A documentary more powerful than Loose Change ... blows the lid off the Inside Job!

[jaybee]

Posted by jaybee (here)
Hiya...after reflecting on the whole 9/11 business....this is what I think probably happened...


Al Qaeda terrorists hijacked 4 airliners.

The day was chosen because Vigilant Guardian/Global Guardian military exercises
were taking place...and the confusion would buy the terrorists time.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity...ilant_guardian



Flight 11 was crashed by terrorists into the World Trade Centre tower.

Flight 175 was crashed by terrorists into the other WTC tower.


The US military got on top of the situation and....


Flight 77 was taken by remote control over the Atlantic Ocean and shot down.

Flight 93 was taken by remote control to a rural part of Pennsylvania and shot down.


For political and propaganda reasons it was decided to cover up the fact that
the military were forced to shoot down the 2 planes.

The Pentagon is the lynch-pin to the whole thing. The incident that fuels the 'Inside Job'
conspiracy and perhaps was, in retrospect a mistake by the 'authorities'.

It was decided to set up the Pentagon to make it look like flight 77 hit it.
Pentagon chosen because it is government property and there was an unoccupied section?

A helicopter fired a missile into the unoccupied area?
Or bombs were set off to look like the building was hit?

Airliner wreckage was placed at the scene.

As I have said before...I don't think that 9/11 was an 'Inside Job'....but I do think
that covering up what actually happened to flights 77 and 93 has brought about
an internet PSYOPS job....to drive the 9/11 conspiracy and muddy the waters.

??????????

Posted by 3optic (here)
Not sure what is meant by "many, many.." My understanding is that individuals involved in highly classified projects aren't privy to the whole picture and therefore don't necessarily know what happened.

And yet you and all the other proposers of an 'Inside Job' do know what happened???

Those who do have sensitive information that could compromise a cover up are not only threatened with their lives but those of their families as well. Jaybee, your posts indicate to me that you have a marginal understanding of the events and the details of very similar false flag attacks throughout history. You seem to be going out of your way to verify the official story which takes a substantial suspension of disbelief.

I understand enough to put forward the ideas that I have.

And I would hardly say that I am verifying the official story...see my post above...

]You seem very young to me jaybee or simply new to these ideas. I recommend more investigation. For one thing Al Qaeda translates as "The Data Base". What radical Islamist group would call themselves that? Isn't it more likely the name of a list of people on a CIA payroll? You seem to be avoiding more obvious conclusions.

How very condescending of you...

http://www.babylon.com/definition/Al_Qaeda/English


Like it or not my ideas are as valid as yours or anyone elses.

[jaybee]

Posted by zookumar (here)
Hi Bob (and everyone else),

I merely post a link to the hard work of Craig Ranke , Aldo Marquis, Robert Balsamo et al. But you're welcome all the same. I was going to respond to jaybee (basically by taking him out to the battlefield of wits and bringing him back in a plastic bag filled with atoms and subatomics)

Oh really......LOL.

... but I don`t think the moderators here would appreciate that. In a short period of time, I`ve come to love this forum (primarily) for its civility. And while I`m big on humor and the sense of it, I also understand the necessity of discipline, especially when it concerns a topic as serious as the attacks of September 11, 2001. I definitely want to do my part to effect positive energy. So, jaybee, no offense given and none taken. FWIW, I have a nephew and a niece ... they've basically made my moniker stick.

zookumar .......I have a daughter so I will call you Uncle Zook....if you will call

me Mother Jayne


But yes...the topic of the attacks of September 11, 2001...could not be more serious.

And on the ninth anniversary of the heartbreaking tragedy even more so.

So...blessings to the families of all who died and all who were injured.
And to all those who had to make life and death decisions that day.

[Zook]

Hi Mother Jayne,

Mea culpa.


Cheers
Uncle Zook

[Operator]

Posted by jaybee (here)
As I said in my post I think that Vigilant Guardian/Global Guardian probably bought the
terrorists enough time to crash into the twin towers....there must have been a lot
of confusion...with not knowing who was who...with transponders being turned off etc.

You still skipped my first question ... do you really believe military can take over any flight by remote control and fly it out to sea ?
If this would be true it would be alerting enough for me to never fly again ...

[jaybee]

Posted by Operator (here)
You still skipped my first question ... do you really believe military can take over any flight by remote control and fly it out to sea ?
If this would be true it would be alerting enough for me to never fly again ...

When I was sifting through info to back up my new theory on 9/11... I came across this.

There's an interview to listen to....


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...pic=20048&st=0


I have no idea if all airliners can be taken over remotely or just some...?????

[jaybee]

So...Operator....are you going to fly again?

[Samson]

The BBC Admits That Al Qaeda Is A Hoax
https://youtube.com/watch?v=J9SGq...eature=related

Rumsfeld slips up and admits flight 93 shot down
https://youtube.com/watch?v=NNuos...eature=related

inside job jaybee, keep lookin at all the facts and one day youll know
for sure

[Operator]

Posted by jaybee (here)
So...Operator....are you going to fly again?

I did not listen to the link you provided yet (I plan to really do so later). But the increased security measures alone
made that I did not fly for years ...
I have other ways to travel ... and to tell you the truth I am still looking for other alternatives too.

I think it's not about being afraid (I had flying lessons myself) but about making a statement to the ridiculous
developments around air travel.

[Snowbird]

Posted by jaybee (here)
When I was sifting through info to back up my new theory on 9/11... I came across this.

There's an interview to listen to....


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...pic=20048&st=0


I have no idea if all airliners can be taken over remotely or just some...?????

During this audio interview it is stated that there exists wiring configurations that are not included in the schematics. Therefore, one can assume that any type of plane can be remotely piloted.

[Ahkenaten]

There was some discussion on the web years ago concerning a military pilot who was ordered to scramble a large passenger-type jet plane from an airport in the D.C. area during the time 911 was playing out, supposedly to reconnoiter an incoming airship headed in the direction of D.C. This could have been the plane seen swooping down over the Pentagon and then flying away................the plane that provided cover for the operation by conveniently creating confusing and helpful, conflicting witness testimony......also conveniently leaving the impression in people's minds that a plane, not a missile, had smashed into the building. Think about it - if you are witnessing something the biggest and loudest object commandeers your attention! Not to mention that this plane could have been armed with a missile fired at the side of the Pentagon - Supposedly this pilot was then ordered to leave D.C. airspace and fly to the Shanksville, PA area where another leg of the unfolding melodrama was playing out! SHANKSVILLE? I will try to dig up this material and post it here as a link. It certainly is complimentary to this analysis and is very plausible.

[jaybee]

It would make sense to have a large type plane swoop over the Pentagon area before the 'fire'....'explosion'.....??

Because to suppose that ALL the eyewitnesses to a plane flying over...around the time....are lying....is stretching it a bit.

Cheers Ahkenaten.

[Ahkenaten]

see my post here for precise information on the pilot of the large plane dispatched over the pentagon

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...0282#post50282

[Ty]

I'm about 1/3 of the way through this documentary.

I've been watching it with a very critical eye and have decided that the makers of it are either really really inept or don't believe the story they're trying sell. In an effort to build a case that a plane crash can't be responsible for the damage at the Pentagon (I'm assuming that's the thrust of this since I haven't made it to the end yet) they produce a documentary that all but proves one did.

I refer you to the interview of Robert Turcios that starts at 21:37.

At 22:45, Robert is standing where he was on 911 and explaining how he saw the plane go up a bit to clear the side of the bridge and the camera pans to follow where he points and there is a clear view of the pentagon (1st shot below). The camera zooms in to get the Do Not Enter sign that the plane flew over - and captures a clear view of 4 floors of the pentagon, though left of where the plane hit. (2nd shot below)

Continuing the interview:

23:15 Robert: "I could not see when it hit the Pentagon - all I saw was it headed straight to it and uh then the big explosion, the fireball and lots of smoke."

23:28 Interviewer: "OK. Did you see it actually ahh.... you didn't see it hit the Pentagon?"

23:33 Robert: "No - the view was obstructed I could only see the fireball."

His view was obstructed I think by the overpass as discussed below.

Now if the case you're trying to make is that this plane didn't hit the Pentagon and you're sure that it didn't then wouldn't you ask Robert if he saw the plane veer off to the left or the right or pull up and miss the Pentagon? Wouldn't you ask him if he saw any other projectiles heading for the Pentagon. I mean, the man had a perfectly clear view of it and you're using him to confirm the flight path. Wouldn't you want him to positively corroborate the rest of the theory?

Why wasn't that question asked? I submit it's because the interviewer doesn't believe his own theory and is just trying to muddy the waters or claim his 15 minutes of fame.

Robert had a clear view of the top floor of the Pentagon all around. He watched the plane until he lost sight of it behind the overpass.

Based on these pictures, if it didn't hit the Pentagon, Robert would have seen it miss. He had a wide open view of the top of the Pentagon. There was nothing in his way to the left or right. Yet he never indicated anything but that the plane crashed into the building. If it hadn't don't you think he would have mentioned - Oh, by the way, I have no idea what created the explosion because the plane pulled up at the last minute and flew over the Pentagon. Wierd huh?

It's a little hard to see in the documentary, but based on Robert's drawn flight path (3rd shot below) and Google Maps we can pretty closely lay out the flight path he saw (4th shot). The overpass in the Google Map corresponds to the Bridge annotation in the 1st shot and is what's blocking Robert's view of the lower floors. Using the path denoted by the red line, the distance from the Pentagon side of the knoll to the wall of the pentagon is 500 ft.

So here's the question. At this point in the documentary, three credible witnesses have all seen a plane flying towards the Pentagon. Robert is the closest and watches the plane until it disappears behind the overpass, 500 ft from the wall of the Pentagon. Where did it go if not into the building? What did it have time to do besides crash?

Kinda makes ya wonder, doesn't it?

[3optic]

You're right. That's sloppy on the part of the filmmakers.

EDIT: Although it is consistent with the inconsistent eye witness testimonies. There's a lot of hazy recollection even with the accounts that make a strong case for the plane not hitting the building. Eg. The parking lot security guard who saw a commercial plane fly off after the explosion surmising later that it was a 2nd plane..

EDIT #2: The dry repetitive style is starting to get on my nerves. @#%$&!

EDIT #3: That cab driver interview is pretty astounding.
Side note: Do you think Craig Ranke could have worn something other than cargo shorts (truther shorts!) to that interview? His style rankles!

[Teakai]

Posted by Ty (here)
So here's the question. At this point in the documentary, three credible witnesses have all seen a plane flying towards the Pentagon. Robert is the closest and watches the plane until it disappears behind the overpass, 500 ft from the wall of the Pentagon. Where did it go if not into the building? What did it have time to do besides crash?

Kinda makes ya wonder, doesn't it?

Because it was obstructed by the fireball explosion.
Then, people's attention would automatically be diverted to the explosion and the conclusion drawn that the plane flew into it, while the plane simply continued flying.

It was already established at the beginning of the film that the damage caused was not by plane.
The next step was about establishing that the flight path by witnesses all matched and were completely opposite to the official line.

[steve_a]

Hi Everybody,

Although the documentary was well put together, it failed to address one question.

In the official report they only went after the eye witnesses who saw the plane coming in from the right. Apart from the obviously very frightened taxi cab driver, how many eye witnesses which testified to seeing the plane come in from the left were they not interviewed, nor even had their background checked on? Don't forget, if you need to put a point of view out there, much of the time it isn't what you do say, it's what you don't say that could help sway the public perception of the truth.

Best regards,

Steve

[steve_a]

Hi Everybody,

Just to clarify my post (I re-read it and my edit button doesn't work). Why did the film maker not interview official report eyewitnesses who saw the plane coming in from the left (south), nor check on theses eye witnesses background?

Best regards,

Steve

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

This thread leaves me dismayed. The Citizens investigation team are known within the truth movement as building their cases on flimsy evidence and ignoring those that point out problems with their theories. Please do not just watch it and take it at face value. Do some of your own research. You will soon discover the problems within the documentary.

A new paper on this very subject came out last week:
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...timeter_92.pdf


Please also read this:

It is sometimes hard to tell the difference between simply foolish theories and intentionally planted foolish theories. The difference is generally speculative. The wisest policy is to avoid foolish theories altogether.

The generally accepted story regarding the Pentagon is that American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked and flown to Washington DC, did a very difficult downward spiral maneuver, approached the Pentagon flying essentially eastward along Columbia Pike, descended to very low altitude, knocked over several light poles, damaged a generator sitting on the Pentagon lawn, crashed into the west face of the Pentagon at ground level, at very high speed, and created a trail of damage inside the outer three rings of the Pentagon in perfect alignment with the exterior trail of destruction.

Enter CIT, the Citizen Investigation Team. This grass-roots-sounding organization consists essentially of two individuals from California who fly back to Washington, conduct interviews with a number of witnesses on video who reconstruct the flight paths (from memory, years after the event) as being significantly further to the north than the generally accepted flight path. A north flight path is inconsistent with the trail of damage, both inside and outside the Pentagon, so this flight path would require that all the damage was intentionally and elaborately faked. CIT then asserts that since the north flight path is inconsistent with the damage in the building, the plane did not actually hit the building. Instead it pulled up and flew over the Pentagon perfectly timed with an explosion set off in the Pentagon. The plane was hidden by the explosion as it flew off and blended in with general air traffic. (How the passengers were disposed of is a question they don’t consider.) Interestingly, nearly all of the people they interview are certain that the plane hit the building and none directly confirm the flyover hypothesis. The best they can do is elicit sketches of northerly flight paths that actually differ significantly from each other. They compile their thirteen interviews in a feature-length video called “National Security Alert” (with an eyebrow-raising acronym shared with the National Security Agency: NSA), then further cherry-pick their witnesses and present the four who are most in agreement with their own views, and add a musical sound track for a second video they call their “Smoking Gun” version.

Think about it just for a minute. The Pentagon is completely ringed by major highways, including Interstate 395 which had stand-still traffic that morning. Any flyover of the Pentagon would have been witnessed by hundreds of people from all directions. If a plane flew over the Pentagon at low altitude leaving a major explosion in its wake, anyone who saw it would certainly think they were witnessing a plane bombing the Pentagon. Yet there were no such reports, and some who were questioned later, who were in a good position to see any flyover, said they did not see any such thing.

The CIT videos don’t qualify as scientific studies. Their witnesses are not representative of the overall eyewitness pool, the witnesses accounts are far from contemporaneous with the events, and the conversational style of the interviews frequently leads the witnesses. Who knows what conversations preceded the videotaped interviews to either shape or filter the testimonies? The “researchers” ignore the fact that none of their witnesses directly confirms their primary hypothesis: a Pentagon flyover. Some of the witnesses contradict themselves, but this does not count against their credibility. Furthermore, there is no mention of the voluminous eyewitness testimony that supports the conventional path in line with the path of destruction. Rather than subject their work to peer review, even internal peer review within the 9/11 Truth Movement, they simply disparage any who take issue with their methods or their results, and instead rely on a list of questionable endorsements. They posted a literal “enemies list” on the internet in which they attacked the character of those who disagree with them. CIT has even gone so far as to disparage their own witnesses, accusing the driver of the taxi that was hit by a light pole of being a co-conspirator with the perpetrators of the crime. CIT has gone out of its way to make themselves a highly divisive issue in the 9/11 Truth movement. The “Flyover theory” had recent success in getting main stream media coverage on the Jesse Ventura “Conspiracy Theory” show. Whether CIT in fact represents an orchestrated attempt to splinter the 9/11 Truth Movement or not, it is having a splintering effect. “Divide and Conquer” has a long history, going back to Caesar in the Gallic Wars, and Alexander the Great before him. CIT is attempting to become the public face of the 9/11 Truth Movement. If it succeeds, the 9/11 Truth Movement will be seen as vicious, mean spirited, crazy, and ultimately discredited.If the Pentagon issue intrigues you, we highly recommend that you balance your reading with the literature that sets Pentagon theorizing into perspective. Here is a short recommended reading list. (All of the authors are on CIT’s enemies list, but read them and decide about their credibility for yourself.)

In conclusion, urge you not to be taken in by divisive speculation masquerading as research.

[John Parslow]

Hello Zook

Many thanks for bringing this excellent video to our notice - probably the most comprehensive I have ever seen about the 911 conspiracy; however the question remains what can we do with this data and how do we bring the perpetrators to justice?

Best regards. JP

[Zook]

Good Morning Good Avalon ... the Earth says hello!

Only yesterday, I posted a thread (Paradise Found, Paradigm Lost) ... in which I offered a spanking new paradigm: conquest by unity, e.g. to replace the existing spiritually-bankrupt paradise-dropping paradigm of conquest by division. Ye shall know them by their division as ye shall know them by their truthseeking. Indeed, the truth can only converge truthseekers; as Rome can only converge the paths to Rome.

For truthseekers, convergence means a single Rome; different truths for different Romes; and divergence means the many paths away from Rome. By contrast, for impostors (e.g. the Empire's pre-conquest dividers), convergence means building many Romes on the same foundation stones; different falsehoods for different Romes; and divergence means the detours that never reach Rome.

That being said, the Rome in question (among the many Romes of 9/11/2001) is the Pentagon attack event. It dismays me greatly that weak conjecture is still the preferred road of many (and here, I'm not so sure that they don't know that this road is a detour that never reaches).

Fact: the CIT documentary has hard irrefutable evidence of a Northside Citgo jetliner approach. Even those who mistakenly believe they are confirming the government's version of events, e.g. the neoArabian fairy tale of Saudi bin Baba and the Nineteen Sorry Excuses For Sheikhs ... place the jetliner North of Citgo!

This one fact alone scuttles the entire charade!

So one has to wonder about those that ignore this irrefutable evidence in favor of vague suppositions and conjectures bordering on psychosis. My good manners prevent me from suggesting "in the duty of vague ..."



ps: The taxicab driver virtually confesses to the fact of conspiracy while being taped surreptitiously. Now you may argue about the various peccadillos of journalism (e.g. wire-tapping, undercover investigation, suggestive inquiry, etc.) ... but there's no room on this Good Earth to hide from the inescapable fact of Northside CITGO jetliner approach. Full stop.

ps2: If I can still be humble after the above, please allow me that courtesy to be so.