Army Center for Military History FOIA Complete

The coolest witness! Morin, who says 77 was parallel with the outer edge of the FOB, then he watched the tail go out of sight and 77 impacts the Pentagon. (yes, folks he had to run and clear the FOB and see the tail disappear) NO FLY OVER.

This is great! The funniest moment is Craig somebody CIT dolt interrogator stepping on Morin as he reiterates the parallel to the outer edge in an illegal taped conversation of Morin! Morin’s CIT tape still has 77 in a position to take out the lampposts! Funny as Craig tries to hide what Morin says, but they released the darn tape anyway. How stupid are the dumbest investigators in the world! It is undefined!

This is classic CIT, on the free online video clips every ANC witness points to the "official flight path". The dunces at CIT publish their own rebuttal oblivious to the fact it debunks them. Undefined…

How stupid is CIT to post stuff making them look like bigger idiots than they are in the first place as they ignore FDR, DNA, RADAR, and physical evidence, literally tons of evidence. Undefined…

The greatest irony; Boger. Boger watched Flight 77 impact the Pentagon with his own A-1 standard issue eyeballs! What a hoot as they try to say he ducked! As an expert on first time events, those not in your bag of tricks called a brain and experiences; the first time you are confronted with an event you have never seen, the jump and duck is just not there! What we have as humans for events never seen before, is what we have from all our fellow mammals if not other life forms, it is called the “deer in the headlight” syndrome! I have seen it many times anecdotally (did I get close, my “verbal” skills are variable), and it is supported in human factors.

Poor Sean was memorized and stands by his, “watched it hit the Pentagon” statement that CIT has to ignore to have their dirt dumb delusion!

The ACMH is the cleaner to apply and wipe away pure ignorance and delusion of CIT. Rinse and repeat!

AllGroupsMap3.jpg
Click to expand...
The dumbest post in the history of CIT support, is the photo of flight paths (all physically impossible for 77 due to many reasons which CIT can’t grasp due to complete ignorance and really bad support form dolt pilots from p4t cult Balsamo clone club) all culminating in the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. CIT witnesses have Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon at the end of their flight paths they drew from their perspective.

Based on the flight paths and as a trained aircraft accident investigator, all the flight paths from the perspective of each witness confirm the real flight path that knocked down the lampposts and hit the Pentagon. The CIT guys are not trained and they messed up every aspect of their investigation and broke all the rules of witness testimony taking! Sorry CIT, you guys flunked. The worse I have ever seen. How bad can this get?

Remember - The ACMH is the cleaner to apply and wipe away pure ignorance and delusion of CIT. Rinse and repeat!
 
Last edited:
TheLoneBedouin said:
The Pentagon is in a topographical bowl and this fact added with the surrounding landscape leaves very few places where people would have a clear view of the alleged impact point.
Click to expand...

So what if the actual ground-floor impact point was obscured by the topography. Are you now claiming that the plane flew over the Pentagon at ground level? I didn't think so. The relevant question for the flyover claim is whether the witnesses had a view of the plane at some altitude above the roof of the Pentagon.
 
Mangoose said:
So what if the actual ground-floor impact point was obscured by the topography. Are you now claiming that the plane flew over the Pentagon at ground level? I didn't think so. The relevant question for the flyover claim is whether the witnesses had a view of the plane at some altitude above the roof of the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

You have produce excellent technical products on 911 which CIT and Balsamo’s club of dirt dumb pilots will never comprehend! You have handily debunked their insane delusions as they fail to grasp reality, the reality of your work.

Any trolls will not be as good at CIT or Balsamo’s club of failed aviators at figuring out your work, let alone any rational ideas, facts, or evidence relevant to 911. Without directly replying to trolls we can present masses of relevant facts CIT, p4t and their followers will never understand.

Excellent work on your part, sad to see (but expected) the CIT and p4t delusion filled heads are incapable of logical functions on 911.
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
Mackey,
The Pentagon is in a topographical bowl and this fact added with the surrounding landscape leaves very few places where people would have a clear view of the alleged impact point.

The citgo is a critical landmark that definitively determines if the plane was on course to cause the physical damage starting with the downed light poles.

THERE ARE NO BETTER VANTAGE POINTS TO DETERMINE THE FLIGHT PATH IN RELATION TO THE CITGO WHICH IS THE FINAL AND MOST SIGNIFICANT LANDMARK TO DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE PLANE AT THAT CRITICAL MOMENT.

People from ALL surrounding perspectives in a position to tell unanimously agree it was BANKING on the north side of the gas station.

The fact that most could not see the alleged impact point due to the complex topography and landscape does not change this. This is merely a circumstance that helped facilitate the deception.
Click to expand...

One witness Morin blows your theory. He would have been in a position to see anything fly over the roof of the pentagon, A roof clearly visible in this photograph. It could not have dipped below the trees and then climbed back up to fly above and not be clearly seen by Morin. Furthermore because he saw the tail the flight COULD NOT have flown NOC

DSC_0405.jpg
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
Your speculation that becuase they didn't have a good view of the "impact", they didn't have a good view of the flightpath preceding the "impact" is clearly illogical.


This post about the NOC path vs. the impact and this post about the rationale for faking the SOC path, answer all of your questions.

All of these basic questions are answered in CIT's presentation, and since you are criticizing them without viewing the evidence, you are by definition a pseudoskpetic.
Click to expand...
My dad can beat up your dad!!!!
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
You said that they "refuse" to release interviews.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm recalling a memory. Kinda like CIT's NOC eyewitnesses. However, mine is considerably more recent than CIT's eyewitnesses. So, which one do you think is more reliable?
I know that that they have never said this and have heard them state otherwise many times.
Click to expand...
Oh, so they have interviewed a single SOC eyewitness and released the videos? Please provide links.
So unless you can provide a quote from them declaring this refusal it's clear that you remembered incorrectly or were simply lying about what they had said.
Click to expand...
Unless you can provide a quote from your own interviews with the 120 known eyewitnesses and they all corroborate the NOC flight path, it is clear that the 13 NOC eyewitnesses that CIT present are either mistaken, lying or misquoted. If they are lying, it would be easy to assume that they are doing such to get the CIT harassers off their backs. However, considering the number of years between the time they saw the aircraft until they were interviewed, it would be safe to say that they were simply mistaken or misquoted by peolple with a clear agenda that has nothing to do with finding the truth.
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
Mackey,

It's amazing to me that I have to explain this to you and as I said it simply demonstrates that you have not even bothered to viewed the evidence you are attempting to refute.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you're trying to "explain" this to me at all -- it has little bearing on my questions.

Since you're obviously having trouble understanding my questions, I'll restate them very simply for you:

1. You acknowledge that, of your 13 star witnesses, only a very few (viz. Sean Boger) could actually see the impact point? Yes or no answer, please.

2. You acknowledge that, of the much larger pool of witnesses in total, much more than one were positioned to see the impact point? Yes or no answer, please.

3. You acknowledge that, since the maneuver or lack thereof close to the Pentagon is critical to your theory, the ability to see this point and thereby descry what happened there is of prime importance? Yes or no.

4. You acknowledge that Mr. Boger, as well as a plurality of other witnesses, claims that Flight 77 did in fact impact the Pentagon? Yes or no answer.

5. You acknowledge that the following list of features are essential ingredients of the (as far as I know, never clearly stated) Citizens's Investigationing Team's hypothesis:

  • They wanted to fool the world into thinking American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, along a certain heading that took it through several light poles and low over the freeway just prior to impact
  • To do this, They flew an aircraft over the Pentagon
  • The aircraft traveled along a different heading entirely, on the opposite side of a visible landmark (viz. the Citgo station)
  • The aircraft passed nowhere near the light poles in question
  • The light poles were sabotaged anyway, in some completely different fashion than aircraft impact
  • One light pole was staged to penetrate the windshield of a car, in traffic, again despite the actual aircraft not passing anywhere near overhead
  • A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by
  • The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual
  • The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77
  • A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft
  • The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.
Yes or no answer, and if "no," please elaborate.

6. You acknowledge that no explanation has ever been tendered for why They would have carried out such a bizarre plan? Yes or no answer.​

After you answer that, I'll be glad to entertain your claims about how the Pentagon is "in a bowl" and therefore difficult to see :rolleyes: but, until then, please humor me. I cannot discuss your hypothesis intelligently if I do not know what it is. The answers to the questions above should help immeasurably. Thanks for your consideration.
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
Mackey,

The Pentagon is in a topographical bowl and this fact added with the surrounding landscape leaves very few places where people would have a clear view of the alleged impact point.
Click to expand...

Ah, TLB, we've been here before. As you already know, the topography all around the Pentagon is ideal to see your alleged Pentagon flyover!

But all of the 13 NoC witnesses were in THE MOST critical areas to view the final moment of the flight path as the plane passed the citgo station.
Click to expand...
And many hundreds were in an ideal position to have witnessed a flyover from all around the Pentagon.

The fact that most could not see the alleged impact point due to the complex topography and landscape does not change this.
Click to expand...
But fortunately I provided you with the necessary topographical analysis showing you how easy it would be for many hundreds of eyewitnesses to see any flyover over the Pentagon.

Shall I repeat it for you? OK, I will:

And now for something completely different....

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 be seen 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.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread378783/pg50#pid4823797
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TheLoneBedouin said:
Will you cut it with the lame circular logic.

The north side claim and the impact are mutually exclusive.

MOST of the 13 north side witnesses could not see the alleged impact point at all due to topography and landscape.

The fact that they DEDUCED an impact does not refute the fact that they SAW the plane on the north side.

Here is the confirmed north side witness list to date:

1. Ed Paik.......could not see Pentagon or alleged impact point at all.
2. Terry Morin....could not see alleged impact point at all.
3. William Middleton.....could not see alleged impact point at all.
4. George Aman.....could not see alleged impact point at all.
5. Darrell Stafford......could not see alleged impact point at all.
6. Darius Prather......could not see alleged impact point at all.
7. Donald Carter......could not see alleged impact point at all.
8. Robert Turcios.....specifically claimed that he DID NOT see the plane hit and only remembers the fireball.
9. Sgt Brooks.....Admitted after seeing The PentaCon that it's possible he could have been fooled about the impact but stands by the north side approach.
10. Sgt Lagasse....Admitted that he jumped into his car out of a "fear" after plane flew by on the north side.
11. Levi Stephens....Admitted that he was facing the opposite way towards Crystal City.
12. Maria De La Cerda......could not see alleged impact point at all and thought the plane crashed on "the other side" or "on top" of the building indicating flyover.
13 Sean Boger....This is the only north side witness who definitively claims that he watched the plane enter the building but since all the other witnesses confirm his north side claim and a north side impact is impossible the logical conclusion is that he innocently embellished the impact details.
Click to expand...

Hey TLB does FatAldo and Shakey Shake Craig know you just threw EVERY. WITNESS. UNDER. THE. BUS?

Oh yeah, you claim that they could not see the impact. Lets assume that old TLB is correct, shall we, just for grins and giggles.

"The Pentagon is in a topographical bowl and this fact added with the surrounding landscape leaves very few places where people would have a clear view of the alleged impact point."

O'Rly? Well, what could the witness see then? Oh yeah, the nonexistent unreported flyover! They will never realize that their dirt dumb theory is completely inconsistent.

No Planers.

Hey Craig, button your shirt!
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
But all of the 13 NoC witnesses were in THE MOST critical areas to view the final moment of the flight path as the plane passed the citgo station.
Click to expand...


I thought the final moments of CIT's alleged flight path would be the plane flying over the Pentagon.
 
R.Mackey said:

1. You acknowledge that, of your 13 star witnesses, only a very few (viz. Sean Boger) could actually see the impact point? Yes or no answer, please.​
Click to expand...

Yes.

2. You acknowledge that, of the much larger pool of witnesses in total, much more than one were positioned to see the impact point? Yes or no answer, please.
Click to expand...
Depends on how much you mean by "much more". The overwhelming majority of witnesses simply either saw or heard a plane and saw or heard the explosion.

3. You acknowledge that, since the maneuver or lack thereof close to the Pentagon is critical to your theory, the ability to see this point and thereby descry what happened there is of prime importance? Yes or no.
Click to expand...
Yes.

4. You acknowledge that Mr. Boger, as well as a plurality of other witnesses, claims that Flight 77 did in fact impact the Pentagon? Yes or no answer.
Click to expand...
Yes. And the vast majority did not claim to actually see the impact, but nevertheless nearly everyone claims that Flight 77 impacted, regardless of whether they even saw the plane or if their story contradicts the official story. What are the implications of this fact? Think!

5. You acknowledge that the following list of features are essential ingredients of the (as far as I know, never clearly stated) Citizens's Investigationing Team's hypothesis:

  • They wanted to fool the world into thinking American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, along a certain heading that took it through several light poles and low over the freeway just prior to impact
  • To do this, They flew an aircraft over the Pentagon
  • The aircraft traveled along a different heading entirely, on the opposite side of a visible landmark (viz. the Citgo station)
  • The aircraft passed nowhere near the light poles in question
  • The light poles were sabotaged anyway, in some completely different fashion than aircraft impact
  • One light pole was staged to penetrate the windshield of a car, in traffic, again despite the actual aircraft not passing anywhere near overhead
  • A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by
  • The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual
  • The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77
  • A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft
  • The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.
Yes or no answer, and if "no," please elaborate.
Click to expand...
Yes.

6. You acknowledge that no explanation has ever been tendered for why They would have carried out such a bizarre plan? Yes or no answer.
Click to expand...
No. It's been answered in CIT's presentations.
If, as you claim, you are a physicist and are trained in the scientfic method, why would claim a hypothesis is "the stupidest ever conceived" without viewing the evidence?
And why, when I asked you if Reheat's NOC paper followed the protocols of constructing mathematical models, did you insist that it was accurate, despite a huge number of assumptions including the completely false claim that Morin was out between the wings of the Navy Annex?
I think we know the answer- despite your claims of unbiased objectivity you clearly have a confirmation bias in favor of the official story, as do the majority of the JREF clique.
 
BJE said:
But fortunately I provided you with the necessary topographical analysis showing you how easy it would be for many hundreds of eyewitnesses to see any flyover over the Pentagon.
Click to expand...
Given Roosevelt Roberts and the CMH flyover witnesses, even if this is valid, it is a moot point.
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
Yes.

If, as you claim, you are a physicist and are trained in the scientfic method, why would claim a hypothesis is "the stupidest ever conceived" without viewing the evidence?
Click to expand...
Sorry there bud but you dont have to be a scientist to know that a bucket of stupid is being poured on you everytime a member of CIT/PFT opens their mouths or types on a forum.

I think we know the answer- despite your claims of unbiased objectivity you clearly have a confirmation bias in favor of the official story, as do the majority of the JREF clique.
Click to expand...
Wait a second!
You werent aware that RMackey is on the NWO payroll?
He is also part of our subforum whose sole job it is to discredit the CIT!
Now get on your bigwheel and head over to the Chuck E Cheese playland and inform your masters of this!
Hey Aldo start holding the cheese there buddy!
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
Given Roosevelt Roberts and the CMH flyover witnesses, even if this is valid, it is a moot point.
Click to expand...
It seems A TON of witnesses and PHYSICAL EVIDENCE are a moot point to your delusional fantasies.
What about the tall buildings around the Pentagon?
Wouldnt they have had a prime view of your insane fly over theory?
 
Edited by LibraryLady: 
Edited for civility

Yes. And the vast majority did not claim to actually see the impact, but nevertheless nearly everyone claims that Flight 77 impacted, regardless of whether they even saw the plane or if their story contradicts the official story. What are the implications of this fact? Think!
Click to expand...

You're not too hot on evidence, are you? Why are you pursuing your garbage ideas? Just, WHY? Why, why why? WHHHHHY?

You have no witnesses that saw a flyover, (at least none that haven't undergone severe ect treatment recently, or weren't being force fed their lines, and even then they think you're a prat and want nothing to do with you.)

Edited by LibraryLady: 
Edited for civility

Bananaman (The Concerned.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheLoneBedouin said:
Given Roosevelt Roberts and the CMH flyover witnesses, even if this is valid, it is a moot point.[/QUOTE

Given a completely insanely impossible and obvious to all the other CIT witnesses but of course not reported flight path and completely ridiculous hearsay, this is a moot point.

Fixed that for you!

Do you think that Aldo (the buffet destroyer) and Maryann with the Shakey Craig will ever realize that if they rely on Roosevelt, they throw all their other witnesses under the freight train? These guys are as amusing as they are dim.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom