Merged Too Much NoC Evidence?

jhunter1163 said:
As I posted in another thread, I tend to agree with CL on this. While I am skeptical of NoC due to the obvious conflicts with the physical evidence, I believe that there must be some explanation for not just one or two, but 13 NoC accounts. Maybe it's a quirk of perception, maybe it's a prank, maybe anything.

There's more than meets the eye here (no pun intended).
Click to expand...

Hey! Finally an unabashed agreement! And I've only had to present two exhibits thus far. There aren't really 13 (Terry Morin is one for their baker's dozen, for god's sake), but there are too many. "Maybe anything" is about right. My first suspicion was disinfo, but that's just how i think. Also being capable of reality checks, I'm now thinking more like a group prank is likely. I'm curious what other thread that was...

and on another note, I just caught your discussion at the CIT forum. Kudos for being willing to follow up with that challenge, or to have been anyway. He really won't change his mind if you verify 13 witnesses. He's already called more than that plants and so on, no prob expanding the list... Just that thread and the discussion of your sincerity etc was tiring enough. 22205, WTF? I'm sure this post will not help your perception there. In fact... just saw this regarding it:
A 13 time unanimous "quirk of perception"?

A prank???

There is not more than meets the eye.

It's simply where all of these witnesses unanimously and independently place the plane.

If you "tend to agree with CL on this" that means you think the witnesses are deep cover disinfo agents.

You realize this also proves 9/11 was an inside job right?
Click to expand...

Bollocks. He'll tell you what I think... I hope you're not confused by these nuts. If you have any questions in your quest, if you're doing it, I have some tips, contact info, etc. I just compiled 13 quite clear SoC witnesses, as it happens... already added L Stephens and will be adding R Roberts and another NEIT soon. That's 16. PM me if you like or use caustic_logic[at]yahoo.com

Myriad said:
I'm sorry, I've been trying for days, but I still can't help reading "NoC" as "North of Cthulhu." Really. Every single time I see it in text.

Of course, it's possible, perhaps even likely, that Cthulhu was hanging out at the Citgo station on 9/11. But there's no evidence.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Well, since only those who saw Cthulu can really say if it was north or south, and it was at the Citgo the plane passed south of, and the sight of Cthulu drives men mad, the madness could be responsible for the NoC claims.

Alright, that's it for now. Exhibit C will be Chad Brooks, and I've decided the new four ANC witnesses will also have to be included.
 
Last edited:
CL:

I'm not convinced about a prank, frankly. Maybe the ANC guys cooked something up, but they didn't know the Citgo guys, Morin, Paik, Boger, or any of the others. In my opinion, for whatever that's worth, a prank is unlikely.

I appreciate your offer to help me with my SoC witness calls. I'll get in touch with you via PM when I'm ready to actually start making calls (in the next couple of days.)

Cheers, John
 
celestrin: Another perceptive observation. I was just reading an article by Andrew Hoskins in the journal Time and Society on the influence of the media in shaping peoples' "flashbulb" memories of 9/11. Among other things, it says this: " ‘Memory’ is in itself a contradictory experience of time as it does not involve the retrieval of some past moment but, rather, an assembling of a view of that past moment, in and from the present." It makes me wonder what the situation would be like if there in fact had been a video of the plane approaching and hitting the Pentagon that then saturated media coverage in the days after 9/11 -- how much would that influence witnesses' recollections of what they experienced?
 
jhunter1163 said:
CL:

I'm not convinced about a prank, frankly. Maybe the ANC guys cooked something up, but they didn't know the Citgo guys, Morin, Paik, Boger, or any of the others. In my opinion, for whatever that's worth, a prank is unlikely.

I appreciate your offer to help me with my SoC witness calls. I'll get in touch with you via PM when I'm ready to actually start making calls (in the next couple of days.)

Cheers, John
Click to expand...

That's a good point I suppose. So you'd give more credence to a disinfo campaign them, where someone would introduce and brief them all? Kidding. Again, I'm starting from a "disinfo" hunch, which means active calculated intent to deceive. I remove the sinister government cover-up type aspect and what's left is non-directed or semi-directed calculated intent to deceive. A harmless hoax on the loons, apparently group in nature. That makes sense too.

But I've also been thinking more about leading, and extraneous factors like these graphics Celestrin posted, and all the gray areas between my main options. If three Citgo witnesses say NoC, I gotta say that's no coincidence. What else do they have in common? They all talked to CIT. Same with the ANC north-pathers. Clearly a factor! Lagasse works independent too, but he's the exception. I had already considered the Air Force memorial finished in mid-2006 as a distorter of flight path memories. It was noticed by many as "right on Flight 77's flight path." Actually it was just a bit north, hinting at a OtC (Over the Citgo) or barely NoC path - like Turcios' or Paik's.
Air_Force_Mem.jpg

And specific leading - Ed Paik is I believe a totally honet witness, except that he was led to shift his path. Right heading, correct bank/turn (shallow left, near-straight), but too far north. Did CIT manage to confuse him about his location and thus the path? Did they lead him to overestimate how well the just-finished monument at the other end of the Annex marked the "official" path? His line points straight to it - check it. [note: memorial dedicated Oct. 14 - Paik drew this Nov. 4.]
Paik_line_3.jpg

We can't answer these questions with any certainty. But another case of leading can be heard in action in the case of Roosevelt Roberts. I think he saw Flight 77, not the C-130, and when the "plane hit the building" before this, it was only on TV (Flight 175). His account is just confusing and has gaps (like between 9:11 and 9:38, and the moment of impact). Nonetheless, he was IMO NEVER a second plane witness, so when CIT asked him about the 2nd plane headed away, he gets confused. You can hear the break, the new tension. Away? His testimony til then makes sense, but after this discontinuity, he starts describing things that never happened. He gives them a giant turd they chose to twist into turd juice 'proving' a flyover, over somewhere, to somewhere, it's not their job to sort that out...

Anyway, I think this is a case of CIT leading a witness and the witnness consciously following that's based on no organization or premeditation. He was just so annoyed at their leading he wanted people to hear it in action, so he told them what they wanted ("it was two aircraft, that's for sure") while sabotaging them for spite with a clear SW-SW left-looping flight path. Reported by no one else, amlost all invisible from his PoV, probably impossible, and clearly made up.

However, note... reported by no one else. The NoC path has to have something else working for it.
 
Last edited:
Exhibit C - The Account of Chadwick Brooks

Like Lagasse, fellow DPS/PFPS Officer Sgt. Chadwick Brooks confirmed the North of Citgo flight path for CIT’s camera in November 2006. He did so in great detail, with the utmost certainty, on location, in uniform, and at the team’s leisure. It would seem he was not brought along by Lagasse, but contacted separately from him. This was a bold move, like Eastman trusting Lagasse, and apparently against CIT’s best interests.

Like Lagasse, Brooks had been documented by a USU student for the Loc back in late 2001. In that, he placed himself in the parking area just west of the Citgo station, at the base of the Annex hill, in the key zone between the north and south flight paths. CIT verified his location later. From this location, he said:

“I just happened to look up to my left up in the air and just seeing a plane. […seconds later…] I looked to my left and lo and behold I notice that the plane was going awfully low.”

Based on this, he was originally thought by Russell Pickering to support the SoC “mechanical damage path.” If he was seeing the plane in the distance to his left that certainly seems to imply it. But CIT feigns certainty that he backed into his spot, was sitting in the car, and saw this in his rear-view mirror. Clever inversion, and I can’t disprove it. It all comes down to which way he was facing. They did not clear this up in 06, but he stood facing west, and this time indicated the plane off to his right in the distance. That's confirmation for CIT.

They actually interviewed Brooks on camera twice in the same day. The first time, at around sunrise, they got him to describe this nicely NoC path off to his right. It comes from the memorial area, in line with Turcios’ and, if drawn, would look like this.
Brooks_Lines_Desc.jpg

They forgot to have him draw it. Then they interviewed Lagasse who described AND drew a somewhat different path further north and at a different angle. Realizing they didn’t have Brooks’ drawing, they called him and, Ranke says, “He agreed to come back and draw it so Lagasse stuck around to see what he would draw out of pure curiosity. That is what led to the segment with both of them.” They are not shown on video conferring. Brooks looks around and thinks about it, and then draws a different path that causes Lagasse to immediately accurately announce
Lagasse: “That's damn near perfect from what I saw. And we've never -- for the record we never talked to each other about this.”
Brooks: “Yeah, for the record, we never -- we've never discussed it at all.”
Brooks_Lines_Drawn_vs_Desc.jpg



Bad sign: Brooks is the first witness that made me clearly think he was toying with the CIT.
He points to “the Pentagon, which is currently located over there,”and strangely described the silver, red-lettered AA 757 everyone saw as a “United Airlines” 737, with blue lettering saying “United” on a white paint job. More precisely, he called it "champagne," or the color of the white booth he pointed to in the champagne-colored early-morning sunlight at the time of his interview. It was… that color over there. Of course, CIT decided he was right, and the silver and red jet was actually white and blue.

Not a good sign: CIT claims that Brooks saw The PentaCon when it was done and supports their revelations. As Aldo once said: “did you know that Sgt. Brooks already said our film was an "eye-opener" and "anything is possible" when it came to him being fooled?” I’d love to see this full communication. “I guess anything’s possible, but this bulls*** you’re arguing […] I used to feel the Human race was essentially honest, but the sheer lunacy of you two and your little movie is a real eye-opener.” If so, that would be funny, and if it reads more like they imply, that of course strengthens my suspicions here.
 
Exhibit D: The Citgo Manager's Clues

I'm going to go brief on this point, but This Frustrating Fraud post explains it in more detail. We don't know much about this manager, and the details here are all hearsay, but CIT's take is pretty much confirmed by Russell Pickering and I tend to believe these things were said.

When the "Elite research team" visited the Citgo in August 2006, the person they dealt with was the manager, Barbara. Here are the north path clues she is said to have offered.

1) Pickering says she showed him the location of a missing camera under the north canopy. She says the FBI physically took this and no other camera when they seized the videotape. This one is special because it "had a clear view of the Pentagon wall and quite a bit north as well," Pickering said. No other evidence there was ever a camera in this spot.

2) She also confirmed this camera was recording on 9/11 and should have been multiplexed into the video. When the video was released. the missing camera had no view presented. Was Barbara wrong, or was the video altered to remove this view? CIT knows the answer... the Citgo video is "data that we KNOW was manipulated and can prove it with simple testimony from the Citgo manager."

3) She offered up Robert Turcios, her employee she was "90% sure" (CIT's quote) that he saw the plane north of the station. She helped them get in touch with him.

4) Considering the above are her clues relating to Turcios and the video, isn't it odd that the video, released by the FBI about two weeks later, disproved Turcios? And it was her other clue that gave CIT an arguable cover for this? Is it possible she knew what the video showed, and so in "proving" it manipulated offered this evidentiary escape clause, for anyone who chose to use it, as cover for the witness?

Some have wondered about leading. An anonymous, unverifiable comment at an abandoned CIT-critic site says:
Originally Posted by pentacon.info
Pickering also reported that one of the "citizen investigators" told Turcios's boss before meeting with Turcios, "I know the plane flew north of the station."
http://thepentacon.info/6Reasons.htm
Click to expand...
This may have happened, but possibly after she said so. If she said he said north AFTER this outburst, that could mean leading a witness, or a witness to a witness. But as I pointed out on another thread:
But why would this employee then come forth and confirm it repeatedly on the phone and then for the camera a few months later? That's a strong lead to work through two people from one statement with no apparent reality checks along the way. This is another point that makes me think 'it takes two to tango,' or here, four (two at CIT, two at CIT-GO). It seems unlikely to lead two people like that unless they want to be led.
Click to expand...
Maybe there was a separate leading, but still - no checks. No functioning actual memories that can't be twisted with a few words. Is memory really THAT bad? And was she also led to the north-path camera being removed, or is that a coincidence how that false memory covers for the other (of Robert saying north)?

You know, this just hit me. I know it's crazy but... Barbara Honegger works for the Navy (postgraduate school, journalist). The Navy runs the Citgo/Navy exchange.... hahah! That makes no sense, but I'll leave it in.
 
Exhibit E: The NTSB Animation

So far we have a small core of three suspiciously wrong witnesses and a curiously hands-on manager collectively pointing at something beyond pure error-n-chance origin for the North of the Citgo story. This is all circumstantial and based partly on unverifiable hearsay, but these four pieces of evidence do hint at a small human conspiracy of a few people, something that could have almost happened with no planning at all, especially if CIT’s leads were clear enough.

But there are points where “investigative” leading falls away as an explanation, and any conspiracy would have to be wider and thus, I admit, less plausible. I’m referring of course to the NTSB animation, working copy never used for an official purpose, as released to several FOIA requestors. If one is looking into “too much NoC evidence,” it absolutely cannot be ignored that this video erroneously shows the NoC flight path, almost to a T.
Animation_80_degrees.jpg


What it shows, or seems to show, is a roughly straight path at 79 degrees real heading, north of the Navy Annex and Citgo, ending just short of the Pentagon at Route 27, perhaps 200 feet off the ground. This was vigorously touted by, among others, Pilots for 911 Truth as the FDR supporting the Citgo witnesses just being presented by their brother organization CIT. They themselves have generally shied away from accepting this support, but early on Ranke did say of his famous initial graphic “the blue line matches up more with the eyewitnesses and even more importantly the official FDR data.”
animation-vs-Citgo_witnesses.jpg


The nature of the error responsible has been identified; the plane’s movements are accurate to the FDR, and the problem is all in the ground. First, the animation’s lat-long grid is oriented to magnetic, not true north, meaning a rotational discrepancy of app 10 deg at the end. On top of this, the final map containing images of the Pentagon area is NOT FDR DATA, and was placed by hand – under the plane rather than a mile distant, and curiously, further rotated app 7 deg CCW from the grid. The total of 17 deg added to the FDR ground track of 61.2 degrees gives us about 78 degrees relative to the map image, or about what the animation shows. It all lines up. [a video!]

The issue of why the error happened is IMO an unresolved issue. The simple explanation is an attempted magnetic correction, but of course it would seem to be done backwards and to the wrong degree (7 rather than 10 degrees). This is possible, of course, and the close similarity with the NoC witness flight paths is another coincidence on top of the set that brought those witnesses together with the right researchers. But the coincidence is again steep enough to leave me wondering if helping usher in the NoC myth was the real reason that map was rotated wrong.

This does not mean “the NTSB was in on it,” meaning either 9/11 or this possible disinfo thing. It could, for example, be the work of one or two individuals acting on their own initiative, for whatever reason.

I’ll post some further supporting evidence of something awry in another post soon, and there are still exhibits remaining.
 
Last edited:
Supplemental to Exhibit E

It's awfully quiet aside from me on this thread. :confused:

Well, at the risk of driving everyone further away with deeper delving into my pointless theorizing... there is additional circumstantial evidence that something unusual is up with the animation.

First, I’d like to look at the mode of the animation’s initial release. The first time it was sent out by the NTSB following a FOIA request, it was underneath the radar. Calum Douglas, aka Snowygrouch, had asked for totally different files – Flight Path Study documents for Flights 11, 77, and 175, and presumably didn’t even know the animation existed. He mentioned in his packet “3 Cds” that somewhere contained “animations of the planes flightpaths.” But the cover letter mentioned only three Flight path Studies on “three Cds” and no clue of any animations. It was NTSB. It was un-requested. It was unannounced. It showed a NoC path. It was enough to leave me wondering if it was a forgery just said to be NTSB, until I saw additional releases (like to Panoply Prefect here) with letters that did mention a DVD with the recreation. [fuller explanation here]

Less conclusive but intriguing given the rest, is the timing of the animation’s initial release. It was first received Aug 17 2006, just four days before the CIT dudes, the Loose Change kids, and Pickering all arrived in Arlington to start getting in touch with the witnesses. It was immediately sent to PfT, and the final approach with commentary was put on Youtube on the 24th. The same day, within hours, the Citgo manager mentioned Turcios seeing the plane NoC, after two days earlier pointing out the “removed” NoC-seeing camera. Merc (Marquis) first announced their north-path witness (unconfirmed) the next day, already speculating on a flyover.

And finally for what it’s worth, my own experience was an inversion of Douglas’ initial case. After filing a request for my own copy of the animation in June last year, I got the letter acknowledgment of a DVD that he never did, but not the animation it heralds, and no discs at all. I’m about the only person that, prior to filing my request, had aired doubts like the above. I’m the only one I’m aware of snubbed like this. My letter did have the appendage “attachments tpc,” which is also unique AFAIK. It’s almost like they anticipated my request a year in advance and sent it to Douglas instead.
[another video for this boring story!]

And finally back to the similarity of the Citgo witness and animation flight paths, I’d like to pass on a quote from a JREF member posting elsewhere that notes it and hints at a possible connection that's occurred to me:
defaultdotxbe
Jan 31 2007, 07:34 AM
hmm, looks like the green path puts the flight north of the citgo station

i wonder how many of merc and lytes witnesses had their memories "jogged" by the NTSB animation
Click to expand...
source
Or again, it could all be coincidence.
 
The NTSB animation could have been a joke by the NTSB to show how stupid Balsamo and CIT are. Proving they know nothing about reality.

But why would we do that

If you are saying they showed the animation to the witnesses, you have something. But Paik actually points right to the impact at the Pentagon, they drew the line for him.
 
Last edited:
Hey, thanks. Also for the record, my above points on the map rotation were partly formed by Beachnut's agreement and explanations. I forgot to mention that.

beachnut said:
The NTSB animation could have been a joke by the NTSB to show how stupid Balsamo and CIT are. Proving they know nothing about reality.

But why would we do that
Click to expand...


Why would someone do a joke? Why does anyone ever? Because it's funny. ;) It would have additional and troubling implications here, but hey... I'm not bitter. Reasons will probably never be known. It's just interesting, but could be anything or nothing.

For example, after Balsamo DENIED repeatedly the map was rotated, and that the NoC "plot" was real while the SoC FDR data (the real data) was all "altered to fool the average layman", he finally agreed it was rotated and said that was ALWAYS his take! One guess he offered:

"The professionals at the NTSB just dont "rotate" maps by mistake. They do these types of animations on a regular basis. Since there are so many NOC witnesses, perhaps someone (a whistleblower?) at the NTSB rotated the map intentionally to get people looking into a north of citgo approach? Who knows...."
 
C-L

"It's awfully quiet aside from me on this thread." Well, I've been lurking. But truth be told, after CIT was getting ripped to tiny shreds over the last few weeks, this thread is starting to seem like killing a gnat with a nuke.
 
16.5 said:
C-L

"It's awfully quiet aside from me on this thread." Well, I've been lurking. But truth be told, after CIT was getting ripped to tiny shreds over the last few weeks, this thread is starting to seem like killing a gnat with a nuke.
Click to expand...


Couldn't agree more. I never thought it would happen, but I've run out of CIT punchlines. :o

I mean you're doing great CL and I'm digging it and certainly for the sake of future people searching for a good debunking of CIT this thread is valuable, but my heart isn't really in piling on these goofballs at the moment.
 
Well you guys are in luck, as this thread is hardly even about them!

And ironically, I suspect that may be the problem. :D

Happy Tuesday everyone.
 
Caustic Logic said:
Well you guys are in luck, as this thread is hardly even about them!

And ironically, I suspect that may be the problem. :D

Happy Tuesday everyone.
Click to expand...

Happy Tuesday

Plotting the variation wrong doubles the error right off the bat. That makes a simple variation error bad when you mix true and magnetic. You can end up lost, out of fuel; not a happy Tuesday.

Farmer is funny, he is wondering why the RADAR data was off 9.5 degrees. It is funny he thinks it is some mystery, but it is variation. At least his position changes as he learns more.

Farmer's research debunks the NoC.

Farmer analysis of the FDR leads him to say the FDR is fake, I believe. I wonder if he knows the navigation points are only accurate to 2000 feet and they drift the whole flight and are updated by VOR/DME. Even with these updates the accuracy is no better than 2000 feet. This means you can not correlate the heading and tracks of 77 with lat and long positions stored in the FDR. The INS does not correlate exactly to the aircraft heading due to drift and updates. I hope this anomaly is not why Farmer thinks the FDR is fake. I have to study that again to be specific, but it made no sense and the motivation is low when you know the FDR is not fake or changed.

I know the FDR is not fake. I have to go back and see Farmer's work, he is very good at research and digging up stuff; his work debunks 9/11 truth lies and false information.

IF Jones could do as good and be as tenacious as Farmer at research, Jones would stop spewing thermite lies.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Happy Tuesday

Plotting the variation wrong doubles the error right off the bat. That makes a simple variation error bad when you mix true and magnetic. You can end up lost, out of fuel; not a happy Tuesday.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's true. Hey, you've watched the Flight 93 animation, right? Does it by chance have any similar errors, a magnetic grid, or any overlay images aside from runway? I'm wondering if they just screwed up 77's special, got both wrong.

All the Farmer stuff is off-topic, but quickly - yes, he gets lots of good stuff
and he's certainly more sophisticated than, say, CIT. How much is that really saying tho? I didn't catch that 9.5 degrees mystery, but that is a variation that would appear a ways back on the path, west of Dulles by what I've found. At the Pentagon, more like 10.5. If he missed that... I don't think he says the FDR is fake, but he does keep looking needlessly for Truthy mystery. Some of his theories are pretty silly. Did you catch his second plane paper? I can only hope he meant it as a joke, but it doesn't seem so.
 
Caustic Logic said:
Yeah, that's true. Hey, you've watched the Flight 93 animation, right? Does it by chance have any similar errors, a magnetic grid, or any overlay images aside from runway? I'm wondering if they just screwed up 77's special, got both wrong.

All the Farmer stuff is off-topic, but quickly - yes, he gets lots of good stuff
and he's certainly more sophisticated than, say, CIT. How much is that really saying tho? I didn't catch that 9.5 degrees mystery, but that is a variation that would appear a ways back on the path, west of Dulles by what I've found. At the Pentagon, more like 10.5. If he missed that... I don't think he says the FDR is fake, but he does keep looking needlessly for Truthy mystery. Some of his theories are pretty silly. Did you catch his second plane paper? I can only hope he meant it as a joke, but it doesn't seem so.
Click to expand...
I have to see his 2nd plane stuff. Yes he always leaves room for woo, and acts like he is uncovering secret stuff as he goes; only to post stuff to debunk CIT and p4t. I can't find his old stuff, old stuff.

93 looks fine, but there is no image under the end. I think they have it take off on a runway image but that is easy.

The only reason 77 looks funny is they did not take the time to line up the Pentagon. With 2000 foot accuracy, it takes more to place the image.
On 93 there is no image.

93fdranim.jpg

Last few seconds
93atitudefinal.jpg

Last data point; 179 true heading, 187 magnetic.
 
Last edited:
OMG!!! The NTSB doesn't show the trees and cabin which would have been automatically generated as soon as they plugged the data into their Cray supercomputer! It must be an inside jobby!! etc etc and so forth.
 
thanks for the tips Beachnut. That's an amazing final maneuver, I guess to throw the people off. It looks like that grid as well is set to magnetic, as it's near parallel with a long line at near 180 heading. And also square, as if set to the default equator. But no overlay map for additional error.

Okay, so that's the animation. It may just be an honest goof-up, but it happens to be messed up so as to show a NoC path. And it's noted.

I had to go back and check what my next exhibit should be. It'll deal more with the CIT guys again, and Eastman. It's a good one.
 
Caustic Logic said:
thanks for the tips Beachnut. That's an amazing final maneuver, I guess to throw the people off. It looks like that grid as well is set to magnetic, as it's near parallel with a long line at near 180 heading. And also square, as if set to the default equator. But no overlay map for additional error.

Okay, so that's the animation. It may just be an honest goof-up, but it happens to be messed up so as to show a NoC path. And it's noted.

I had to go back and check what my next exhibit should be. It'll deal more with the CIT guys again, and Eastman. It's a good one.
Click to expand...

Pilots use magnetic to fly. Our heading system is magnetic, etc.

I think people like Farmer are learning about magnetic vs. true, but in a round about way.

The terrorist looked like he was trying to do that, make the people fall all over and hit the ceiling.
 
Exhibit F: The North-Pather Shift Change

This next point is again centered on the 9/11 theorists themselves, rather than cops and gas station managers and map-rotators. My sixth exhibit is the curiously precise movements of the 9/11 truthers working the north path story, almost like shift change at a gas station.

Dick Eastman is of course the original north-path flyover proponent, working that angle since at least mid-2003. He had one witness and nothing else aside from "the hole is too small," etc... Nonetheless, he argued firmly for about what CIT does now, but with an added drone F-16 in place of planted poles and on-site bombs, petering off a bit into 2005 and 06. Eastman finally realized how wrong he was [he says] after watching Integrated consultants' animation, and gave up publically on Aug 25 2006, 3pm PDT.

I now believe that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon - that this explanation best fits the data. Please pass this around - I don't want to hold up the search for truth any more than I already have.
Click to expand...

That's pretty out-of-nowhere for ol' Dick of all people. Of course, the NTSB animation showing just what he'd always said, and finally a second witness who also did, had just been posted online and learned of, respectively, the day before this. So was it from nowhere? Of all the days to call it quits...

In case he missed it, Merc (Aldo) posted for the world at 5:10 pm at the LCF that they learned of a northside witness. The time-scale of all this is small enough that time zones matter. I'm not sure if the posts are set to west coast time, which Aldo, Dick, and myself are/were in, or what... what was posted before what? Anyway, it was all the same day, and in case he missed it again, Merc called Eastman.

To make matters worse (for some, great for others). I spoke with Dick Eastman on friday night. I had relayed the news to him. <b>He seems excited again.
Click to expand...

Please note: Friday was the 25th, so this call came just hours after his gloomy e-mail. That was a short depression! Shortly he would issue a statement showing this renewed fervor for "the truth":

Aldo Marquis and the rest of the Citizen Investigation Team are suddenly the most important 9-11 researchers. They have it right -- and that comes from the top Pentagon investigator before them (me). I was a wimp to have given up too soon. Thank God for better men. We owe them thanks - but more than that we owe them wide distribution of their findings.

Dick Eastman
God bless you all in "San Juan Capistrano."
Click to expand...

[a little more detail]

This is not all coincidence, is it? Was it just luck that they were offered Turcios and that darn cartoon at the same exact time of their agreed place-swapping? Did they all just act super-quick on Turcios as he appeared by luck, and the animation was a sheer coincidence? Open questions with no certain answers...
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
How bizarre.
""I am right, no, I quit. Now I am right because the worse investigators in the universe have made up some new evidence out of messing up witness statements. ""
Click to expand...

Bizarre is right. This guy... for Pete's sake, he denied light poles were knocked down until proven wrong. He had decoded a F-16 drone had flown there, with a what, 35-foot wingspan? AIR VORTICES off its wingtips crimped those poles down, he decided. Impervious to all logic, fearless in the face facts, barrelling ahead against the zionist controllers... until the very day his fantasy scenario flipped from obscurity to the stage set for BIG visibility. THAT DAY!

So it seems reasonable to guess there was coordination between Eastman and the CIT and perhaps Pfft guys. Right at the time the Citgo manager decided to point to a certain camera and a certain employee, just as the NTSB's cartoon got on-line...

Anyway, I'm almost done. Two more points... I guess it's the twoofer in me that just cannot accept this many coincidences, at least not without a proper cataloging?
 
Why do they call it the "north of Citgo" theory? The major claim of that theory is that the plane flew over the Pentagon, who cares what side of the CITGO it flew by? Shouldn't it be called the "flyover theory"?

And as a "flyover" theory, it makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
hi!

my name is adam. since a couple ordinary guys exposed the pentagon cover up and i didn't i am real bitter. since they have so much evidence i cannot deny it any further i'm going to invent a new theory. one where the government puts those witnesses there to be found because they don't want people to know 9/11 wasn't an inside job and want more and more people to think that it was. this is because there is nothing to cover up about 9/11. any questions?
 
TC329 said:
hi!

my name is adam. since a couple ordinary guys exposed the pentagon cover up and i didn't i am real bitter. since they have so much evidence i cannot deny it any further i'm going to invent a new theory. one where the government puts those witnesses there to be found because they don't want people to know 9/11 wasn't an inside job and want more and more people to think that it was. this is because there is nothing to cover up about 9/11. any questions?
Click to expand...

Hahaha! Well hi Adam, my name's Domenick and I have to keep coming to the defense of no-plane-in-the-crater - er, Pentagon people. And whatever else.

I deny nothing. I'm outlining how MUCH NoC evidence there is and still as always, as Pardalis points out, NoC does not equal flyover. CIT and PffT and yourself are the ones denying evidence with a flick of the wrist so much you got carpel tummel. How many last-second lift up witnesses anyone got? How WAS the magic trick done? ANY GUESS AT ALL yet?
 
Caustic Logic said:
How many last-second lift up witnesses anyone got? How WAS the magic trick done? ANY GUESS AT ALL yet?
Click to expand...

Yep.

LCF's SPreston reckons a 'cloaking device' was used.

That's good enough for me, on account of how he'll scream in a huge red font when disagreed with.
 
Last edited:
Caustic Logic said:
Well you guys are in luck, as this thread is hardly even about them!

And ironically, I suspect that may be the problem. :D

Happy Tuesday everyone.
Click to expand...

never thought id see those two words together on any forum,

my late parents used to have a dog, "Happy" and a cat "Tuesday". one Tuesday my brother pulled up to the house to the sounds of my sister calling out the front door for the pets.. Happy Tuesday!'
 
TC329 said:
hi!

my name is adam. since a couple ordinary guys exposed the pentagon cover up and i didn't i am real bitter. since they have so much evidence i cannot deny it any further i'm going to invent a new theory. one where the government puts those witnesses there to be found because they don't want people to know 9/11 wasn't an inside job and want more and more people to think that it was. this is because there is nothing to cover up about 9/11. any questions?
Click to expand...
So, adam is right due to logic and research, you are wrong by messing up simple testimony. Gee, your Miller testimony kills all your ideas! And adam is learning, you are messing up all the witness statements and spreading lies.
 
Last edited:
TC329 said:
any questions?
Click to expand...

Yeah, why do you bother with these one-liner drive by things every so often when I hit a CIT nerve? And why offer nothing to the conversation but mockery and a mischaracterization of my points? Where have I ever said any of the things you claim? And then slink away, only to re-emerge when another errand is needed? Do they trust you with the petty cash even, errand boy?

You never did answer if you understood how your friends decided NOT to follow up with Roosevelt and just chased him off?

AND in other news:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQsyt_7c1H8

This was JUST posted by - guess who - John farmer. He says it's an FAA recreation of the final trajectory. Can anyone else gander at this and tell me is my brain broken, or is this almost exactly CIT's concoted path, from the Navy Annex forward at least? What?
:jaw-dropp
 
Caustic Logic said:
I deny nothing. I'm outlining how MUCH NoC evidence there is and still as always, as Pardalis points out, NoC does not equal flyover
Click to expand...

To clarify... some pieces of evidence saying NoC don't mean a real path like that. Evidence can be wrong and misread, and most of it is by CIT. The whole reason there's "too much" evidence is that it DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAPPEN, so the evidence for it should be about nil. Instead it's like, 10, or something. That's not high enough to challenge the 3-D verified reality, but it's enough to give some people a lot to yammer about... and I want answers!
 
CL said:
NoC does not equal flyover
Click to expand...

oh it doesn't?

then what knocked down the ****ing light poles then genius?

and why would they need to stage a light pole scene if they were going to fly a plane in the building?

and you do realize staging the cab scene is absolute 100% undeniable proof of prior knowledge proving an inside job?

oh please enlighten me on your theories adam.
 
TC329 said:
hi!

my name is adam. since a couple ordinary guys exposed the pentagon cover up and i didn't i am real bitter. since they have so much evidence i cannot deny it any further i'm going to invent a new theory. one where the government puts those witnesses there to be found because they don't want people to know 9/11 wasn't an inside job and want more and more people to think that it was. this is because there is nothing to cover up about 9/11. any questions?
Click to expand...

LOL
This coming from a guy who appeared on a radio show whose host believed space beams may have brought down flight 93.
 
TC329 said:
oh it doesn't?

then what knocked down the ****ing light poles then genius?

and why would they need to stage a light pole scene if they were going to fly a plane in the building?

and you do realize staging the cab scene is absolute 100% undeniable proof of prior knowledge proving an inside job?

oh please enlighten me on your theories adam.
Click to expand...

When someone disagrees with you is it EVER POSSIBLE for you to be the least bit civil and simply have a conversation?
 
TC329 said:
oh it doesn't?

then what knocked down the ****ing light poles then genius?
Click to expand...

Oh ya got me there. Listen, I'm pretty certain you know what I meant, so your playing dumb and indignant is unbecoming. No wait, it fits fine. Did you see the clarification right above your dumb-playing post? Your buddies' NoC argument, and the curiously wrong evidence it's based on, does nothing to change the fact that all evidence mitigates directly against flyover. Concoct stupid geometry problems all you like, but that's why it's the NoC case, not the flyover case. One is supposed to mean the other, but yet... it doesn't somehow.

and why would they need to stage a light pole scene if they were going to fly a plane in the building?
Click to expand...

Good point! My guess is the terrorists responsible therefore DID NOT stage any light poles!
 
Okay. I have a theory. (It could be bunnies.)

Perhaps in the first two weeks or so after 9/11, at some level in the DoD it was decided to suppress precise information about which offices had been destroyed in the Pentagon attack.

(Conceivable reasons for doing this: to avoid attracting attention to the existence of certain offices in the actual damage path; to conceal that certain offices had been put out of commission; or general habitual reluctance to reveal detailed information even vaguely related to classified matters.)

Part of this effort was dissemination to the media of vague and inaccurate images showing a more or less straight-on impact, which subsequently influenced some witness's memories. This might also account for the alleged confiscation of camera footage that would clarify the impact path (e.g. the Citgo camera that would fail to show the plane that it should show for a straight-on impact path).

That secrecy was subsequently abandoned. Possibly because the people involved realized it wasn't necessary in the first place (for instance, if they got permission from higher-ups to go ahead and release details). Perhaps because they saw it was doomed to failure once the level of scrutiny given the historical events of the day, not only by the press but by victims' families, building safety engineers, emergency services organizations, aviation buffs, state and local governments, and the many eyewitnesses, became clear. Perhaps because over time they worked out more precise and therefore more effective ways of concealing any significant national security secrets involved.

I doubt that this has anything to do with the witness's accounts. It's unlikely (though not out of the question) that they were told to describe an approach from farther north, and stayed with it years later. But if they were, they might see no harm in it (after all, the plane really did hit the building). More likely it's just normal variation in memory. Similarly the timing of various revelations remains coincidental, as traces of the original attempt at misrepresenting the impact path have surfaced.

This is pure speculation. Overall it's probably not accurate and I'm not going to defend it. However, it's more plausible and much more consistent with the overall body of evidence than anything suggested by CIT or PfT.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
Okay. I have a theory. (It could be bunnies.)

[...]


This is pure speculation. Overall it's probably not accurate and I'm not going to defend it. However, it's more plausible and much more consistent with the overall body of evidence than anything suggested by CIT or PfT.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

An excellent post, Myriad, and the type I was hoping to see - rather than just hand-waving away the cluster of coincidences, you propose a possible explanation. Cogent, and possibly part of the picture anyway. I don't think you need to defend this possibility, as you laid it out pretty good. I will return to this later and consider it a bit. No time now.


Also to note, this issue suddenly came to the forefront again due to the new FAA-provided apparently NORAD-commissioned animation showing the NoC path, and even CIT's S-swerve over the Annex leading up to it. For future reference the discussion on that is here. I'm not certain at the moment whether or not this fits as yet another exhibit here.
 
What's interesting about Lagasse is, he places the damaged light poles and the taxi in the wrong spot. He even puts himself in the wrong spot. So it's not a stretch to say he's mistaken about the path into the pentagon.

YouTube this video. watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4

How's your memory? How many passes does the white team make? Tell me ten minutes after viewing.
 
What really bugs me about CIT is they use the same shoddy investigation methods which have landed so many innocent people in jail. This man here was picked out of a photo line up and found guilty. He was exonerated by DNA evidence. There are countless cases like this. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. That's why investigators use the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to determine what happened, and not use contradicting eyewitness testimony as "total proof".

msnbc.msn.com/id/10995872/
 
TC329 said:
and you do realize staging the cab scene is absolute 100% undeniable proof of prior knowledge proving an inside job?
Click to expand...

Only with "absolute 100% undeniable proof" that the cab scene was staged.

Perhaps a better question to ask would be this:

Who, unconvinced that the plane hit the pentagon, would have been convinced solely due to the light pole/cab scene?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom