowledge, announced over every radio station, that every plane had been ordered to land immediately at the nearest airport? If it *was* announced on the *radio*, what about the people who were listening to a tape or CD?



Once again, NO, not with an airport right there, practically next door. It's very common, natural even, to see airplanes near an airport. You know, because they take off and land there.... and stuff. What do you fail to understand about that? Why would someone assume that a passenger jet would cause an explosion? Do they all carry missiles and/or bombs?

And that's a real accomplishment.



That's a frame from the very beginning of the video I posted. Do you think any person in the car would have had any trouble concentrating on a plane flying directly above the Pentagon, away from the explosion, if such a plane had been there?

O.J., put the glove on, already.

A plane traveling at 500 mph could be well out of the frame by the time that picture was taken. DUH (to borrow a phrase from SDude)...

Do you have a precise time of *when that video was taken?

Why do you think it's "bullshit" to expect to see airplanes in the sky near an airport? You *do* understand the purpose of airports, don't you?

Now come back with the precise time of that frame in the video, compared with the precise time of impact at the Pentagon, and calculations on how far away a plane flying 500 mph would be.


I'll be waiting (for a little bit, anyways. I'm waiting for my daughter to get home from the store so we can go to the lake for a little while)

BTW: Happy Memorial Day, bolo...

PEACE!

Ghost

Now how long would it take for the sound and light of the Pentagon explosion to reach that family?

How quickly would they and anyone along that highway be looking at the Pentagon?

Inside of five seconds is more than enough time for people to turn and see that explosion and notice any plane flying low directly over the Pentagon.

O.J., put on the glove, already.

understand that, though.

Logic also dictates that, according to the photo and red "X" that you provided, the plane could have, and would have, been out of the field of view of the camera.

Please change your sig line to "Ghost owned me...(again)" because you know as little about logic as you do about construction, which is "zero"...

I'm off to the lake now... Happy Memorial Day and I hope you (and everyone else) have a safe and enjoyable one...

PEACE!

Ghost


Oh yeah.... O.J. was innocent (you know anything about 'Colombian Neckties'?) Nicole was killed by her coke dealer... she owed big money...

Just sayin'....

It gets me through the day...

:hi:

PEACE!

Ghost

If people saw a plane fly within the vicinity of the pentagon AFTER the explosion....maybe they would just assume it was a flight landing/taking off from reagan


Foto taken from a 2004 UK TV documentary "9/11 conspiracies"

How much larger would a plane directly over the Pentagon appear than that plane taking off from Reagan in your picture? Quite a bit.

How does that picture compare to the framegrab I've already posted of the Tribby family video? They would easily have seen any plane flying over the Pentagon and known that it wasn't taking off from Reagan. Can you think of the reason why?

A Plane flyin past the pentagon on a north easterly trajectory.... would end up over the mall.....and nowhere near reagan....

The photo you provided was what, a mile away?



The photo he provided was from the parking lot of the Pentagon!



Now please explain, in all your wisdom (chuckle), how in the fuck a plane would look LARGER in your photo, taken from farther away...

Once again, you FAIL the test. You really should learn what the fuck you're talking about before you open your mouth so you don't look so, you know... dumb... or something. Do you need anything *else* cleared up?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Things like exactly what I said -- did I ever say that the framegrab or the video was supposed to capture the plane? No. I said that family was in position to see the plane when they turned to look at the explosion. You might want to compare the two X's I placed on those maps. You might notice that they are in different places, describing different timepoints. One, when the family saw the explosion. Two, when someone in the car got the camera out, started it, and began filming.

That's why I never made the claim that the plane would have been caught by the camera. I said that the family WOULD HAVE SEEN IT IF IT HAD BEEN THERE. So would every person along that highway. The plane, even going as fast as it was, would still have been right there in that five seconds and everyone would have seen it along that highway.

You also MIGHT not want to speculate on the contents of the video when you can't see it. The car remained in motion the entire time. This is why the red X showing where they first saw the explosion and the blue X showing where they began filming is different.

As for seat9b's picture, what seat9b neglected to tell the studio audience was the vantage point of that picture. It's a nice shot of a plane way off in the distance, taking off from Reagan, looking from that vantage point like it was "over" the Pentagon. But a plane ACTUALLY over the Pentagon in that picture would have been MUCH larger.

And the family whose video I linked to could NOT EVER have mistaken a plane flying low directly over the Pentagon for a plane taking off or landing at Reagan. Do you know why? Seat9b does - and that's why s/he danced away and changed the subject. Seat9b told a very silly, stupid factual inaccuracy, hoping that s/he wouldn't get caught. Or knowing, rather, that most of his/er audience would not think very critically at all about what s/he had posted.

Tell you what, Ghost (and let's stick to DU names here, Ghost. People who make veiled threats against me don't have my permission to use my real name. This includes you.). Why don't you with your much ballyhooed intelligence and logic and ability to smack me down and all, why don't you tell me and Seat9b and everyone else why it is that this family whose video I'm referencing could NEVER have mistaken a plane flying low directly over the Pentagon with a plane landing or taking off from Reagan? Hint: Seat9b's picture is not from the same vantage point as the family.

Typical hypocrite... :eyes: It's in your profile, you know? I'll use it any time I *feel* like it, as long as you feel free to do likewise to others.




You mean just like *you* did with your "the lake is just yards away from the impact crater" ???

Pot, meet kettle...

It's bolo or boloboffin to you, Ghost. Nothing else. Anything else will be reported as harassment.

It's interesting that my perceived intentionally told factual accuracy has you attacking me, and pointing out Seat9b's factual accuracy has you attacking... me.

Perhaps you should find a different hobby than attacking me.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Your post mentioned NOTHING about the blue 'x', nothing at all. Maybe if you were better able to convey your message, or state your point, I would have known what that blue 'x' was. It would have helped if you had provided some context, like I asked several replies upthread, instead of providing your usual banal chatter. I can't help it if you can't understand plain english, or if you're ill suited to answer a simple request. That's *your* problem, not mine... In the future, make sure your posts are more coherent and include ALL of the pertinent information, m'kay?



Even if the car remained in motion, the camera stayed trained on the Pentagon, NOT the road and/or sky in front of the car. Once again, you never mentioned the blue 'x', did you? You do understand what "please provide some context" means, don't you?



Once again, *if* the family had seen a plane, they wouldn't have thought twice about it, what with there being an airport right there and everything. You still never answered WHY someone would assume that a passenger jet would have been the cause of the explosion. Why is that? Why can't you answer that? Is it because you read your comment again and realized how utterly fucking stupid it sounded? Yeah, I'll bet *that's* the answer...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=206000&mesg_id=206261

Right there, close to the beginning of all of this, I clearly said that the family saw the explosion just south of it and started their camera about where the blue X is on the map.

Some random plane in the sky somewhere after an explosion? No, no one would have thought necessarily that such a plane would be connected to the explosion. But turning within a second of the explosion to see some plane streaking away from it precisely? Yes, people would have thought that that plane had bombed the Pentagon.

The family, if you haven't figured it out by now, is in between the Pentagon and Reagan. The path a posited flyover plane would have taken over the Pentagon would be roughly perpendicular to any approach or takeoff path from Reagan. Plus, the plane was going 530 mph or so when approaching the Pentagon. There is NO WAY that this plane could have turned and mimicked a flight approach or takeoff -- much less have landed at Reagan, like some CT advocates say happened.

Now, taken in context with the picture on the post you just linked to, it looks like the family was traveling on 395. How long did it take them to get from where they saw/heard the explosion to where they started filming? From all the reports I've read, 395 traffic was at a virtual standstill, even before the Pentagon was hit.

One witness stated "It was only then that I really noticed where I was in that traffic jam. I was going past the Pentagon, really inching a yard or so every couple of minutes. I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395"




I still don't see how ANYONE would think a commercial passenger jet would be capable of bombing a building, or anything else... I just don't get it, I guess...

Interesting. Not a single person on foot in the parking lot, in their house or apartment? And what about passengers in the cars - they don't need to keep their eyes on the road do they?

Don't you think they would pay attention if that plane flying overhead was associated with a large explosion that made them look in the direction of the Pentagon?

You also assume that they would associate a plane with an explosion. Most normal people, if they heard an explosion, would be looking toward the explosion, not up in the air. The same goes for seeing a building on fire and smoking. They're paying attention to the smoke and fire, NOT the sky. What's so hard to understand about that?

You're also assuming that everyone who saw the plane fly overhead jammed on their brakes and stopped to watch. Most normal people are able to connect "plane" and "nearby airport" without giving it a second thought.

Edited: for spelling... D'OH!

if that 757 was truly flying very low it would only be a few degrees above the horizon - when they looked at the building and the smoke, they could not help but see the plane.

What about the air controllers in the tower at National - nice high view point plus trained observers. They would have seen any thing.

What was the fly path of the plane after it overflew the Pentagon? Surely a 757 flying at a couple of hundred feet at a high speed would garner some attention wouldn't you think?

It is a really stupid theory without some real witnesses.

I'm not saying a plane *did* fly over the Pentagon, I'm just pointing out the logical fallacy that "everyone would have SEEN it".

Even a plane *had* flown over, and everyone *did* see it, they may not have thought twice about it because there's an AIRPORT practically next door. Boloboffin even tried to stretch it and say that "people would associate the plane with the explosion"... maybe *you* can shed some light on *WHY* people would do that, considering that commercial jetliners DON'T CARRY BOMBS OR MISSILES. I guess bolo didn't feel like answering that question, he just whined that I was "attacking" him...

Do *you* have a logical answer?

Thanks,

Ghost

http://www.tribby.net/pentagon/pentagon.mov

If there had actually been a plane flying up, over, and away from the Pentagon when hundreds of eyes turned toward that massive explosion, we would have hundreds of accounts of a plane bombing the Pentagon. It would have been the natural assumption.

There are precisely NO accounts of a plane bombing the Pentagon.

The first view of that smoke pillar is a couple of seconds after when I first saw it.

That is a great video, and there's no doubt if an aircraft "flew" over the building, there's every chance the videographers would have seen it before they had time to start filming or, depending on the speed of the "aircraft", capture it on digital.

I was looking for an intellectual discourse here, and instead got a spittle-filled rant of incomprehensible incoherent incontinence from Ghost.

Whatever turns you on, dude!

Fact of the matter is the White House began to be evacuated at 0930 that morning and the Treasury Department at 0935, both before the impact and both bordering on the mall.

The HOV (commuter) lanes headed into DC become open to all traffic at 0900 and by 0930 they would be full of bumper-to-bumper traffic heading over the 14th street bridge complex. These HOV lanes, between the north and south lanes of I-395, pass directly next to the Pentagon, as Bolo's video from the family shows.

If some airliner "overflew" the Pentagon and headed towards the the Mall, those people who began to evacuate the government buildings as well as those who were on the mall already (tourists, those still headed to work on Constitution or Independence, 14 Street, etc) as well as those on 395 and the HOV lanes and Geo Washington Parkway and Jeff Davis Highway and Washington Boulevard and Columbia Pike and every other road in the area would have seen a) a mushroom cloud of black smoke rise up over the Pentagon and b) see a large airliner banking to the north to head toward the Mall.

Nobody is saying they saw that. Aircraft do NOT come from the west over the Pentagon. Anyone who works in this area knows that aircraft departing to the north follow the river, and aircraft landing to the south follow the DRA (down river approach). No aircraft ever comes from over the Pentagon - they come close headed south on the Runway 19 and 15 approaches, but *never* from the west.

To claim that NOBODY saw the aircraft do these things is nothing out of the ordinary is really one of the more moronic things I have seen postulated here.

I'm not surprised.

Anyone with half a brain (disqualify yourself) can take a look at a map of downtown DC and the Pentagon area and can see where the Mall is in relation to where the Whack-jobs say the aircraft "overflew" the Pentagon. If an airliner was going to bypass the Pentagon and head toward the Mall, a very large left hand turn would have to be made directly east of the Pentagon. Aircraft *never* make that sort of turn on departure from Reagan. Never. To claim someone seeing that would be understood to think it was a normal aircraft on departure from the airport is really, really ignorant of what goes on around here. Either that or you live in the UK, have no clue what goes on around here (where some of us live and work) and think you can be hot shit by posting a screengrab of an aircraft on departure out of Reagan, claiming that is what people would think of an "overfly".

How many other times had all air traffic been ordered to land at the nearest airport immediately?

I think I see part of the problem though:



Maybe you people with only a half a brain should just stop posting, or doing anything. Thanks for recognizing I'm not one of you and that I use my whole brain.




Ouch.. it sucks when you try to be a smartass and it backfires in your face, huh?

Do you even check what you write about?

It WAS a perfectly normal morning, up until 0846, when things began to change a bit, then at 0903 when things changed a whole lot.

As far as this DC area was concerned, though, things were pretty much normal, for the most part, and as "normal" as "normal" can be when New York City has its two tallest buildings burning from terrorist attacks.

I worked at the time a mile and a half away from the Pentagon, my wife at the time worked in the Reagan Building (with Customs) at the corner of 14th and Constitution. My office was about 400 yards across the railroad tracks from Reagan National Airport. I could see the airport tower out my window. I had driven over to the Washington Navy Yard that morning and back to Crystal City again before 0830. When I say it was normal that morning, up until 0900 or shortly thereafter, it isn't just making shit up. It is from experience.

The National Ground Stop, for your information, Ghost, since you didn't bother to look it up, occured at 0925 that morning. The Pentagon was hit at 0938 that morning.

13 minutes is hardly enough time for the ground stop order to filter its way FROM the FAA out in Herndon, via telephone first TO all the airlines, TO the airports, TO the operations centers, TO the ATC, then coordinating WHERE the airborne aircraft will land and in what order.

Plus, Reagan National was not an airport that was used in the "land immediately" evolution, so no aircraft were going to be coming in to this airport.

And if that is your idea of a "backfire", man, it must suck to be you, dude!

And as far as your brain is concerned, you had a 50/50 shot with regards to if you had a full brain or none at all. You chose poorly.

Yes, and we're talking about events that happened *AFTER* the Pentagon was hit. Please try to keep up and follow along, especially since YOU are the one who said "If there were an airliner over flying the Pentagon and flying "really low" and "heading straight for congress" 10,000 people would have seen it and talked about it."



Wow... ever heard of those things on planes called radios... or do you think they sent up smoke signals?



Oh really? You have a link for that? What part of "land at the NEAREST airport" don't you understand? Maybe I can put it into smaller words for you, so that a half a brain can understand it...

Please feel free to keep babbling though, I find it entertaining...

There was a 757 flying over the mall.....which is just west of congress/Capitol....



The key is that the official flight 77 trajectory has it nowhere near the mall.......

That lady from the UK who claims her "team leader" said he saw it "heading up the mall"? So she didn't see anything......ok.

A couple others? Ray Lahood? He's a republican, for God's Sake!!!! Well THAT makes it true!

That's it?

How many people would you estimate were on or around the mall that morning? On the roads surrounding the mall that morning? Who were evacuating government buildings that bordered on the mall that morning?

Come now, 9B. Surely you are an expert in what DC is like on a typical Tuesday morning at 9:30 am in September.

What? You don't live here? Oh. Never mind, then. You wouldn't know.

Lots of people saw that plane Sweetpea.....

Deal with it.

Oh, I KNOW Lots of people did! They saw it hit the building!

Here's a partial list of people who have been interviewed and have stated, for the record, they saw the plane hit the Pentagon or participated in cleaning up/recovery efforts to include pieces of the 757 and bodies:

Abshire, Marc
Anderson, Steve
Anderson, Ted Lt. Col.
Anlauf, Deb & Jeff
Bauer, Gary
Beans, Michael
Begala, Paul
Bell, Mickey
Benedetto, Richard
Biggert, Judy
Birdwell, Brian
Bouchoux, Donald R.
Bowman, John
Braman, Chris Staff Sgt.
Brown, Ervin
Brown, Rich
Burgess, Lisa
Campo
Cissell, James R.
Cleveland, Allen
Cook, Scott P.
Corley
Correa, Victor LTC
Creed, Dan
Day Wayne T.
DeChiaro, Steve
DiPaula, Michael
Dobbs, Mike
Dougherty, Jill
Dubill, Bob
Eiden, Steve
Elgas, Penny
Elliott, Bruce
Faram, Mark
Flyler, Kim
Ford, Ken
Fortunato, Don
Fowler, Charles Navy Capt.
Fraunfelter, Dan
Frost, Stephen S. Captain
Gaines, Kat
Goff, Dr
Goldsmith, Gilah
Hagos, Afework
Harrington, Joe
Haubold, Art
Hemphill, Albert
Henson, Jerry
Henson, Jerry
Holland, Nicholas
Hovis, Tom
Hunt, Bob
Jarvis, Will
Joyce, Tom
Khavkin, D. S.
Kizildrgli, Aydan
Lagasse, William Sgt.
Leibner, Lincoln Captain
Marra, David
Martinez, Oscar
McAdams Daniel and his wife Cynthia McAdams
McClain, Tom Lt Col (ret)
McGraw, Stephen Father
McClellan, Kenneth
McNair, Phil
Middleton, William Sr.
Mitchell, Terry
Moody, Sheila
Morin, Terry
Mosley, James
Murphy, Peter M.
Narayanan, Vin
O'Keefe, John
Owens, Mary Ann
Patterson, Steve
Barbara Vobejda
Perkal, Don
Peterson, Christine
Pfeilstucker, Daniel C. Jr
Plaisted
Probst, Frank
Ragland, Clyde Naval officer
Rains, Lon
Rasmusen, Floyd
Regnery, Alfred S.
Renzi, Rick
Robbins, James S
Roberts, Willis Lt.
Rodriguez, Meseidy
Rosati, Arthur
Ryan, James
Sayer, John Lt. Commander
Schickler, Rob
Scott, Don
Seibert, Tom
Sepulveda, Noel
Shaeffer, Kevin Lieutenant
Sheuerman, Philip
Sinclair, Wayne
Singleton, Jack
Skarlet
Slater, Mike
Smith, Stephanie
Snavel, Dewey SGT
Snyder, Robert
St Clair, Stanley
Stancil, Michael
Sucherman, Joel
Sutherland, Jim
Stephens, Levi
Terronez, Tony
Theall, David
Carl Mahnken
Thompson, Carla
Thompson, Phillip
Thurman, John Major
Ticknor, Henry
Timmerman, Tim
Turner, Ron
Velasquez, Jose
Wallace, Alan
Wallace, Terry
Walter, Mike
Wheelhouse, Keith
TERRY SCANLON
Winslow, Dave
Wyatt, Ian
Yates, John
Yeingst, William
Yonkers, Terry
Zakhem, Madelyn

You can read each and every one of the above accounts in various and sundry places on the net, noteably http://911research.com/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html">here.

Its fascinating and compelling reading - if you can get that far.

Also, you and that other guy really add to the intellectual enjoyment I get from reading your posts! If this is your idea of an "ass kickin'", no wonder Britain lost her empire.

Cos if you had...

You would not be quotin' a witness who knew and saw fuck all....

Like the 1st person on your list....



Marc Abshire never saw an airplane hit the building.....

Marc Abshire does not fall into this category:


Here's a partial list of people who have been interviewed and have stated, for the record, they saw the plane hit the Pentagon or participated in cleaning up/recovery efforts to include pieces of the 757 and bodies:
SweetPea

Wanna make a retraction?

I'll make an amendment:

Here's a partial list of people who have been interviewed and have stated, for the record, they saw the plane hit the Pentagon or participated in cleaning up/recovery efforts to include pieces of the 757 and bodies or experienced the effects of the aircraft impact or saw an aircraft head towards the building but did not see it impact because it disappeared behind a line of trees or a road embankment or a building but also did not see anything fly away and are pretty damn sure the speed and altitude of the aircraft meant it wasn't going anywhere but into the side of the building:

I should have known better to think Twoofers wouldn't apply a hyper-analytical dissection of anything posted, finding the few handfull of people from that list who had to escape from the effects of the aircraft impact but did not actualy see the event.

Still, specificity is the soul of credibility and attention to detail is what I live by, so it was indeed my fault for not wording the introductory paragraph properly.

It does not distract from the many, many, many individuals who witnessed the aircraft impact the side of the building or watched an unrecoverable aircraft in the few seconds before impact.

According to the official flight 77 trajectory........flight 77 never passed anywhere near the USA today building(where Anderson was)...so how the fuck could he claim that he "heard jet engines pass our building"

Anderson was also over a mile away......yet claims that he saw the plane dig its wing along the ground?!!



Next....

Yes, if we're dealing with specifics, let's keep it specific...

What do you make of the story of the plane hitting a helicopter and fire truck?

He saw the plane, but NOT the impact...



Where was the damage to the Pentagon lawn from the dragging wing??



Hmmm.. nope, *she* didn't SEE anything, either...



No, he didn't SEE the plane hit either, did he?



Wow! There's *another one* who didn't see anything...



Funny, no mention of SEEING any plane hit the pentagon, doesn't believe it was one...



What was that? Another one who didn't actually SEE the plane HIT the Pentagon?



Huh? A twin engine turbo prop??



Have you heard anything before about a helicopter and fire truck being hit? This is the first I've read of it..

Do I need to keep going?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Here's a partial list of people who have been interviewed and have stated, for the record, they saw the plane hit the Pentagon or participated in cleaning up/recovery efforts to include pieces of the 757 and bodies:"

I just showed you a bunch from your list that didn't see the impact, and one or two who saw something totally different... you know, like a twin engine turbo prop... maybe you should try researching what you cut~n~paste *before* you cut~n~paste it...

just sayin'....

We're getting somewhere! At least now you're read (assuming you can read, of course) about all the OTHERS who DID see an aircraft hit the building! At least 35 out of that list who state specifically for the record "I saw the aircraft hit the building".

So now we can put aside these petty differences that amount to nothing more than a percentage of witnesses and lying SOBs who embellished what they saw, in favor of both sides of the argument - those who saw the plane hit and might have spiced up their narrative a bit and the moronic assholes who support those who say the plane flew over the building and never hit or who are generating some bogus web page to sell ball caps or baby-tee's.