NASA engineer agrees with Citizen Investigation Team

Discussion in '9/11' started by Scott, Jan 4, 2019.

  1. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Dwain Deets endorses Citizen Investigation Team & their presentation "National Security Alert"


    This guy has a background that's not to be sneezed at and he certainly makes sense.
    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1996/96-10.html

    It all makes sense. There's zero proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon and there's a mounain of good evidence that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...lane-hit-the-pentagon.547977/#post-1070028643

    It's pretty clear that the big airliner that people saw flew over the Pentagon. It's not really clear where it flew after that as the witness who saw it fly over after the explosion seemed a little confused (see video in above link). The important thing is that the witness said he'd seen the plane after the explosion and that it was a large airliner with jet engines - not propellers. It was very low to the ground so it would be hard to mistake propellers for jet engines. He only saw one plane although he thinks there were two planes as he thought the explosion he'd heard was a plane hitting the other side of the Pentagon.


    If the video goes off-line, do a YouTube or Google search on the title which is above it.


     
  2. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male

    Nothing he claims as well as CIT are true. Not one single person witnessed a fly over scenario.
     
  3. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    you still haven't watched the Coste vids after all these months have you Scott? ... why should I watch anything you post unless you reciprocate? ...
     
  4. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    serial forum spammer ...
     
  5. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Check out the video I referred to in the first post. Then do a YouTube search on this video...
    National Security Alert - Part 6/9 - Sensitive Information

    ...and start listening at the 5:10 time mark. It's about a witness of the flyover.


    edit
    --------------

    Also do a YouTube search on this video...
    National Security Alert - Part 7/9 - Sensitive Information

    ...and start listening at the 2:25 time mark.
    It's about other witnesses of the flyover.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
  6. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male

    Why am i going to entertain a video from two guys whose claim has never been registered with anyone else. Ranke and Marquis (CIT Team) both hold fast to the scenario that a bomb went off which caused the damage at the Pentagon and that a drone plane flew over the Pentagon.

    Please tell me, why is this fantastical scenario not witnessed by anyone who was in the vicinity of the Pentagon. And most of all, why on earth would you believe this.
     
  7. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    zero credibility ... script reader ...
     
  8. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Check out the evidence I linked to in post #1 and get back to me.

    According to what I told you to look at in my last post it was witnessed. They just didn't interview the witnesses individually. The guy heard people saying that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going. The press probably wouldn't report any witness who says something like that. The press is owned.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...germany-in-1933.401955/page-3#post-1066548138

    It's plausible that a lot of people saw it and their testimonies never got reported.

    I made that clear in my first post (click on the link). It agrees with the damage at the crash scene. All of the plane parts found there were plantable. Even if a 757 part was found, it may have been planted. In the video that I suggested that you watch the guy says that people could smell cordite which is an explosive. It all adds up.
     
  9. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    #1. There is no evidence to support the fly over claim. No one saw it, everyone in the area of the pentagon saw it descend and crash into the building. There is plane debris littered inside and outside the building.

    #2. No one witnessed a fly over. You realize that there are 87 people who even saw the American Airlines logo and crash into the pentagon. Over 125 people saw the plane impact the building.

    #3. Plantable debris?

    Now you have gone backwards. You now have to prove a fly over scenario plus you have to prove anyone planted anything and was witnessed by anyone.
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  10. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I suppose I'll have to post this again.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10632

    In a conspiracy this big there are going to be planted bogus witnesses. There are others who said they'd seen a smaller plane. There are witnesses saying different things which is consistent with there being a mixture of real and bogus witnesses. Seeing that the press is owned (check out the link in my last post), we may have been fed bogus info on the witnesses. What we have to look at is the actual physical evidence.

    All plantable. Do you consider this debris to be proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon?

    You have to go and study basic logic. The fact that the debris and plane parts were plantable means that your side can't use them as proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon.
     
  11. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male

    #1. You keep retreating backwards. Now you have to prove that there were "planted eyewitnesses" No one in the vicinity of the Pentagon saw a smaller plane. In fact the witnesses who saw a Boeing impact the building have been fairly consistent in what they saw.

    #2. All plantable? Great, please provide evidence any of the debris was planted and present eyewitnesses who support your claim that people planted plane debris inside and outside the Pentagon.

    #3. You have to go study basic logic. Because all you have done is make claim after claim. If it was indeed a fact that debris was planted and that eyewitnesses were "plants" form the government or toldn to lie by agents please provide the evidence which will make your claims...fact.
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You're not reading the stuff I post. Go back and click on the link to "Pilots for 9/11 truth". I'll copy and paste a couple of things for you.

    "Steve Patterson (small silver 8-12 passenger commuter plane)"
    "Steve Gerard (saw small corporate jet with no markings) (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)"
    "Don Wright (a commuter plane, two-engined-strange behavior when questioned about direction )"

    Are you saying that it constitutes proof if I can't prove it was plantable. You have to go back and study basic logic. People of average intelligence don't need to study logic to see the flaws in your reasoning. It's just common sense.

    What I'm saying is that what you seem to be presenting as proof isn't proof. Show us something you consider to be proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon and we can discuss whether it's really proof.


     
  13. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male

    Again. Please provide proof of your two claims.

    Show evidence that plane debris was planted by people.
    Show evidence that the eyewitnesses who saw the plane impact the Pentagon were "agents" or "contacted by agents to lie"
     
  14. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Full listing of people who saw a Boeing crash into Pentagon.

    https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77pentagon.pdf

    Don Wright, not even near the vicinity of the pentagon. Irony that you used him because he contradicts the CIT claim that the plane flew over the pentagon.

    Wright: Yes, it was about 9:35 and I was looking out our 12th floor windows at 1600 Wilson Blvd in Roslyn VA, and I watched this...it looked like a commuter plane, two engine, come down from the south, real low and proceed right on and crashed right into the Pentagon.

     
  15. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I asked you to show what you consider proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon. You ignored that. This would get you laughed out of the debating hall. You're losing credibility here. Please address what I asked you to address.

    You're ignoring the points I've made. Of course there's a list of people who say they saw a 757 crash into the Pentagon. I said that a lot of them are probably planted bogus witnesses that are in on the big lie. A lot of them simply saw a 757 flying toward the Pentagon and then saw or heard the explosion and just assumed it had hit the Pentagon. This isn't proof.

    Toward the end of your video the guy says it was a small commuter plane.

    You're not doing well here.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
  16. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I was reading the comment section of this video...

    9/11 Pentagon Debate: Craig Ranke (CIT) vs Anthony Summers



    ...and I saw a comment that would be good advice to all of the pro-official version posters here. I'll copy and paste it.

    "Good job Craig. As someone who has listened to a LOT of debates, it isn't difficult to tell which side has actually done their homework, and which is just spouting the party line. When will these people ever learn that an assertion isn't proof of anything, other than an opinion? Anthony is using all the cheap debate tactics, speak over someone when they attempt to make a point, throw out a red herring or two, and above all else argue a point the opponent never makes, while simultaneously ignoring their strongest evidence. A real debater attacks the strongest claims head on, and as accurately as possible. To do less than that destroys any credibility."


    edit 12 minutes later
    ----------------------------------

    Here's another comment from the video I liked.

    "Ranke's witnesses are better than other witnesses because Ranke's witnesses had the frame of reference of the gas station canopy. they could not be wrong about which side of the gas station the plane flew. It is very unlikely that they are wrong. Other witnesses testimony are simply accounts taken by officials. They are vague; they supply no frame of reference, etc."
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
  17. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,804
    Likes Received:
    2,391
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is downright comical that some people still think AA77 hit the pentagon. Curiously that cadre of people seem to live only on the internet. I don't know of a single person in real life, people I socialize with, who actually believe that anymore. It's been 17 years.
     
  18. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I just came across this.

    9/11 Pentagon Event Victim April Gallop interviewed by CIT



    I've seen several of her videos but I'm not sure if this is one of them. I don't have the time to watch it now but I figured I'd better post it for the viewers since it's done by the people that Dwain Deets endorses.
     
  19. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    #1. Debris, eyewitnesses, flight pattern data
    #2. Yes you said these eyewitnesses are "planted bogus witnesses"...please provide evidence that these people were plants.

    And yes Don Wright did say from where he was, at a distance, that the plane was a small plane....yet he did say the plane impacted the Pentagon. This would be in direct contradiction to CIT who claims no plane impacted the Pentagon.
     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So, the NASA high ranker is to be trusted and not dishonest. Ok.

    Yeah sure. Policeman and NASA people are to be trusted, except the other 99.99 % policemen and NASA people who say your claims are full of crap!



    Plane parts, body DNA, witnesses, crash scene all say a plane. Nothing says it wasn't a plane.



    That is not what he said at all and it has been pointed out to you. You are deliberately and wilfully misrepresenting what he said and you avoided where this was pointed out!

    http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-06/cit-transcript-roosevelt-roberts

    Aldo Marquis:
    Okay, was it a, was it a....a... jet, or was it a... do you remember what kind of plane it was?

    Roosevelt Roberts:
    Looked like to me at that time....a large aircraft liner, it wasn't a jet, it was a commercial aircraft.

    Aldo Marquis:
    Okay, did it have propellers or did it have jet engines?

    Roosevelt Roberts:
    It looked like jet engines at that time

    He contradicted himself in the space of 2 sentences. Your claim is bullshit and if that were a 757 plane witness, you would dismiss it!
     
  21. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/strange-case-of-april-gallop.html

    Great name for that website!

    "When Elisha cries these days the same way he did when he was trapped under the debris, it all comes back. If she drives past an airport and smells jet fuel, it all comes back. She hears her injured co-workers calling for help. She sees the shards of metal, the broken furniture and shattered lights jutting dangerously every which way. It feels . . . so real.

    "You live with it, almost every day," Gallop said. "You carry it with you.""

    "GALLOP: Again, it wasn't anything expected. I was just going to turn on the computer to do a letter. And I never got to do that. As soon as I touched the computer, boom, and I actually thought it was a bomb. And to leave out graphic details, you know, all of a sudden, due to the impact of the plane, we were blown away from the location we were at and covered under four floors of debris, walls, office equipment, et cetera."

     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
    Adam Fitzgerald likes this.
  22. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
  23. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    At the 3:50 time mark she says that some military people tried to get her to say some things that she herself didn't believe.

    April Gallop on 911 conspiracy



    I'd like to hear some analyses of this from the pro-official version posters.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  24. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Do you live in Stepford? ...
     
  25. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,804
    Likes Received:
    2,391
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How consistent with military practices, tell the troops to **** about anything that does not support the official version.

    Thanks to April Gallop for speaking truth to power. She is a true patriot.
     

Share This Page