9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

It appears to me that about all that CIT has to support its flyover thesis is the testimony of an eyewitness who seems to believe he saw an airliner over the western end of the Pentagon's south parking lot which then did a U-turn and went back toward highway 27--all in the five seconds he had it under observation.

I thus consider the National Security Alert DVD to be a liability to the truth movement. Another factor is that in showing surreptitiously-taped footage and in claiming that an elderly cab driver is a government agent, CIT gives the impression that truthers are sneaky, unethical, paranoid people and so has the effect of repelling potential whistleblowers.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

Views: 418

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I guess if the flyover were true that would make Penny Elgas and alot of other witnesses liars.

Is she lying? You be the judge:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1757591/

I don't think she was lying. I think she saw, as she describes, something that looked to be a big plane meld into the wall of the Pentagon.
I understand that CIT has a forum at their website, and I've found cit@sitizeninvestigationteam.com (a published email address) to be responsive to inquiries.

CIT's poor reaction to questions has caused my relationship with them to break down. If anyone should happen to be in contact with them I'd appreciate answers to a few questions:

1. Is there an approach lane for runway 12 at DCA that passes close to the Pentagon, and is it commonly used by 757s and 737s?

2. What evidence do they have that a plane that was banking north of the citgo could not have leveled out before it hit the Pentagon?

3. What is the minimum time for a 757 to make a U-turn? What is the minimum turn radius?

4. What did Mr. Roberts mean by "Lane One" of the Pentagon Lot? East side or west side? What evidence is there for this?
Jeffrey Hill said:
I guess if the flyover were true that would make Penny Elgas and alot of other witnesses liars.
Is she lying? You be the judge:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1757591/

I don't think she was lying. I think she saw, as she describes, something that looked to be a big plane meld into the wall of the Pentagon.

It has been several years since I checked on the Elgas story, but there are many holes
in it...beginning with the WHITE PLASTIC "plane part" that fell thru her sunroof.

If you map her location, as I did, she could not have seen what she said she saw. She was
going AWAY from the Pentagon, and could not have seen the plane coming toward her.
Her story does not stand scrutiny.

Jack
I'm new here. I'm not sure I understand the criticism of CIT. They provided several witnesses including a couple of Pentagon police officers that described a different flight path from that proposed by the OCT.

Clipping light poles would certainly have destabilized the plane's flight path and broken pieces off.

I'm confused by Penny's statements. I've seen films of wake vortex generated by jet engines. Flying that low, it would certainly have knocked cars off the road. She spent an incredible amount of time talking to a stranger on the phone but she sounded like she was telling the truth, as she remembered it. However, it's good to remember that the govt. provided a list of people who could be interviewed regarding this incident.

The thing is, since a plane did not hit the Pentagon, she couldn't have seen a plane disappearing into it.

Or are we saying here that a plane hit the Pentagon?
Pilots for 9/11 Truth has produced a study based upon the alleged "back-box data" from Flight 77, which shows a different approach at a different altitude than the official account requires. They have an almost perpendicular approach at some 300 feet too high to have hit any lampposts and still 100 feet above the building a second from any alleged "impact". So what CIT is offering is completely consistent with the Pilots' study. In addition. I have a friend from JFK research, who had a buddy who was a trucker. His friend, David Ball, was in front of the Pentagon at the time and told my friend, Roy Schaeffer, that he watched a big plane--presumably, a Boeing 757--approach the building but then--at the last second--swoop over it. I tried to get him on the air to discuss it, but he declined to do so. He was subsequently found dead in an abandoned building. But his testimony confirms the Pilots' study and the CIT reports. I find nothing wrong with any of it except for Brian's concerns.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2021   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service