• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why fake the SoC path?

dtugg

Banned
D
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
7,885
I asked this in another thread but it got moved to AAH. That's fine as it was off topic.

I really, really, want to know why they would fake the "offical path" but actually fly NoC. What possible purpose could this serve?

I would bet my life that there is no rational answer for this.

Maybe the Ranquisamo people here could illuminate us and force me to commit suicide.
 
dtugg said:
I really, really, want to know why they would fake the "offical path" but actually fly NoC. What possible purpose could this serve?
Click to expand...

And since you have to get rid of that plane anyway, why not crash it into the Pentagon?
 
The question and topic title should read "Why fake the SoC path?" :)
 
I suspect the only answer you'll get from CIT or pffft will be something to the effect of: "That's why we need a new investigation".

Their whole "theory" reads like an evil rube goldberg. Hundreds, if not thousands, of unnecessary complications that serve no additional purpose.....all allegedly done by the same government who couldn't bother to claim they found a WMD in iraq.

That's one thing about conspiracy theories...the more evidence they have to explain away, the more complicated the theories become. It begins to get to a point where it becomes almost comical. The die-hard ct-ers, however, don't seem to grasp this concept since their ideas are not founded in reality, but in a paranoid hatred of [insert name of authority here].
 
nicepants said:
I suspect the only answer you'll get from CIT or pffft will be something to the effect of: "That's why we need a new investigation".
Click to expand...


I'm sure SPreston would be more than willing to tell us all how it went down. He's over in the other thread trying to tell folks that the posts were cut with either a saw or a plasma torch (at night!), and that Lloyd England, the media, and rescue personnel were all scripted by The Government™.

He also seems to have gone Lone Ranger and is refusing to accept CIT's new belief that the "alleged" Flight 77 didn't actually have to fly over the impact area...

SPreston knows what's up.

:rolleyes:
 
Indeed the contention is at its most ridiculous when one considers the big picture (yes TF the big picture).

We are to believe that Flight 77 was commandeered somehow, flown to a secret location and destroyed along with its passengers and crew while a second aircraft flew along a flight path that took it along a path north of the Citgo station despite the fact that the 'official' path was to be one marked by the downed lamp posts. We are to believe that the same people who could arrange for Flt 77 to be disappeared and a second aircraft to take its place also managed to disguise the fact that this second aircraft flew over the Pentagon thus deceiving every single onlooker into believeing that it hit the Pentagon. Then we are told that these same people could somehow not arrange for an FDR that conclusively shows that the plane flew the 'official' path.

we are told that it is not important to consider the motives behind causing the disappearance of flt 77 and another aircraft being substituted when logic would seem to dictate that if the plan is to kill all on board anyway then flying the commandeered aircraft into the Pentagon would accomplish the task of an attack without the burden of all that extraneous deception.

Rather than consider this 'big picture' PfT and the CiT prefer to examine individual details in isolation and consider each in isolation.
 
jaydeehess said:
[...] logic would seem to dictate that if the plan is to kill all on board anyway then flying the commandeered aircraft into the Pentagon would accomplish the task of an attack without the burden of all that extraneous deception.
Click to expand...


A general rule of thumb is that fewer links in the chain mean fewer points of failure. Any evil cabal would be well aware of this.

Has anyone asked CIT directly why they believe such a complex plan was even necessary?
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
A general rule of thumb is that fewer links in the chain mean fewer points of failure. Any evil cabal would be well aware of this.

Has anyone asked CIT directly why they believe such a complex plan was even necessary?
Click to expand...

Yes, and the answer is along the lines of'we don't know'.

Perhaps they simply expect all evil cabal's and villians to behave like Goldfinger or Dr.Evil.


Poor Scotty, he told Dr.Evil "Shoot him. Shoot him in the head!".

The CiT watch too many movies.
 
Thanks to the tireless researching of CIT and pffft we now know that:

1) the plane flew north of the impact spot
2) the plane was flying slow
3) the plane was banking to the right.
4) the plane was not a 757, but an F-35.

Now all they need to do is fix this on their website so they don't brainwash the sheeple.

274944955d02dd6832.gif
 
Last edited:
aaahhh rebel you missed the small print disclaimer. Although they let the shots of the F-35 take up a fair bit of time in their latest video they do state that they are not saying that it was that specific aircraft type. You know, just throwing it out there, maybe, could be, you don't know what high tech gadgetry the spooks and skunks works have.

BTW you forgot to mention that that animation has the wings level all the way to the Pentagon.
 
Last edited:
Ok so why does the PFTT cartoon show flight 77 appear to crash into 2 trees before the well timed and perfectly executed pull up?
 
Great question!

The fact that you are even asking it is indicative of 2 things...

1. Your noggin is working over-time now that you've realized that you lost the "math" debate.

2. Despite your daily obsession with ridiculing CIT you really haven't paid much attention to what they have said or the evidence they present as this has been addressed quite thoroughly.

CIT has uncovered a significant amount of evidence for a deliberately planned 2nd plane cover story.

See presentation here.

The gist of it is that the decoy jet was meant to fool most people into believing that it hit the building but the 2nd plane cover story would be out there as an explanation for the people who actually saw it fly over or away from the building.

So it would be close enough to the damage to fool people but also a bit off track to more easily be written off as a "2nd plane".

Stories of a "2nd plane" shadowing it and flying away at the time of the explosion were floated in the media and reinforced with a few planted witnesses. We know for a fact there was no "shadowing" plane but we also know that a few dubious accounts and media reports quite explicitly floated this notion within the first days of the event.

This originally came mostly from a series of articles written by Terry Scanlon for the Daily Press about the C-130. If you read them it's clear that he deliberately has the plane in the airspace at the same time as the explosion but of course we know from the Tribby video and the ANC witnesses that it wasn't there for about 3 minutes later.

Of course this is finally confirmed by the pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien's statement that he was too far away when he first saw the explosion to even be able to tell if it was coming from the Pentagon!

"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE (in flight emergency) and was trying to make it back to National Airport."

-Lt Col Steve O'Brien
Click to expand...

The Pentagon is massive compared to a commercial airliner. Obviously he was too far away to see an impact or flyover but virtually ALL media reports erroneously either imply or flat out state that he did witness an impact. By the time he turned around to try and "follow it" it was too late.

But the 2nd plane cover story was very ambiguous at first and not limited to false reports of the C-130.

Indeed talk of any "mystery plane" at all in the skies would ambiguously serve as cover to anyone who saw the plane flying away.

That's why even talk of the E4B would be effective in this regard and now of course we know that proven dishonest conspiracy theorists like 911files blatantly used it for this very purpose only a few months ago in Gaffney's book.

So the planners obviously wanted complete control of the damage to their own building and clearly this would be achieved most efficiently with pre-planted explosives. This is the obvious reason why they would "fake" the damage. The plane was a psychological tool and while most believed it hit the building, others were quite deliberately fooled into thinking it was a "2nd plane". Roosevelt Roberts Jr. is a prime example.
 
Last edited:
apathoid said:
Wow, the plane just disappears! I wonder why Craig didn't keep the simulation rolling, showing the plane pulling up and flying away...
Click to expand...


...or from different angles, because the impression I get from that animation is that all possible witnesses to the Pentagon incident were crammed into that single spot. Surely that's not reasonable.
 
Somehow, lonebedwetter, I don't think dtugg is going to be howling into his blanket,.

Bananaman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom