The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

double post

[edit on 15-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


downed light post, plane wreckage, bodies, witnesses, etc... Read the above article to see how rediculous there investigation is.

Ranke, who attended but did not graduate from Michigan State University, had recently arrived in Dana Point in hopes of becoming a successful rock musician—a career that “really didn’t take off,” he says. Unlike Marquis, he immediately suspected 9/11 was an inside job. “The first thing I thought was, ‘This was planned,’” he recalls. “This was orchestrated by the Bush administration. . . . It’s a farce. . . . Bush came into office with such a low approval rating, and that day it shot up to 90 percent. I knew this was going to help Bush, and we were going to war. I instantly thought it was fake—until the next day.”

So right away this guy thinks it is a conspiracy, before any information comes out at all. And to say he doesnt have an agenda and is just looking for the truth. Oh and Bush did it because it was going to help his approval rating. How delusional can one man be.
As for me, I am done. Already wasted too much of my valuable time on this garbage.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by tide88]

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

Is there evidence of a North of Citgo flight path? Yes, strong evidence.

SlightlyAbovePar

Lets take your position as 100% accurate. Let's say it's 110% probable the plane was NOC. So what?

You admitted there is no evidence of a fly-over. We agree Flight 77 wound up in the building, correct? If Flight 77 flew NOC, and you agree it wound up in the building........what are we arguing about?

How could it end up inside the building? The official Flight 77 damage path (about 45 degrees lateral) is at a particular angle through the Pentagon 1st floor lining up with the official flight path south of the Navy Annex, down the hill, and through the five light poles. A damage path angle into the Pentagon 1st floor from North of the Citgo (about 75 degrees lateral) would be completely different and the Exit Hole into the A&E Drive lining up with that NOC flight path would be off by several hundred feet.

Where is this NOC damage path inside the Pentagon 1st floor lining up with the actual aircraft witnessed over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo? The NOC flight path into the Pentagon impact point would also completely miss the five light poles, proving that they were staged. How would your 'terrorist hijackers' accomplish staging the five light poles? Why would they bother staging the light poles? You say it makes no difference. Why is that?

Damage Paths

Original Official Damage Path

Pentagon Building Performance Report


[edit on 8/15/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by tide88
downed light post, plane wreckage, bodies, witnesses, etc...

1. Too bad the planes FDR and eyewitness accounts shows the plane did not take the flight path to hit the light poles.

2. NO official reports to match the parts found to AA77?

3. There is no evindece that bodies form AA77 were in the building.

KEEP TRYING


[edit on 15-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Not only that, but the FDR says the plane was too high to have hit the light poles or Pentagon. See the thread on Flight 77 FDR research for more details. So the eye witnesses place the attack craft NoC and the FDR place it too high to have struck, why do we need a thousand more flyover witnesses? Just to satisfy jthomas' demands?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
That's just a silly 9/11 Truther claim completely unsupported with any facts after almost seven years of making that claim.

Lets look at 1 piece of evidence that questions the official story. More to follow if you need them.

I have shown evidence of a government document that states flight 93 was intercepted. The official story states that no planes got near Flight 93.

Sorry but i have to go with the government document and i am sure the court would also.

Let me know when you get around to figuring out what theirs to take to court.

Sometime within this lifetime, that is.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by jthomas]

Originally posted by SPreston

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

Is there evidence of a North of Citgo flight path? Yes, strong evidence.

SlightlyAbovePar

Lets take your position as 100% accurate. Let's say it's 110% probable the plane was NOC. So what?

You admitted there is no evidence of a fly-over. We agree Flight 77 wound up in the building, correct? If Flight 77 flew NOC, and you agree it wound up in the building........what are we arguing about?

How could it end up inside the building? The official Flight 77 damage path (about 45 degrees lateral) is at a particular angle through the Pentagon 1st floor lining up with the official flight path south of the Navy Annex, down the hill, and through the five light poles. A damage path angle into the Pentagon 1st floor from North of the Citgo (about 75 degrees lateral) would be completely different and the Exit Hole into the A&E Drive lining up with that NOC flight path would be off by several hundred feet.

Where is this NOC damage path inside the Pentagon 1st floor lining up with the actual aircraft witnessed over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo? The NOC flight path into the Pentagon impact point would also completely miss the five light poles, proving that they were staged. How would your 'terrorist hijackers' accomplish staging the five light poles? Why would they bother staging the light poles? You say it makes no difference. Why is that?

Damage Paths

Original Official Damage Path

Pentagon Building Performance Report


[edit on 8/15/08 by SPreston]

Meanwhile, SPreston refuses to present any eyewitness testimony to a flyover or a flight path the jet took as it "whooshed away from the Pentagon."

How about that evidence, Mr. CIT?

Originally posted by jthomas
Let me know when you get around to figuring out what theirs to take to court.

I have a document that proves reasonable doubt in the official story. Something that the court would have to agree with.

Too bad you have no evidence to support the official story and would lose in court.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by jthomas
Let me know when you get around to figuring out what theirs to take to court.

Sometime within this lifetime, that is.

Let me know when the US gets around to figuring out who to take to court for perpetrating this atrocity.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

www.buzzflash.com...

The number one suspect is not a priority to our government. I wonder why?

Edit: BTW, I find it quite amusing that when these so-called debunkers start to lose an argument, they fall back on "when are you taking it to court?". So predictable.

[edit on 8/15/2008 by Griff]

I don't get it. What's wrong with the official story? You only have to believe that incompetent pilot Hani Hanjour executed a perfect 300 degree high-speed descending spiral of 7000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes that reminded air traffic controllers of a military maneuver -- just to target a sparsely-populated wing of the Pentagon under renovation -- while somehow lining up a 757 at more than 400 MPH just inches above the ground without so much as leaving a divot in the lawn or recognizable piece of wreckage anywhere.

Why is that so hard to believe?

Hani Hanjour: 9/11 Pilot Extraordinaire

From the ridiculous to the sublime...

Federal Aviation Administration records show [Hanjour] obtained a commercial pilot's license in April 1999, but how and where he did so remains a lingering question that FAA officials refuse to discuss. His limited flying abilities do afford an insight into one feature of the attacks: The conspiracy apparently did not include a surplus of skilled pilots. [Cape Cod Times]

[Flight Academy] Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all." [New York Times]

On second thought, I agree -- CIT doesn't even need to go through all this effort to disprove an official story that exemplifies the phrase "from the sublime to the ridiculous."

See, here we have the classic "I am not wrong, so I will refute anything said, no matter how utterly ridiculous it sounds."

Were you older than 10 when this occurred, and did you watch the interviews? I did. All day long. I SAW wreckage ON THE LAWN. How did it get there? I LISTENED to eyewitness reports of folks who saw it hit the Pentagon. I heard THAT DAY from someone who came out, and talked about seeing the burned bodies in seats.

Are you suggesting that all the people interviewed and that reported about finding bodies, black boxes, seeing it hit the Pentagon, are all lying? And the handful of witnesses you dredged up are the only ones telling the truth?

You desperately need a dose of reality my friend. Make that a double.

No, I was not in the Pentagon, and I did not personally watch it slam into the building. But as a rational thinking human being, I can use my sensory organs to listen, read, and understand the presented data, and make an educated decision based on all I see.


Let me as a simple question, please answer it if you can:

Do you believe that once the 757 was sighted by individuals on the ground, flying low, towards the Pentagon, that someone had to have seen where it ended up? That is, either into the side of the Pentagon, or banking up, it flew away? Or do you believe that it's possible that once sighted, it's possible that it managed to get into a spot where no one could see it, and at that moment, it slipped off?

I honestly want to know what you folks think about this. Once spotted, did no one notice where a large passenger jet flew off to, where it ended up?

Originally posted by fleabit I SAW wreckage ON THE LAWN. How did it get there?

So you saw wreckage, what plane did it come from?

Out of all the witnesses they could not agree on what they saw.



[edit on 15-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I don't get it. What's wrong with the official story? You only have to believe that incompetent pilot Hani Hanjour executed a perfect 300 degree high-speed descending spiral of 7000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes that reminded air traffic controllers of a military maneuver -- just to target a sparsely-populated wing of the Pentagon under renovation -- while somehow lining up a 757 at more than 400 MPH just inches above the ground without so much as leaving a divot in the lawn or recognizable piece of wreckage anywhere.

Why is that so hard to believe?

Hani Hanjour: 9/11 Pilot Extraordinaire

From the ridiculous to the sublime...

Federal Aviation Administration records show [Hanjour] obtained a commercial pilot's license in April 1999, but how and where he did so remains a lingering question that FAA officials refuse to discuss. His limited flying abilities do afford an insight into one feature of the attacks: The conspiracy apparently did not include a surplus of skilled pilots. [Cape Cod Times]

You're absolutely right. FAA officials would refuse to discuss Hani's commercial pilot's license if they suspected he got it out of a Cracker Jack box. He couldn't fly at all. What is hard to believe about this Official Conspiracy Theory? Why should there be any doubt? It should fit right in with the remainder of Grimm's Fairy Tales. What shall we call it?

The Frog Prince Hides Behind Little Children In Florida

This book contains 209 tales collected by the brothers Grimm.
www.cs.cmu.edu...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
Let me know when you get around to figuring out what theirs to take to court.

I have a document that proves reasonable doubt in the official story. Something that the court would have to agree with.

As I said, let me know what case you'll make with your "document" and when you intend to go to court with it.

During my lifetime, that is.

Originally posted by Griff

Edit: BTW, I find it quite amusing that when these so-called debunkers start to lose an argument, they fall back on "when are you taking it to court?". So predictable.

Sorry to ruin your day, Griff, but we "debunkers" are winning hands down. You can't deny that.

Just look at how many times I've asked the CIT groupies to provide the eyewitnesses to a "flyover" and a "flyover" flight path and they have all whined incessantly that they have NO responsibility to back up their claims of a "flyover." Ain't that something?

Notice how they're dropping out of this thread like flies because they have NO evidence to support a flyover?

Now, let you put your money where your mouth is and provide those eyewitness statements, Griff.

Oh, what are you mumbling.....? You don't want to?

Originally posted by fleabit

Were you older than 10 when this occurred, and did you watch the interviews? I did. All day long. I SAW wreckage ON THE LAWN. How did it get there? I LISTENED to eyewitness reports of folks who saw it hit the Pentagon. I heard THAT DAY from someone who came out, and talked about seeing the burned bodies in seats.

I did not see wreckage on the lawn until later. The earliest photos showed no wreckage on the lawn. Even Jamie McIntyre originally stated he saw no aircraft wreckage on the lawn. Later photos showed FBI agents carrying wreckage around. Then photos appeared showing wreckage on the lawn. Go figure.

There were no photos of burned bodies in seats were there? The person you claim you saw could have been reading from a script, couldn't he? If this was a psyops campaign, would it not be smart to prepare scripts and send shills out in front of the media cameras all day long in order to CON the American people? Wouldn't it be smart to confiscate all the area videos? Wouldn't it be smart to have an official OCT all ready to feed the tv networks? Were you conned?

fleabit

Are you suggesting that all the people interviewed and that reported about finding bodies, black boxes, seeing it hit the Pentagon, are all lying? And the handful of witnesses you dredged up are the only ones telling the truth?

Perhaps they were reading from scripts. Perhaps they were created out of thin air by the lying Mainstream Media whores. Perhaps they were miles away, giving 2nd and 3rd hand accounts. Perhaps they were media shills reciting as they were ordered. Perhaps they were misquoted. Have you tried contacting them to verify their accounts? Why not?

Perhaps they were like Jerome Hauer and Harley Davidson man early on the day of 9-11; preparing the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) for Dan Rather on tv from a script.

The 9-11 Solution: How the myth was sold

Meet Jerome Hauer: 911 Suspect Awaiting Indictment


[edit on 8/15/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by fleabit
Let me as a simple question, please answer it if you can:

Do you believe that once the 757 was sighted by individuals on the ground, flying low, towards the Pentagon, that someone had to have seen where it ended up? That is, either into the side of the Pentagon, or banking up, it flew away? Or do you believe that it's possible that once sighted, it's possible that it managed to get into a spot where no one could see it, and at that moment, it slipped off?

I honestly want to know what you folks think about this. Once spotted, did no one notice where a large passenger jet flew off to, where it ended up?

Even though I think people definitely saw something I don't believe it was a 757. I think it was a sophisticated psy-ops deception that distracted people from what really happened, like a magician's sleight of hand. CIT may well be on to something significant, which is why every debunker in the book is being thrown at them. I've always thought the more debunking a topic receives, the greater possibility that it's true.

It's not disputed that there were no recognizable pieces of Flight 77 wreckage outside the Pentagon and I've never seen any proof of bodies, seats, luggage, etc. being found inside. I find it highly unlikely, if not impossible that a 757's wings would fold up and sail through an impact hole that's just too small to make this scenario plausible. The symmetrical 12-foot hole in the outer 'C' ring is also highly unlikely, as no part of a 757 is capable of punching through six limestone, brick, concrete and steel-reinforced walls, especially when it's claimed that most of it disintegrated.

I don't know every detail of what actually happened that day, but I'm certain of what didn't happen.

All it would take to quash this speculation and endless debate is for the government to release the videos they confiscated just minutes after whatever impacted the Pentagon. This immediate confiscation of every tape in the vicinity is suspicious in itself.

Now that their Moussaoui trial excuse has long passed, the fact that the government still haven't done this seven years later is perhaps the most damning evidence of all.

Originally posted by jthomas
Sorry to ruin your day, Griff, but we "debunkers" are winning hands down.

Sorry to ruin your day but I'm not playing a game here of "winning" and "loosing". Only you and your ilk are playing this ego ridden game.

BTW, what's the prize at the end of this "game" you're playing?

[edit on 8/15/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Even though I think people definitely saw something I don't believe it was a 757. I think it was a sophisticated psy-ops deception that distracted people from what really happened, like a magician's sleight of hand.

You're entitled to your beliefs even when youn have no evidence for them.

CIT may well be on to something significant, which is why every debunker in the book is being thrown at them. I've always thought the more debunking a topic receives, the greater possibility that it's true.

I noticed that the more questions we ask you CIT groupies about your claims, the more you can't answer them - and the more upset you get for anyone daring to ask you for your evidence.

I find it highly unlikely, if not impossible that a 757's wings would fold up and sail through an impact hole that's just too small to make this scenario plausible.

It's always instructive that we have to remind you that the wings were destroyed and the impact hole was quite wide enough.

But then facts get in the way of your "story." which is why you can never provide the evidence for your claims when we ask for it.

Now, are you going to provide the evidence we ask for or keep hiding?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
Sorry to ruin your day, Griff, but we "debunkers" are winning hands down.

Sorry to ruin your day but I'm not playing a game here of "winning" and "loosing".

Neither am I which begs the question why you are trying to weasel out of your own statement:

Originally posted by Griff

Edit: BTW, I find it quite amusing that when these so-called debunkers start to lose an argument, they fall back on "when are you taking it to court?". So predictable.

We are winning ALL of the arguments hands down.

Did you really think you could get away with weaseling again, Griff?

Now WHERE are those eyewitnesses you refuse to provide us?