General of all American Intelligence:

[Little Fish]

Ah so you theorise he deduced the plane hit the light pole because it was laying in the road

father mcgraw said he did not see the pole being knocked down.

check for yourself:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5085491450059007792

The rest of the quotes regarding the impact support a South flight as this is the only path that could cause the physical damage seen in the Pentagon.

and you have no problem disregarding the NTSB data and eyewitnesses that say a north of citgo flight path?

[Q24]

yes i prefer evidence too.

what evidence do you have for a south of citgo flight path?

what evidence do you have for the plane knocking down the light poles?

You are basically asking what evidence there is for the official flight path, and I will cover the above two points on the way: -

• Eyewitnesses who describe the flight path as coming from South of the Navy Annex or along Columbia Pike.
  
• Physical damage to the light poles.
  
• Eyewitnesses who saw the flight hit the light poles.
  
• Physical damage and movement of the generator in front of the Pentagon.
  
• The Pentagon security camera footage in which an aircraft can be seen.
  
• The large fireball captured on security camera footage matches those at the WTC, to be expected of an airliner impact.
  
• Eyewitnesses to the actual impact.
  
• FAA radar controllers who saw the alleged Flight 77 disappear from radar at impact.
  
• Apparently, the alleged Flight 77 black box (see comments further below).
  
• Physical damage to the Pentagon including the trajectory and apparent wing impact marks as set out in the Building Performance Report.
  
• Airliner debris including landing gear, engine part and fuselage that were recovered at the scene.
  
• The sheer logic that if the plan calls for a plane impact then you impact a plane.
  

Rather than assuming the above to mean planted light poles, faked generator damage, explosives in the Pentagon to immitate plane damage, lying impact eyewitnesses, mistaken radar controllers, more planted evidence in plane debris and complete idiocy by the perpetrators of 9/11… I rather prefer to follow that an airliner simply impacted the Pentagon.

here is the evidence for a north of citgo flight path:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

the black box flight path data shows the plane north of citgo.

Thanks for that link to the eyewitnesses. Just a few points: -

• Edward Paik and Terry Morin do not necessarily support a flight path to the North of the Citgo.
  
• Three of the eyewitnesses describe the aircraft as moving relatively slowly and being within their field of vision for 10 seconds or more. This leads me to believe they were viewing the C-130 rather than the more urgent alleged Flight 77.
  
• The video admits that most of these eyewitnesses could not see the impact point “due to the complex topography and landscape”. In this case it could again be reasonable they were confused between the C-130 and plane that actually impacted the Pentagon.
  

Anyway, onto a big point regarding the black box data now. At 9:16 in the CIT video you linked above, please read carefully: -

“2. The alleged “black box” data released from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in 2006. Scale animations created by FAA certified pilot and founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Robert Balsamo based off heading provided by NTSB.

The NTSB says it flew South of Columbia Pike, just South of the communications antenna on the Virginia Department of Transportation’s property, South of the former Citgo gas station and directly over the Route 27 overpass bridge to hit the light poles and entered the building entirely on the bottom floor. Take special note of the location of the bridge and the depicted trajectory of the plane. But don’t forget, although the Southern approach heading reported by the NTSB does match with what was reported by the 9/11 Commission, the final altitude reported was 699 feet above sea level, making the final descent and pull-up to hit the light poles and be low and level as shown in the Department of Defense 2006 release security video physically impossible.”

The commentary above and graphics by Robert Balsamo, based on the NTSB black box data, are showing the flight path corroborating the official story… in total contradiction to your second YouTube link! I’m a little surprised by this.

and you have no problem disregarding the NTSB data and eyewitnesses that say a north of citgo flight path?

I have no trouble disregarding around 10 eyewitnesses who describe a North flight path. These accounts are mostly contradictory of each other as is to be expected of eyewitness accounts. There is the chance of confusion in what is being viewed and differing personal perspectives here. From the one hundred plus eyewitnesses who saw an aircraft (or two) at the scene I believe we could draw nearly one hundred different flight paths, some of which would match the official flight path and some which would not – human fallibility. I would take the physical damage, radar returns, security footage, etc over eyewitnesses any day.

Regarding the NTSB black box data, I did have a big problem with this. I believed the data showed a flight path to the North of the Citgo. The video with Robert Balsamo’s animation has dispelled that belief. I’m wondering if I am being taken for a ride by Pilots for 9/11 Truth after that. What’s going on?

[Little Fish]

You are basically asking what evidence there is for the official flight path, and I will cover the above two points on the way: -

[*]Eyewitnesses who describe the flight path as coming from South of the Navy Annex or along Columbia Pike.

can you provide one for scrutiny.

[*]Physical damage to the light poles.

I am trying to determine whether it was the plane that damaged the poles, evidence of poles knocked down is not evidence that the plane knocked them down.

[*]Eyewitnesses who saw the flight hit the light poles.

one of your "eyewitnesses" quotes has clarified he did not see the plane hit the pole, he deduced it was hit, any statement along the lines of "the plane hit the light pole" has to be scutinised.

[*]Physical damage and movement of the generator in front of the Pentagon.

tells me nothing about the flight path

[*]The Pentagon security camera footage in which an aircraft can be seen.

[*]The large fireball captured on security camera footage matches those at the WTC, to be expected of an airliner impact.

[*]Eyewitnesses to the actual impact.

[*]FAA radar controllers who saw the alleged Flight 77 disappear from radar at impact.

tells me nothing about the flight path or the poles.

[*]Apparently, the alleged Flight 77 black box (see comments further below).

the animation provided by the NTSB to the 911 comission does not match the raw data provided by the NTSB, the animation created from the NTSB shows the plane over the nazy annex and noth of the citgo.

[*]Physical damage to the Pentagon including the trajectory and apparent wing impact marks as set out in the Building Performance Report.

[*]Airliner debris including landing gear, engine part and fuselage that were recovered at the scene.

tells me nothing about the flight path, nor the light poles.

[*]The sheer logic that if the plan calls for a plane impact then you impact a plane.

Rather than assuming the above to mean planted light poles, faked generator damage, explosives in the Pentagon to immitate plane damage, lying impact eyewitnesses, mistaken radar controllers, more planted evidence in plane debris and complete idiocy by the perpetrators of 9/11… I rather prefer to follow that an airliner simply impacted the Pentagon.

This is not evidence, it is speculation and arguing from personal incredulity. there maybe facts unknown to you.

[*]Edward Paik and Terry Morin do not necessarily support a flight path to the North of the Citgo.

they support a flight path directly over the navy annex, not south of the navy annex (as claimed by NTSB animation provided to the 911 commision).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2649657158781568709

[*]Three of the eyewitnesses describe the aircraft as moving relatively slowly and being within their field of vision for 10 seconds or more. This leads me to believe they were viewing the C-130 rather than the more urgent alleged Flight 77.

why would a plane being observed for 10 seconds have to have been the c-130? a plane travelling at 300 mph for 10 seconds will cover 0.83 miles, about the distance from the annex to the pentagon if i'm not mistaken.

[*]The video admits that most of these eyewitnesses could not see the impact point “due to the complex topography and landscape”. In this case it could again be reasonable they were confused between the C-130 and plane that actually impacted the Pentagon.

in which case the c-130 would have to have arrived before the impact of the other plane. that's unreasonable (if not impossible) speculation.

Anyway, onto a big point regarding the black box data now. At 9:16 in the CIT video you linked above, please read carefully: -

“2. The alleged “black box” data released from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in 2006. Scale animations created by FAA certified pilot and founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Robert Balsamo based off heading provided by NTSB.

The NTSB says it flew South of Columbia Pike, just South of the communications antenna on the Virginia Department of Transportation’s property, South of the former Citgo gas station and directly over the Route 27 overpass bridge to hit the light poles and entered the building entirely on the bottom floor. Take special note of the location of the bridge and the depicted trajectory of the plane. But don’t forget, although the Southern approach heading reported by the NTSB does match with what was reported by the 9/11 Commission, the final altitude reported was 699 feet above sea level, making the final descent and pull-up to hit the light poles and be low and level as shown in the Department of Defense 2006 release security video physically impossible.”

The commentary above and graphics by Robert Balsamo, based on the NTSB black box data, are showing the flight path corroborating the official story… in total contradiction to your second YouTube link! I’m a little surprised by this.

I think you've confused the NTSB animation provided to the 911 commission with the animation recreated from the raw data.

it is the NTSB animation provided to the 911 commission at 9:16 in the CIT video.

I have no trouble disregarding around 10 eyewitnesses who describe a North flight path. These accounts are mostly contradictory of each other as is to be expected of eyewitness accounts.

I don't see that, how do they contradict each other?

From the one hundred plus eyewitnesses who saw an aircraft (or two) at the scene I believe we could draw nearly one hundred different flight paths, some of which would match the official flight path

you "believe" some would match the official flight path?

can you provide just one detailed account matching the official flight path?

[Agent X]

The stealth CT strikes.

[Q24]

can you provide one for scrutiny.

“The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the [Navy] annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike -- an Arlington road leading to the Pentagon.”

Albert Hemphill

If you follow Columbia Pike and extend the flight path it pretty much matches the official approach up to the impact point.

I am trying to determine whether it was the plane that damaged the poles, evidence of poles knocked down is not evidence that the plane knocked them down.

Then provide a better explanation for the light pole damage. One of the light poles was in the middle of the road, confirmed by eyewitnesses and photographic evidence. How did it get there if not through an impact with the airliner?

one of your "eyewitnesses" quotes has clarified he did not see the plane hit the pole, he deduced it was hit, any statement along the lines of "the plane hit the light pole" has to be scutinised.

Well we have Lloyd England and Afework Hagos along with Father Stephen McGraw’s deduction. This goes back to what I asked above.

tells me nothing about the flight path

If the generator is damaged and has moved toward the Pentagon then one explanation would be that it was impacted by the airliner on the official flight path. What other reasonable explanation is there?

tells me nothing about the flight path or the poles.

If there is an aircraft seen on security camera footage following the official flight path and the explosion indicates an aircraft impact and the radar data indicates a lost aircraft at the point of impact, this obviously all supports the official flight path in that the airliner went into the Pentagon.

the animation provided by the NTSB to the 911 comission does not match the raw data provided by the NTSB, the animation created from the NTSB shows the plane over the nazy annex and noth of the citgo.

Well I’ve been having a chat (if you can call it that) with Rob Balsamo across on Pilots for 9/11 Truth. In his own words, “The NTSB provides data for a south path in terms of heading data... ”

When I asked, “… did the NTSB report a South flight path or not?” I got the answer, “Your question above is not that simple.” The NTSB data is not so straightforward and I now believe the animation they created could be inaccurate.

tells me nothing about the flight path, nor the light poles.

If there is physical damage to the Pentagon consistent with an airliner impact, including wing marks and airliner debris at the scene, this corroborates the official story of an aircraft impact and therefore the official flight path.

This is not evidence, it is speculation and arguing from personal incredulity. there maybe facts unknown to you.

True – but it’s damn good common sense.

they support a flight path directly over the navy annex, not south of the navy annex (as claimed by NTSB animation provided to the 911 commision).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2649657158781568709

They do support a path over the Navy Annex but are still not supportive of the North flight path. I get tired of this quibbling over eyewitness evidence that is inconsistent all around.

why would a plane being observed for 10 seconds have to have been the c-130? a plane travelling at 300 mph for 10 seconds will cover 0.83 miles, about the distance from the annex to the pentagon if i'm not mistaken.

I believe the distance from the Annex to Pentagon was slightly less than this – maybe 0.7 miles. Also the estimated speed was higher than 300mph – the Commission Report estimates 530mph. Still, a 10 second view of the aircraft contradicts Sgt. Lagasse’s account of the airliner passing by his vision in approximately 1 second. If the airliner was travelling so low and at anywhere near 530mph then it is not reasonable that anyone could view it for 10 seconds.

in which case the c-130 would have to have arrived before the impact of the other plane. that's unreasonable (if not impossible) speculation.

No, they look up and see the C-130 some distance away headed toward the Pentagon. The next thing they know there is an explosion as the alleged Flight 77 impacts. They assume the C-130 they saw is the flight which impacted the Pentagon.

you "believe" some would match the official flight path?

can you provide just one detailed account matching the official flight path?

I provided many here.

[Little Fish]

“The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the [Navy] annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike -- an Arlington road leading to the Pentagon.”

Albert Hemphill

If you follow Columbia Pike and extend the flight path it pretty much matches the official approach up to the impact point.

that quote does not support a south of navy annex flight path. he specifically says it "flew directly over the navy annex" not south of the navy annex, coorborating the "CIT wtinesses".

here is Albert Hemphill full testimony:

"Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft

appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside

of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be

either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had

been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon. The

aircraft was moving fast, at what I could only be estimate as between 250 to

300 knots. All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view

for approximately 3 seconds.

The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack, on a direct

course for the Pentagon. It was "clean", in as much as, there were no flaps

applied and no apparent landing gear deployed. He was slightly left wing

down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid

something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a

slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the

building to the right of the helo, tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5"

http://web.archive.org/web/20021202185504/...ber/013153.html

One of the light poles was in the middle of the road, confirmed by eyewitnesses and photographic evidence. How did it get there if not through an impact with the airliner?

yes, this is the question i am asking!

If there is physical damage to the Pentagon consistent with an airliner impact, including wing marks and airliner debris at the scene, this corroborates the official story of an aircraft impact

perhaps

...and therefore the official flight path.

it says nothing about the official flight path, how can you jump to that conclusion?

here is the FAA flightpath:

do you notice it goes over the navy annex and north of the citgo, corroborating Albert Hemphill and the "14 CIT witnesses"

do you see how the flight path above could not have hit the light poles?

and then we have the NTSB raw data which also shows a north of citgo flight path not capabale of hitting the light poles.

I provided many here.

these do not support a south of navy annex flight path as required to match the official flight path required to knock down the poles. most just mention an impact, some (who were in an excellent position to observe) even state a north of citgo flight path.

edit - and Albert Hemphill says 250-300 knots which equates to 287-345 mph coorborating the speed of the "cit witnesses" and corroborating the NTSB raw data, your c-130 speculation is debunked and at odds with your "Commission Report estimates 530mph"

Edited July 26, 2009 by Little Fish

[Q24]

yes, this is the question i am asking!

The question is: how did the damaged light pole get in the middle of the road?

My answer is that it was knocked down by an aircraft on the official flight path.

Now, what is your theory?

perhaps

it says nothing about the official flight path, how can you jump to that conclusion?

The physical damage reported by the ASCE can only have been created by the trajectory of a flight path South of the Citgo. Therefore, if the Pentagon damage was created by a plane, as the physical characteristics seem to indicate, then it came from the official South approach.

here is the FAA flightpath:

do you notice it goes over the navy annex and north of the citgo, corroborating Albert Hemphill and the "14 CIT witnesses"

do you see how the flight path above could not have hit the light poles?

Yes, I see that the above animation along with that released by the NTSB do not match the official approach. Is it possible that radar data is not one hundred percent accurate and that the black box data was misinterpreted by the NTSB animator?

these do not support a south of navy annex flight path as required to match the official flight path required to knock down the poles. most just mention an impact, some (who were in an excellent position to observe) even state a north of citgo flight path.

As I said above, impact equals South flight path and official story. Isn’t the whole convoluted CIT theory that the plane did not impact the Pentagon? I would then say the impact eyewitnesses are very important in evaluating the theory.

Incidentally I have been suspended from the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum for asking too many questions about this (and likely for asserting views they did not like). I think that should tell everyone all they need to know about the type of people and Citizens Investigation Team (CIT) who reside there and push this ‘no impact’ theory.

[Little Fish]

The question is: how did the damaged light pole get in the middle of the road?

My answer is that it was knocked down by an aircraft on the official flight path.

you said you "preferred evidence". you have not provided any evidence that a plane travelled on the official flight path. you are using circular reasoning - under discussion is whether the plane damaged the poles, you are saying the plane hit the poles because the poles were damaged - "In the fallacy of circular reasoning, you assume to be true what you are supposed to be proving."

Now, what is your theory?

I am still looking at the facts regarding the flight path.

The physical damage reported by the ASCE can only have been created by the trajectory of a flight path South of the Citgo. Therefore, if the Pentagon damage was created by a plane, as the physical characteristics seem to indicate, then it came from the official South approach.

right, but under discussion is whether the plane was capable of doing the damage (light poles and directional damage), so you are using circular reasoning again. the flight path is critical to determining whether the plane caused the light pole damage and the directional damage, but you are using the damage to determine the flight path whilst ignoring the substantial evidence that contradicts the official flight path, you are assuming to be true what you are supposed to be proving (the flight path).

Yes, I see that the above animation along with that released by the NTSB do not match the official approach. Is it possible that radar data is not one hundred percent accurate

If the data used for the animation was not accurate then the plane would have missed the impact point.

and that the black box data was misinterpreted by the NTSB animator?

this is speculation not evidence, do you have any evidence that it was misinterpreted?

these do not support a south of navy annex flight path as required to match the official flight path required to knock down the poles. most just mention an impact, some (who were in an excellent position to observe) even state a north of citgo flight path.

As I said above, impact equals South flight path and official story.

no it doesn't, everyone can see this reasoning is false. you are using circular reasoning again.

Isn;t the whole convoluted CIT theory that the plane did not impact the Pentagon? I would then say the impact eyewitnesses are very important in evaluating the theory.

I am looking at the flight path, not flyover theory, not no impact theory, not cit's theory, not pilotsfor911truth's theory. i have been very clear about this many times.

[Q24]

The question is: how did the damaged light pole get in the middle of the road?

My answer is that it was knocked down by an aircraft on the official flight path.

Now, what is your theory?

you said you "preferred evidence". you have not provided any evidence that a plane travelled on the official flight path. you are using circular reasoning - under discussion is whether the plane damaged the poles, you are saying the plane hit the poles because the poles were damaged - "In the fallacy of circular reasoning, you assume to be true what you are supposed to be proving."

The light pole damage is a form of evidence and it seems you are unwilling to account for it. I see what you mean about circular reasoning, though if there is no realistic alternative to the light pole damage other than an aircraft impact then I am happy with my answer.

Come on, I’m open to suggestions – I even believe there were explosives planted in the WTC. You need a really good theory to explain how a covert team dragged a light pole into the middle of a public road in broad daylight though.

right, but under discussion is whether the plane was capable of doing the damage (light poles and directional damage), so you are using circular reasoning again. the flight path is critical to determining whether the plane caused the light pole damage and the directional damage, but you are using the damage to determine the flight path whilst ignoring the substantial evidence that contradicts the official flight path, you are assuming to be true what you are supposed to be proving (the flight path).

Why shouldn’t we use the physical damage to assist in determining the flight path? Explain your alternative theory then – what caused the light pole, generator and Pentagon damage?

If the data used for the animation was not accurate then the plane would have missed the impact point.

I don’t honestly know what is going on with the official animations from the NTSB and FAA – they don’t even match with each other, not to mention the path suggested by the physical damage. How do you explain the differing accounts? What I do know is that people aren’t usually so quick to accept the word of official sources on 9/11, so why should that be the case here.

this is speculation not evidence, do you have any evidence that it was misinterpreted?

From my brief chat with Rob Balsamo across at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, he seemed to admit that interpretation of the black box data is not entirely straightforward and could be depicted in different ways.

I am looking at the flight path, not flyover theory, not no impact theory, not cit's theory, not pilotsfor911truth's theory. i have been very clear about this many times.

If that is all you are looking at then I’ll tell you this – it will be like banging your head against a brick wall until you start applying some tough reasoning and make decisions on what is the most plausible series of events. We know there are discrepancies in accounts of the flight path. Now think through each of the versions until you come to a full conclusion that makes most sense.

For me, the sensible conclusion is an airliner impact. I’m not even sure what you believe happened as you are being very guarded about it.

[Scott G]

The question is: how did the damaged light pole get in the middle of the road?

My answer is that it was knocked down by an aircraft on the official flight path.

Now, what is your theory?

you said you "preferred evidence". you have not provided any evidence that a plane travelled on the official flight path. you are using circular reasoning - under discussion is whether the plane damaged the poles, you are saying the plane hit the poles because the poles were damaged - "In the fallacy of circular reasoning, you assume to be true what you are supposed to be proving."

The light pole damage is a form of evidence and it seems you are unwilling to account for it.

I see what you mean about circular reasoning, though if there is no realistic alternative to the light pole damage other than an aircraft impact then I am happy with my answer.

Come on, I’m open to suggestions – I even believe there were explosives planted in the WTC. You need a really good theory to explain how a covert team dragged a light pole into the middle of a public road in broad daylight though.

Here you go:

The downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance.

[mrbusdriver]

...so I guess all the cars on the highway that morning were being driven by co-conspirators, evil gubmint agents?

This plot just gets better every day...

[Scott G]

...so I guess all the cars on the highway that morning were being driven by co-conspirators, evil gubmint agents?

This plot just gets better every day...

I'm guessing you didn't check out the link.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Scott G

[mrbusdriver]

I'm guessing you didn't check out the link.

"But as a summary the possibly pre-damaged cab could have been towed or driven to it's spot where they partially blocked traffic and placed it. Minutes later feds rolled up and surrounded the area and completely blocked traffic. "

...and nobody noticed this? When specifically was this placed (while blocking traffic)? And do you "know" or simply "suspect" that those guys are really "feds"? (Though, in DC, practically everyone is a "Fed" in some sense of the term...). Witnesses? Surely many people would have noticed this being set up. Still seems incredible, and very, very risky.

[Guest]

...and nobody noticed this? When specifically was this placed (while blocking traffic)? And do you "know" or simply "suspect" that those guys are really "feds"? (Though, in DC, practically everyone is a "Fed" in some sense of the term...). Witnesses? Surely many people would have noticed this being set up. Still seems incredible, and very, very risky.

Thats because its rubbish

Br Cornelius

[KennyB]

Q24, I know this doesn't agree with your theory of a plane hitting the Pentagon. However, I still think it was a missile. Here's why: A 757, loaded with fuel, would have done a lot more damage than was done to the building. I like the idea of an external explosion, maybe that trailer was packed full and lit off. If there was a fly over instead of a crash. it would be perfect cover for a missile to hit just before the explosion, possibly fired from the 757. Something small had to penetrate that hardened wall and continue on thru all those interior walls, but not explode. Bodies, aircraft parts, etc, mean nothing, they could all have been planted. I know it's complicated, but Occums Razor doesn't say it's always the simplist solution, only that it usually is. When you're dealing with devious outfits like the Mossad and The CIA, everything they do is going to be complicated.

[Scott G]

Q24, I know this doesn't agree with your theory of a plane hitting the Pentagon. However, I still think it was a missile. Here's why: A 757, loaded with fuel, would have done a lot more damage than was done to the building. I like the idea of an external explosion, maybe that trailer was packed full and lit off. If there was a fly over instead of a crash. it would be perfect cover for a missile to hit just before the explosion, possibly fired from the 757. Something small had to penetrate that hardened wall and continue on thru all those interior walls, but not explode. Bodies, aircraft parts, etc, mean nothing, they could all have been planted. I know it's complicated, but Occums Razor doesn't say it's always the simplist solution, only that it usually is. When you're dealing with devious outfits like the Mossad and The CIA, everything they do is going to be complicated.

I myself have considered the possibility that the plane might have even fired a missile. However, over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, who include CIT, they have stated that there is no evidence for a missile. Apparently they think the damage was done solely by explosives. I know that they have studied the issue exentsively, so unless I had strong evidence that supported the missile theory, I'd let that theory go.

The flyover theory, on the other hand, has a great deal of evidence backing it up, as Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT point out.

[Scott G]

I'm guessing you didn't check out the link.

"But as a summary the possibly pre-damaged cab could have been towed or driven to it's spot where they partially blocked traffic and placed it. Minutes later feds rolled up and surrounded the area and completely blocked traffic. "

...and nobody noticed this? When specifically was this placed (while blocking traffic)? And do you "know" or simply "suspect" that those guys are really "feds"? (Though, in DC, practically everyone is a "Fed" in some sense of the term...). Witnesses? Surely many people would have noticed this being set up. Still seems incredible, and very, very risky.

Quoting from the same post you're quoting from, but further up (minues the pictures of the poles photographed after 9/11 that can be seen in the original post):

This may seem like a complex task but it would actually be quite simple for the suspect in question to accomplish.

First realize that the area is the literal backyard of the suspect and one of the most highly secured areas in the nation.

It's right by the heliport where the President travels from quite often and in fact he had left from there the day before and was scheduled to return there that afternoon!

Heliport firefighter Allan Wallace:

Our first helicopter flight was around 10AM. But we were expecting President George W. Bush to land in Marine One around 12 Noon, returning from Jacksonville, Florida. (He had actually left from the Pentagon the day before.) Needless to say, neither flight arrived at the Pentagon that day because of the terrorist attacks.

source

This means that they had all the excuse they needed to "secure" the area in preparation for his arrival and this would even be quite routine and expected for the people in the area since the President travels from there regularly.

The poles could have been removed in the middle of the night on any night prior to the event in what could have been made to look like regular late night road work.

Then the pre-fabricated damaged poles could be put in place perhaps at 4:00am on 9/11 or even later in the day while they were "securing" the area for the President's scheduled arrival.

4 of the 5 poles were hidden off to the side on the grass.

I'll address pole 1 in a bit.

There isn't a reason that any of them would cause a reason for alarm or notice by any of the morning rush hour traffic even if they could be seen.

Pole 2 was completely hidden and poles 4 and 5 were down on slopes.

They were all on Pentagon property/jurisdiction/control which could have been on serious lock down due to the President's scheduled arrival.

But the bottom line is that EVEN IF someone did happen to see a pole on the ground and remember and EVEN IF they put 2 and 2 together after the fact and called the FBI obviously nothing would have happened.

But they most likely would NOT put 2 and 2 together because the light poles were an insignificant tiny blip on the most historically tragic day in U.S. history.

The average public has absolutely no clue about the light poles at all and even many in the movement aren't aware of them.

The poles have not been covered in a single official report either.

This seemingly impossible scenario to stage would have been child's play to do in their own backyard for the same perpetrators who pulled off a covert triple controlled demolition in downtown Manhattan.

Light pole one was likely staged after the fact and a detailed photographic look into this scene is available here.

Only then does it state the quote you excerpted. Nor does it end there, either.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Scott G

[merril]

"Scott G" -

Why do you do this? Why do you lie about the U.S.? Is it for profit? Do you receive compensation? If not, what part of your life do you sacrifice to this endeavor?

I think it just sucks.

And, what about Enver Masud?

What connection, if any, do you have to him?

I mean, you are so tight with this bull outfit.

I'm curious.

Edited July 27, 2009 by merril

[Space Commander Travis]

"But as a summary the possibly pre-damaged cab could have been towed or driven to it's spot where they partially blocked traffic and placed it. Minutes later feds rolled up and surrounded the area and completely blocked traffic. "

...and nobody noticed this? When specifically was this placed (while blocking traffic)? And do you "know" or simply "suspect" that those guys are really "feds"? (Though, in DC, practically everyone is a "Fed" in some sense of the term...). Witnesses? Surely many people would have noticed this being set up. Still seems incredible, and very, very risky.

This is exactly what I've always been saying. It's all so incredibly complicated, and requires such precise timing, and the involvement of so many people from so many agencies and organisations. And I'm afraid the more complexity is added, the more it all sounds completely fantastical. I know that people have been saying "I'm not interested in whether or not it sounds plausible, I'm just interested in the facts, ma'am", but I think you do have to take plausibility into account. And the more details that are added, the less and less plausible it sounds. Now, I do think there are questions that need to be asked, that the official explanation doesn't, but these vast and complicated plots really don't do anything to help the case here.

[Fourbrick]

Quote by Q24

Incidentally I have been suspended from the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum for asking too many questions about this (and likely for asserting views they did not like). I think that should tell everyone all they need to know about the type of people and Citizens Investigation Team (CIT) who reside there and push this ‘no impact’ theory.

I went to have a look see at the P4T website. Looking at the discussions you had on there, it would seem that your questions were going round in circles and driving them mad. Despite them answering your questions you continued repeating the same ones. Incidentally you have not been suspended, just given a vacation in order that you can read up on their earlier discussions, not for asking too many questions, but for asking the same ones over and over again and failing to listen to the answers.

[Guest]

Quote by Q24

I went to have a look see at the P4T website. Looking at the discussions you had on there, it would seem that your questions were going round in circles and driving them mad. Despite them answering your questions you continued repeating the same ones. Incidentally you have not been suspended, just given a vacation in order that you can read up on their earlier discussions, not for asking too many questions, but for asking the same ones over and over again and failing to listen to the answers.

I am always a little suspicious when a new member pops up and makes this sort of statement.

Br Cornelius

[Scott G]

"But as a summary the possibly pre-damaged cab could have been towed or driven to it's spot where they partially blocked traffic and placed it. Minutes later feds rolled up and surrounded the area and completely blocked traffic. "

...and nobody noticed this? When specifically was this placed (while blocking traffic)? And do you "know" or simply "suspect" that those guys are really "feds"? (Though, in DC, practically everyone is a "Fed" in some sense of the term...). Witnesses? Surely many people would have noticed this being set up. Still seems incredible, and very, very risky.

This is exactly what I've always been saying. It's all so incredibly complicated, and requires such precise timing, and the involvement of so many people from so many agencies and organisations.

I've already shown how it could be done. It's far more improbable that all the witnesses that CIT has found who saw the plane on a path north of the Citgo gas station were lying than that the downed light poles were staged.

And I'm afraid the more complexity is added, the more it all sounds completely fantastical. I know that people have been saying "I'm not interested in whether or not it sounds plausible, I'm just interested in the facts, ma'am", but I think you do have to take plausibility into account. And the more details that are added, the less and less plausible it sounds.

I contend that it's far more plausible than the possibility that all the witnesses that CIT interviewed were mistaken or lying.

Now, I do think there are questions that need to be asked, that the official explanation doesn't, but these vast and complicated plots really don't do anything to help the case here.

I'm glad that you think that there are questions that need to be asked. I am quite interested in knowing what questions you think these should be. As to the staging of light poles being vast and complicated, I think that it was nothing compared to the staging of what happened at ground zero.

[Scott G]

"But as a summary the possibly pre-damaged cab could have been towed or driven to it's spot where they partially blocked traffic and placed it. Minutes later feds rolled up and surrounded the area and completely blocked traffic. "

...and nobody noticed this? When specifically was this placed (while blocking traffic)? And do you "know" or simply "suspect" that those guys are really "feds"? (Though, in DC, practically everyone is a "Fed" in some sense of the term...). Witnesses? Surely many people would have noticed this being set up. Still seems incredible, and very, very risky.

I quoted your post over at ATS (abovetopsecret.com) where the quote you were responding to came from. They have now responded.

Response from Spreston, who I believe is an admin at a loose change forum:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single/6793624.html

Response from Craig Ranke, originator of the thread in question and the quote you used, as well as one of the members of CIT:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single/6794328.html

Edited July 27, 2009 by Scott G

[mrbusdriver]

Thanks, ScottG, I'm looking at them.

[Q24]

I went to have a look see at the P4T website. Looking at the discussions you had on there, it would seem that your questions were going round in circles and driving them mad. Despite them answering your questions you continued repeating the same ones. Incidentally you have not been suspended, just given a vacation in order that you can read up on their earlier discussions, not for asking too many questions, but for asking the same ones over and over again and failing to listen to the answers.

The e-mail I received from Rob Balsamo stated “suspended”. It also says this is for 2 weeks so he obviously didn’t listen when I requested to be put on permanent vacation if I cannot ask questions of 9/11 over there.

And my questions that brought the suspension: -

• Post #1: “Please demonstrate how the account [Paik’s] can possibly support the North flight path witnessed by Turcios, Lagasse and Brookes.”
  Response: 16 links and complete failure to demonstrate the above.
  
• Post #2: “More importantly, if anyone could explain the surprising discrepancies between the FDR animations linked there by Little Fish that I have highlighted, I would be very grateful.”
  Response: 10 links and an explanation from Rob Balsamo inferring that the data can be plotted in different ways.
  
• Post #3: “Emphasis on the bolded text – did the NTSB report a South flight path or not?”
  Response: 18 links and a rather unclear answer from Rob Balsamo that implied that ‘they did but they did not’, ie NTSB data could be interpreted different ways.
  
• Post #4: “Let me try again – is it possible that the NTSB data could fit with a South flight path and that whoever put together the official NTSB animation simply messed up?”
  Response: Another 2 links and, “Answer, no, it does not fit with the physical damage on the south path when considering all of the NTSB data.” Ok that’s a reasonable answer. Regarding the possibility that the NTSB ‘messed up’ I got a talk on precedent though not a denial of the possibility.
  
• Post #4: “I nearly forgot to ask - does your answer mean that the CIT claim, “the Southern approach heading reported by the NTSB”, is inaccurate?”
  Response: Confirmation that the NTSB data does provide a South path.
  
• Post #4: “Can I ask about the light pole that was knocked down and located in the middle of the road (allegedly hitting the taxi cab) – how did that get there?”
  Response: No one seemed to want to talk about that.
  
• Post #7: In reference to being told that the physical damage does not match with the NTSB Southern approach, “I would like to ask “how so?” to get a direct answer but have a feeling you would prefer me to trawl through 3 years worth of threads?”
  Response: Suspension.
  

That’s seven questions, only four directed at Rob Balsamo - some may appear repetitive but the purpose was for me to determine if the NTSB data is completely irreconcilable with the official story. Now do you think I was really suspended for not having the time to view 46 links, instead attempting to get direct answers to direct questions, or is it more likely that Balsamo simply did not like my personal views?

Here’s more to help you decide – before I even posted, it was inferred that maybe I was “particularly nasty” and guilty of “manipulative lying”. After only my first post I was accused of missing things, not paying attention, “relentless spin”, being in “denial”, appearing “dyslexic”, having an “agenda”. After the second post it is said I am “clinging to impact witnesses”, “confused” and “slipping around”.

And that’s after only TWO very short posts!

I’ll go on – after my third post it is suggested I am causing “consternation” amongst forum members and then a request is made for me to stop asking questions until after I have trawled through three years of research. Following from my fourth post I’m told, “I see you still want someone to hold your hand” and am threatened with a “vacation” if I continue to ask questions.

This after four posts!

The rest of the thread is full of derogatory comments that are nothing to do with the discussion topic: -

• “If you need direction on how to use a mouse, click here...”
  
• “…perhaps someone else can put it in even simpler terms which you will understand.”
  
• “You have been a waste of time.”
  
• “For now, i'll give you 2 weeks vacation to catch up.”
  
• “Q24, you really should get your eyes checked”
  
• “Is this thing on??” (I believe referring to my brain)
  
• “Such double standards must really be a wonderful luxury...”
  
• “Either Q24 is a troll or has a severe learning disorder.”
  
• I’m dishonest, I twist and distort evidence, I’m a troll again, I’m in denial again…
  

And is this really all because I requested direct answers to direct questions to clarify my understanding… or perhaps more likely due to my personal views? I actually think Scott put it best over there and this did make me laugh – “It seems to me that there are very few discussions here with substantive disagreements”. Yes, obviously because anyone who has too strong opposing views on the forum is rapidly suspended or banned! I do appreciate your defence of my character by the way Scott.

One more thought – 1,000+ posts here and not so much as a warning from the Mods, seven posts over there and I’m suspended. That tells a story by itself and I guess it’s up to each individual which type of forum they choose to post in.

I think all of the above highlights that the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum is a propaganda exercise and not an agreeable place to seek out the truth. It’s quite a shame because there do appear legitimate questions of the 9/11 flights, particularly regarding Flight 77, but these are simply being buried under the misinformation of ‘no impact’ theories. It’s really right up there with obfuscation of the WTC demolitions by Morgan Reynolds/Judy Wood and their ‘no-plane’, ‘hologram’ and ‘Directed Energy Weapon’ theories.

Oh, one thing I did take from the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum experience – I no longer have a problem with the NTSB data in the way I previously did and will now be able to explain to people in basic terms how the North path in the official animation was possibly down to human error – nice work guys.