The CIT Deception - pt. 2

The CIT Deception - The Plane, The Path, The Poles, The Pentagon

A detailed account of Citizen Investigation Team's manipulation of the evidence relating to the Pentagon on 9/11.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• CIT
• deception
• 911
• 9/11
• pentagon
• flyover
• flight
• 77
• citizen
• investigation
• team
• lies
• citgo
• navy
• annex
• pentacon
• national
• security
• alert
• debunk

[HUD92458]

He saw the plane over the parking lot and higher than the poles, not hwy 27. Then you go on at 8:45 with a graphic saying he saw the plane "near" the poles. What are you trying to pull?

FYI - there are light poles throughout the south parking lot. Those are the poles he was talking about.

[brokenstyx]

@HUD92458

In all likelihood, since it is well-known that the plane hit lightpoles, he was talking about the lightpoles that were hit. :)

[HUD92458]

There's some kind of deception going on here all right, but it isn't CIT. Was it willful negligence of deliberate obfuscation that led you to put this deceitful presentation together? Let's take Roosevelt Roberts. He told CIT he saw the plane over S parking ln 1 just above the light poles at 7:45 at 50-100ft. But then you point to poles 1&2 on hwy 27. Are you saying it flew over those poles, or did it hit the poles? Get your story straight. RR didn't mention 27 or the poles being hit.

[brokenstyx]

@HUD92458

Hi Hud, thanks for your interest.

Roosevelt says he saw the plane over the lane 1 area, near the lightpoles. From his vantage point, the plane on the official path fits this description. I have a specific video on Roosevelt Roberts testimony that makes this a little clearer :)

[edpgroup]

If the police officer claims the plane 100% approached from the north side of the Citgo station over the tree line, how could it of taken out the 1 & 2 poles?

[brokenstyx]

@edpgroup

Good question! You could also ask, if other people saw the plane hit the lightpoles, then how did it go north of citgo?

In my opinion, as Lagasse has changed his testomony everytime he has given it, and THIS PARTICULAR testimony to CIT was initiated from the wrong corner of the gas station, then Lagasse is wrong about the placement of the plane in this particular testimony.

[Truthstorm911]

When you show what Roosevelt said to CIT then we can talk. Until then you are talking about CIT without showing their interview with Roosevelt which makes me wonder about your honesty.

[HUD92458]

@brokenstyx My interest is in RR; your presentations...not so much. RR said he first saw the plane over lane 1 and estimated it's alt at ~50-100ft agl. The poles were standard 40ft light posts. He clearly indicates the plane was higher than the poles. So if this was the plane coming across 27 as you suggest, you apparently agree w/ CIT it did not hit the poles. It was too high. And no, it doesn't fit the official description. You left out he said it was heading east. East? Over lane 1?

[HUD92458]

@brokenstyx In analyzing RR statements I prefer to stick w/ what he actually said, not what you wish he'd said, or think he meant to say. And no, it's not "well-known" the plane hit the light poles. All but 1 light pole strike witness, it turns out, only deduced the poles were struck after seeing them on the ground. The one actual witness per media accounts, former DPS officer Wanda Ramey, backed away from the claim when interviewed by CIT. RR saw the plane in S parking over the poles. :)

[brokenstyx]

@FreedumbFighter28

or you watch the 500mph plane within spitting distance of you because its a remarkable sight. one or the other x

[FreedumbFighter28]

Only a debunka would feel that the light poles were insignificant. Once again, it stands to reason that if you see the plane, you see it clip SIX light poles...