The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by jthomas

 

I don't agree with the fly over. But, what I do find interesting are the eyewitnesses who claim the north side path. You can't deny their testimony.

The plane can't hit from the north side Griff.

It's impossible.

There is nothing for it to do but flyover and Roosevelt Roberts Jr. proves this is exactly what it did.

Don't let these guys spin you away from the obvious facts.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
Now, for the umpteenth time, Griff, when are you going to present evidence for your claims?

The FDR is the evidence, enough evidence to show reasonable doubt about the official story.

Strawman.

If the FDR were the only piece of evidence in existance, you would be right. However, it's not.

Please answer these questions that are directly related to evidence. Once you (the royal you) can provide a plausible narrative to negate these questions, only then is it reasonable to entertain notions of a fly over.

Hint: conspiracies, layered upon yet more conspiracies is not a cohesive narrative. It's unfounded speculation.

(1)What happened to flight 77?
If flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, then where is it? Where is the plane – physically? Who disposed of the aircraft? Where was it disposed? How? We are talking about 110 tons of aircraft, engines, fuel, seats, trays, avionics, luggage, etc. Where are the eyewitnesses that saw the plane physically fly over the Pentagon? Where did it land after the fly over? Were the FAA radar operators “in on it” too? Where are the airport employees who saw the 110 ton airliner land, at the undisclosed location? Were they “in on it” too, or were they killed? If so, who killed them?

(2)What happened to the passengers and crew?
Where are the passengers? Were they all “in on it”? If not, who disposed of the passengers? Where were the disposed of? How have the disposers been keep quiet? Have the disposers been killed too? How have the disposers of the disposers been kept quiet? Where were the bodies taken/buried? How was this accomplished?

(3)How do you explain the phone calls from loved ones physically on the plane, to other loved ones?
Where the calls faked? From where? How were family members duped into thinking they were talking to their wife (for example) when in you’re claiming they were talking to a computer program? How do you reconcile that some of the phone calls went through cell phone towers very close to the so-called “official” flight path? How do you reconcile that some of the calls originated from the Airphones physically on the plane in question?

(4)How do you explain the wreckage found in the building?
If it was planted, how was it planted? Who planted it? When did they plant it? Where did they get spare aircraft parts? Where were these spare aircraft parts stored? How were they transported to the scene without anyone noticing? Were the parts in question placed beforehand? If so, how? How was this accomplished without anyone noticing?

(5)How do you account for the wreckage found on the lawn?
Were the parts found in the lawn placed beforehand ? If so, where are the witnesses talking about aircraft wreckage laying around on the lawn beforehand? Or, are “they” “in on it” too? Was the wreckage on the lawn placed after the event? If so, how were “they” able to accomplish this without anyone noticing? Or are the potential witnesses, after the event “in on it” too?

(6)How do you reconcile the impact location, as it relates to the evidence?
How were the perpetrators able to judge the exact location of impact, before the event? That is, how do you reconcile that the airplane debris in question is exactly where it should be?

(7)How do you reconcile the bodies of the passengers and crew being positively identified through DNA evidence collected from within the Pentagon?
Is the DNA evidence faked? If so, by whom? Is the lab that conducted the tests and certified it’s authenticity “in on it” too?

(8)How do you reconcile personal effects, positively identified by family members as belonging to their next of kin, found within the Pentagon?
Was this evidence placed beforehand? If so, by whom? If it was placed after the event why did nobody notice? Or, are the first responders (Pentagon employees) “in on it” too? How were personal effects taken from the victims (like a drivers license) without their knowledge beforehand and planted?

(9)How do you reconcile the bodies of passengers found within the Pentagon, some still strapped into their seats?
Were the bodies placed beforehand? If so, how do you explain the bodies in question checking in at the counter at the originating airport? Were the ticketing agents “in on it” too? If the pilots were killed beforehand and then placed in the Pentagon (at some point), who flew the plane? If the bodies were placed after the event, how were the correct passengers and crew killed, then placed in the Pentagon without anyone knowing? Are the first responders, who found the first bodies, “in on it” too? Can you offer a time line that reconciles the correct passengers/crew checking in at the airport, being led off and executed and then their bodies being transported to the crash site?

(10)How do you explain the impact zone damage being completely in-line with a fast moving commercial airliner?
Was it a controlled demolition? If so, where are the blasting caps? Wiring? How was the area wired without anyone noticing? How long would this take? How would the employees who were killed at their desks not notice demolition experts wiring their office with demolitions and not complain, notice, or ask questions? Or, were the employees killed at their desk “in on it” too? If there were no employees at their desks, were the bodies planted before the event? If so, how? By whom? How have the planters been kept quiet? Were the planters killed too? By whom? Were the bodies planted after the event? If so, by whom? Where are the eyewitness reports of dead employees being brought in, after the fact? Or, were/are these potential witnesses “in on it” too?

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by jthomas

 

I don't agree with the fly over. But, what I do find interesting are the eyewitnesses who claim the north side path. You can't deny their testimony.

Hi Griff =)

We do agree the plane wound up in the Pentagon, correct? If so, what difference does it make?

The implicit claim in the NOC 'theory' is the plane did not impact the Pentagon. If you, the royal you, thinks the plane was NOC, and that it did, in fact hit the Pentagon......so what? Are there inconsistencies within the so-called ‘official story’? I think so. But the bottom-line conclusion is still Flight 77 impacting with the Pentagon, correct?

If you, again the royal you, thinks the plane did not hit the Pentagon, then there are a lot of really easy, softball questions that need to be answered. To date, CIT and their supporters use some variation of "their in on it" to explain the massive amount of evidence that points to an impact with the Pentagon.

Personally, I don’t deny any testimony. However, I balance their testimony against all of the evidence.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

Personally, I don’t deny any testimony. However, I balance their testimony against all of the evidence.

Well since you can not provide a single piece of independent verifiable evidence that tail #N644AA hit the Pentagon and we have the north side claim independently validated over 13 times (including the first known flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts Jr) the only logical conclusion based on ALL the evidence is that the plane did not hit.

Thanks for your input.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

There is nothing for it to do but flyover and Roosevelt Roberts Jr. proves this is exactly what it did.

Craig, when is CIT going to lay out the flight path of the flyover plane?

I've listened to Roberts' interview and he states that the plane flew from the southwest towards the mall entrance side of the Pentagon.

From your interview:

CIT: ...but you saw it over the south parking lot?

Roberts: Right, around the lane one area and it was like banking just above the uhh lightpoles like.

CIT: Okay and ahh...

Roberts: Had to been no more than, had to been no more than 50 feet, less than a hundred feet.

...............................................................................

CIT: But you definitely, and you saw it over the south parking lot, over lane one?

Roberts: In the South, in the south parking lot over lane one.

CIT: okay.

CIT: Do you, do you remember which direction it was headed?

Roberts: Ahh, coming from the ahh 27 side, 27 heading ahh ahh east towards DC coming from that area, ahh it was the highway. If you would've come up 395 ahh North headed toward the Pentagon you got off in south parking, you were like right there, except 395 went right into 27.

CIT: So from where, from when it headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading?

Roberts: From the, ahh can you repeat that one more time please?

CIT: Yeah. When it was heading away from the Pentagon, this the second plane...

Roberts: Right...

CIT: do you remember which direction it was heading?

Roberts: It was ahh, it was heading ahh, back across 27 and it looks like, it appeared to me, I was in the south, and that plane was heading like ahh, Southwest coming out.

CIT: So like banking around, turning back around?

Roberts: Correct.

CIT: Okay.

Roberts: Banking, banking around, coming back out turning Southwest and going straight across.

CIT: Okay.


CIT: Did it look like it went out over the river and kind of turned around?

Roberts: Ahh, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around because you got the mall there and then where I was was south and the plane, from the direction it was sitting, it was facing west, so it went southwest away from the Pentagon.

CIT: South, Southwest away from the Pentagon, OK. So kind of doing a U-turn in a way?

Roberts: Right.

CIT: Okay.

Roberts: Cause it banked out and it was like u-turning coming around, and coming out. It looked like ahh for those brief seconds it look like it it ahh, how do I want to say this ahh, it missed the wrong target and (glitch in audio) going like out-of-the-way like back to the airport or something like that.

CIT: Oh, like, so it was headed toward the airport it looked like?

Roberts: Well no, not headed toward the airport it come up like if a, if a pilot would miss his (unintelligible) he'll try to do a banking and come around because he missed the target, missed the landing zone.

...............................................................................

CIT: Now where, where did it seem like it came from?

Roberts: It seemed like ahh when I saw it, by the time I got to the dock it was already in the parking lot in lane one, and it was so low large you couldn't miss but seeing it.

CIT: Right, but from what direction did it seem like it came from?

Roberts: It seemed like, that it came from ahh, it, hold on a second. It seemed like it came from ahh, the Southwest, okay, the same way it came in or appeared that it came in, it seemed like it was Southwest (audio glitch) everything came in ahh, almost right where the that first plane had ahh, fell into the Pentagon right there, it it they, it looked like it came from that direction.

CIT: (Craig) So from the same direction, is is is...
(Aldo) From the impact side basically, from that direction?

Roberts: Everything, right. Exactly.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by jthomas


I am happy to show that you will never produce any eyewitnesses from the metropolitan Washington, DC area who claimed to have seen a flyover.

That's because according to Roosevelt Roberts, the officially documented and independently confirmed flyover witness, it did not fly over the river or the DC area and banked around and did a "U-turn" towards the "mall entrance" or north side of the Pentagon.

Then you would be able to produce scores of eyewitnesses on both sides of the Potomac, on the freeways, and on the bridges.

But you refuse. Categorically refuse. And you can't even verify Robert's clumsy account.You can't produce any eyewitnesses.

And you refuse to provide us any flight path the jet supposedly took as it flew away from the Pentagon.

Now, down to business, Craig. Just WHEN do you intend to complete your so-called investigation and produce the necessary eyewitnesses that would have seen a flyover from anywhere on the other side of the Pentagon.

When will you produce the flight path away from the Pentagon constructed from those eyewitness accounts.

Remember, Craig, you are obligated to deal with ALL the implications of your claim of a "flyover." If you continue to refuse, then you have wasted your time and effort on CIT and can shut the whole operation down.

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by jthomas

 

I don't agree with the fly over. But, what I do find interesting are the eyewitnesses who claim the north side path. You can't deny their testimony.

The north side witnesses did not claim a flyover.

CIT claimed a flyover.

So far, you are dodging producing any eyewitnesses that must necessarily exist on the other side of the Pentagon (and the Potomac) to substantiate any claim of a flyover.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

There is nothing for it to do but flyover and Roosevelt Roberts Jr. proves this is exactly what it did.

Then quit refusing to produce the eyewitnesses and the flight path away from the Pentagon.

Oh, you won't, Craig???

I can understand because it would reveal the absurdity of your claim of a flyover.

reply to post by Boone 870


Yeah?

He says it came from the alleged impact side.

He says it was a silver "commercial airliner" with "jet engines" that was at about 50 feet or just over the light poles!

He says it was immediately after the explosion...."10 seconds tops"!

What don't you get here?

That is 100% irreconcilable with a C-130 over 1,000 feet high banking away BEFORE the Pentagon about 3 minutes after the explosion as confirmed by the Tribby video, all of the ANC workers, and O'Brien himself.

Roberts didn't see the C-130 at all because 3 minutes later he was busy inside the Pentagon trying to help people to safety as he explicitly describes in his Library of Congress interview from 11/30/2001.

Why is it so difficult for you to accept the evidence Boone?

Why do you insist on twisting or ignoring the facts?



[edit on 16-8-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
(1) What happened to flight 77?
If flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, then where is it?

Gee, if you look at the FAA registration information it shows Flight 77 was destryed. However it does not show how, where, or when the plane was destryed.

(2) What happened to the passengers and crew?
Where are the passengers?

DNA evidence shows the passengers died. However ther is no evidence that the passengers were in the building.

(3) How do you explain the phone calls from loved ones physically on the plane, to other loved ones?

What does the phone calls have to do with proving it hit the building?

(4) How do you explain the wreckage found in the building?

Well i am still waiting for official reports that the wreckage is from Flight 77.

(5) How do you account for the wreckage found on the lawn?

See above answer.

(6) How do you reconcile the impact location, as it relates to the evidence?
How were the perpetrators able to judge the exact location of impact, before the event?

Who stated anything about anyone knowing the location of impact before the event?

(7) How do you reconcile the bodies of the passengers and crew being positively identified through DNA evidence collected from within the Pentagon.

As stated there is no evidence of the bodies being in the building.

(8) How do you reconcile personal effects, positively identified by family members as belonging to their next of kin, found within the Pentagon?

I have no evidnece about the personal effects.

(9) How do you reconcile the bodies of passengers found within the Pentagon, some still strapped into their seats?

Do you have the reports that the seats are from Flight 77? Also as stated before there is no evidence of bodies from Flight 77 being in the building.

(10) How do you explain the impact zone damage being completely in-line with a fast moving commercial airliner?

What official reports or evidence do you have that confirms the damage being done by a commercial airliner.

The nose of an airliner is made of composites and would have been destroyed on impact and not puched through the building.

The airframe is mostly made of aluminum and would not have made it through the building, as shown in the Purdue animation of the plane hitting the tower the airframe would have been shredded.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
Uhhh, Craig, your witness said, "It seemed like, that it came from ahh, it, hold on a second. It seemed like it came from ahh, the Southwest, okay, the same way it came in or appeared that it came in, it seemed like it was Southwest (audio glitch) everything came in ahh, almost right where the that first plane had ahh, fell into the Pentagon right there, it it they, it looked like it came from that direction."

SOUTHWEST!!!

Which direction did the C-130 approach from???

The decoy jet would have had to do some serious maneuvering after the flyover to match up with Roberts' account.

All you have is a second plane witness, at best.

Originally posted by Boone 870

The decoy jet would have had to do some serious maneuvering after the flyover to match up with Roberts' account.

All you have is a second plane witness, at best.

Yea, GoodYear Blimp type maneuvering!

Speaking of desperation! To use Robert's as a flyover witness is.......well, desperate, utterly and totally desperation.

Originally posted by Reheat
[Speaking of desperation! To use Robert's as a flyover witness is.......well, desperate, utterly and totally desperation.

Whats even worse is the fact that believers like you keep ignoring facts and evidence. And refuse to even answer questions.

How can anyone with basic intelligence and common sense still believe the official story?

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

Uhhh, Craig, your witness said, "It seemed like, that it came from ahh, it, hold on a second. It seemed like it came from ahh, the Southwest, okay, the same way it came in or appeared that it came in, it seemed like it was Southwest (audio glitch) everything came in ahh, almost right where the that first plane had ahh, fell into the Pentagon right there, it it they, it looked like it came from that direction."

SOUTHWEST!!!

Which direction did the C-130 approach from???

Boone are you simply pretending to be clueless about this?

According to the RADES data they BOTH came from the SAME direction which was southwest/westsouthwest or whatever you want to call it.


That is the point.

The independent evidence proves this is certainly the case (although originating from east of the river) with the decoy jet (see "Flight 77" The White Plane) as guessed by Roosevelt and reported by all the other witnesses we spoke with from Paik, Hubbard, Reyes, Veronica, and Jamal but this is NOT true with the C-130 as reported by ALL the ANC witnesses and is also clear from O'Brien's own statements about his flight path!

You have NOTHING directly supporting the RADES approach of the C-130 before the explosion and now with the ANC witnesses we have a large amount corroborating what we said about O'Brien's statements long ago.

There is no way around it but denial on your part.

The evidence proves you and the official story wrong.






[edit on 16-8-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
We do agree the plane wound up in the Pentagon, correct?

Yes. As I've stated before I have spoken personally with a few building engineers (in Arlington/Crystal City) who had a great view of it impacting with the pentagon.

Which is why I at least have respect for CIT because they have taken the initiative to investigate this stuff.

Unlike some here who are just here to cause trouble and doubt anything that doesn't coincide with the official explanation.

If so, what difference does it make?

Because my belief is that these eyewitnesses are mistaken or there was a second plane on course to land at Reagan (not the C-130). Of course, at least, I am willing to admit that I could be wrong.

But, again, I find it highly offensive that CIT recieves so much flack for actually going out and doing the grunt work themselves and not just going by what the MSM have fed us. Because we know the MSM are always correct, right. Especially when they reported secondary devices and explosions at the WTC, right?

Personally, I don’t deny any testimony. However, I balance their testimony against all of the evidence.

Which is one of the reasons I respect you.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

According to the RADES data they BOTH came from the SAME direction which was southwest/westsouthwest or whatever you want to call it.

That is the point.

Exactly, that is the point!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The independent evidence proves this is certainly the case (although originating from east of the river) with the decoy jet (see "Flight 77" The White Plane) as guessed by Roosevelt and reported by all the other witnesses we spoke with from Paik, Hubbard, Reyes, Veronica, and Jamal but this is NOT true with the C-130 as reported by ALL the ANC witnesses and is also clear from O'Brien's own statements about his flight path!

Cough, cough, snicker snicker. The ONLY witness you have that deduces your "so called" decoy jet came from East of the Potomac is the river boat fisherman. The other people you mention have no clue where it came from.

The ANC people are PROVEN wrong by the Tribby video and the Looney photographs no matter how many times you want to deny it.

A flight path connecting the ANC approach from the NW CAN NOT in any shape or form connect with the positions observed in the Tribby video or the Looney photographs.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You have NOTHING directly supporting the RADES approach of the C-130 before the explosion and now with the ANC witnesses we have a large amount corroborating what we said about O'Brien's statements long ago.

[SNIP]

[edit on 16-8-2008 by Reheat]



Edited out personal attack.

From the T&C's

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

[edit on 16/8/08 by masqua]

Originally posted by jthomas
Then you would be able to produce scores of eyewitnesses on both sides of the Potomac, on the freeways, and on the bridges.

I have to ask. Have you ever been to DC/Arlington/Pentagon City/Crystal City? Because about less than a 1/4 mile away from the pentagon, you can't even see the building. Yes, across the Potomac, you can see it, but guess what's there. Bolling Airforce Base. Yes, another AFB that just sat around watching the whole thing progress. Granted, I have learned, there was not much they could have done anyway as they had no jets ready for action. Anyway, do you know what Bolling houses? The DIAC (Deffense Intelligence Agency). That's right, the real spooks above the CIA, FBI, and NSA. I'll leave it at that as I don't want it to sound like I am accussing anyone at Bolling of any wrong doing. I'm just saying that if there is a conspiracy, I highly doubt these people would want to risk their lives/livelyhood to speak out against it.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


I'm referring to your fly over witness only.

He places the plane over the lane one area, near where Route 27 turns into I-395, which is southwest.

How did the flyover plane go from north of the Citgo, over the impact area, and then back to where Roosevelt places it, flying from the south west towards the Mall entrance?

One of your ANC witnesses has the C-130 approaching from the north and one confuses it with Flight 93 (a commercial aircraft), I believe Darrell stated that it was "Mr. Carter."

Originally posted by jthomas
So far, you are dodging producing any eyewitnesses that must necessarily exist on the other side of the Pentagon (and the Potomac) to substantiate any claim of a flyover.

So far, I have never claimed a flyover. So, why should I produce said eyewitnesses?

Tell ya what. From now on, when I speak with building engineers/managers ect., I'll ask if I can record their testimony of what they saw. But, we are straying from the CIT subject.

Originally posted by Boone 870

I'm referring to your fly over witness only.

He places the plane over the lane one area, near where Route 27 turns into I-395, which is southwest.

How did the flyover plane go from north of the Citgo, over the impact area, and then back to where Roosevelt places it, flying from the south west towards the Mall entrance?

It's clear that he is a bit confused with his cardinal directions during the interview. No witness is a computer. They all have perspective issues, make errors, etc.

But timing, altitude, and general location ALL rule out the C-130 as does his specific claim that it was a commercial airliner with jet engines.

"10 seconds TOPS" is a far cry from 2 or 3 minutes as reported by Tribby and all the ANC witnesses and even the RADES data!

He was back inside the Pentagon by then helping people get out of the building.

Did you even listen to his interview from 11/30/2001 in the Library of Congress?

Besides I bet it's doubtful he would have been able to see the C-130 on the RADES flight path from the south loading dock even if he was still outside anyway!

But he wasn't.

One of your ANC witnesses has the C-130 approaching from the north and one confuses it with Flight 93 (a commercial aircraft), I believe Darrell stated that it was "Mr. Carter."

WRONG!

Donald Carter does NOT say this.

Watch it again.

He thought it went to the north towards Pennsylvania but that he speculated that the "FIGHTER JETS" that came a bit later seemed to be chasing after him (the C-130).

He NEVER confused the C-130 with a commercial airliner.

Darrell simply stated that Mr. Carter said it went towards the plane in Pennsylvania not that it WAS "flight 93".

You are deliberately twisting their words as a means to spin, confuse, and deny the evidence.

Now admit your mistake like a man or you will be demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty.








[edit on 16-8-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]