Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

page: 6
204
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I hate to ruin everyone's day here but Craig Ranke already knew that his latest gambit completely failed BEFORE he posted it here.

Let's look at when Craig started this thread:


The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed
Craig Ranke CIT

+58 more give this post a star
posted on 5-8-2008 @ 06:36 PM single this post "quote"REPLY TO:
DIGG ATS

for original
content
more info
The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed


Now, let's look when I posted this notice:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


jthomas

Member

Registered: 4-11-2007

posted on 5-8-2008 @ 03:29 PM single this post "quote"REPLY TO:

CIT is likely to close. Rumor is that since CIT was "taken to the cleaners" over on JREF, specifically in this post:

forums.randi.org...

that Craig Ranke is contemplating giving up the ruse. Apparently, Aldo is furious.

Stay tuned.


Ooops, Craig. You were already debunked. Also, I easily showed Craig and Aldo on their own forum how they royally screwed up.

Since CIT's latest desperate attempt was debunked easily on JREF, all of the CIT TwooferTroops® have disappeared into the ether.

It's time for everyone here to face reality. CIT utterly failed to prove its case, has consistently refused to produce statements from hundreds of key witnesses, has tried to foist on us a supposed eyewitness who was actually at the south side loading docks of the Pentagon as one who was on FAR side of the Pentagon.

Despite 2 years of persistent pressure on CIT to produce eyewitnesses on the far side of the Pentagon, a geographic area encompassing thousands of people no matter what flight path AA77 took, who would have witnessed a flyover had one occurred.

And Craig Ranke, chief CIT evader, cannot come up with one single eyewitness on the far side of the Pentagon. Instead he fakes one who was on the near side of the Pentagon.

I'm sorry to ruin the day of "true believers" but CIT once again cooked its goose. It won't be long before even true believers will see through CIT's charade.

That's why CIT will finally shut its doors fairly soon, defeated and humilited for trying to con everyone - especially 9/11 Truthers.




posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


This link below discusses the war games going on during 9/11 of which caused air traffic control to ask "is this real world". The war game was a deliberate distraction to allow the aircrafts safe passage to their targets. Even without the proof provided below...its hard to believe anyone with common sense could believe that NORAD could/would not intervene with aircrafts which alterred their flight path to hit there intended targets. They would/should have been shot down immediately. Wow wake up fellow Americans and demand a new and thorough 9/11 investigation without any Israeli influence. The last 9/11 investigation was operated by and covered up by dual Israeli/American citizens/nationals.
On another note. I'm surprised no one has responded to my posts. Can everyone/anyone see my posts besides me? I don't expect anyone to comment on my posts...just please acknowledge that they are being posted here and not filtered.
911proof.com...



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Now the questions for the debunkers, if they ever show up, will be: Can you provide any witness testimony that can be verified that specifically puts AA77 on the south side of the Citgo station inline with the light poles and hole in the Pentagon as per official story. Can you provide any verifiable witnesses that saw the plane strike and down the light poles? Can you provide any verifiable witness testimony that places the C130 on the 84 RADES flight path or AA77 on the loop shown in the official flight path?

Jthomas, many here are aware of the tactics of JREF debunkers. Can you provide any of the above to refute Craig's evidence, or are we just to believe you when you say he is debunked. By the way, when did we start debunking people here?



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

CIT is likely to close. Rumor is that since CIT was "taken to the cleaners" over on JREF, specifically in this post:

forums.randi.org...

that Craig Ranke is contemplating giving up the ruse. Apparently, Aldo is furious.

Stay tuned.


Stop LYING.

That post doesn't address the evidence one bit.

Complete response here.

We laughed at Girlyduck's irrelevant/fallacious post!

Aldo isn't the least bit "furious".

There is no ruse and you have barely started hearing about CIT.

Please everyone understand that if this guy doesn't quote me direct and provide a link to it he is LYING about what I have said.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by oceanaut1
I don't expect anyone to comment on my posts...just please acknowledge that they are being posted here and not filtered.
911proof.com...


For sure man.

I can see it.

Definitely important info to consider.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by emsed1
 


ALL of the witnesses we present believe the plane hit the building.

It's their unanimous placement of the plane on the north side that proves they were deceived in this regard.

Realize that most could not see the Pentagon due to the topography and landscape.

Even William Middleton had an obscured view of it due to trees.

But they had no problem seeing the plane as it banked on the north side of the gas station.




OK so let me get this straight. All of your witnesses believe the plane hit the building.

So what's the problem?

They were deceived and convinced that the plane was on one side of the road and not the other because they have poor memory or are easily influenced?

Yet when you suggest to them with hand-drawn images that the plane may have been on the OTHER side of the road seven years later they are suddenly unimpeachable and irrefuteable?

We can clear this up with a few straightforward questions.


Did a plane hit the Pentagon?

All your witnesses say yes.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Roosevelt Roberts Jr was on the south side of the Pentagon.

The alleged impact point is on the west side.

He saw the plane immediately AFTER the explosion flying away and banking around.

His 11/30/2001 interview where he explained this is archived at the Library of Congress website and our interview with him where were independently confirmed this with him direct is in the presentation.

There is no explanation for the plane he saw other than a flyover.

jthomas is in desperate denial and trying to play a word game with "far" and "near" side to confuse or downplay Roosevelt's critical account of seeing the silver jet bank around and fly away after the explosion.

The Pentagon is the largest low rise structure on earth.

I've been there.

I've been inside the building and I entered from the south entrance.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
just a couple things to consider

i have seen video of a tornado slamming into a block of concrete for a test and there was practically nothing left of the jet

the immense heat caused by the friction of the jet hitting the concrete simply atomizes a good bit of the plane

i have no doubt that this release of kinetic energy is why the wreckage was so minimal.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by emsed1

Yet when you suggest to them with hand-drawn images that the plane may have been on the OTHER side of the road seven years later they are suddenly unimpeachable and irrefuteable?

We can clear this up with a few straightforward questions.


Did a plane hit the Pentagon?

All your witnesses say yes.






You are reneging on your promise.



Originally posted by emsed1

That sounds fair enough.

I will take an openminded look at your evidence and see what I think.

Thanks!


The presentation is almost 2 hours long.

Watch the entire thing and tell me how 13 people can possibly make the exact same ridiculously drastic mistake.

Besides many of these new witnesses described the north side flight path only weeks after the event to the Center for Military History.

All of those transcripts are linked in the OP.

That is the "Officially Documented" part.

Now please stick to your promise and go view the evidence before replying again.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


A commercial airliner heads directly for the Pentagon.

At the moment it should have impacted there was a massive explosion.

Then someone sees a plane bank away from the building?

So somehow in broad daylight while a massive terrorist attack is underway on our country, someone is able to set off an explosion at the precise instant a jetliner was right over the building and then the jetliner flies away and is hidden for seven years while 'people' sneak into a cordoned off disaster area to 'plant' pieces of an airplane that are mysteriously identical to the plane that supposedly left?

Then the plane disappears and all the passengers are executed?

What in the world would be the point?

If there is a conspiracy, why not just crash the damn plane into the building instead of coordinating all this incredibly complex activity with nobody noticing?



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Watch the entire thing and tell me how 13 people can possibly make the exact same ridiculously drastic mistake.

Besides many of these new witnesses described the north side flight path only weeks after the event to the Center for Military History.

All of those transcripts are linked in the OP.

That is the "Officially Documented" part.

Now please stick to your promise and go view the evidence before replying again.


I am still in the process of watching the video but I keep having to pause due to tears of laughter due to the 'instant replay' effects a'la "Loose Change" and the man holding a toy airplane saying (paraphrased) 'Yeah.. uh ... i saw a plane over there... sort of like... well... in that general area... or something..."

Then the Canadian dude with the microphone comes back and exclaims (again paraphrasing), "There you have it ladies and gentlemen! Absolute proof!"

Hopefully it gets better.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Holy crap, just look at the interviews. You said you were going to, and didn't. Now you are asking question or spouting out accusations with out keeping your end of the agreement. None of the witnesses said they saw the impact, that is the point. There have yet to be any confirmed impact or official flight path witnesses.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


Well, I see Ranke and Company are peddling their snake oil and most here are buying.

That's very amusing that people are so gullible as to not see the sheet being shoveled by this charlatan and outright fraud.

There are so many things wrong with this crap it smells worse than an ancient goat.

The weakest evidence (witnesses) interviewed years after the fact somehow trumps a mountain of physical evidence?

One primary reason this is not possible is AERODYNAMICS of AIRCRAFT. Any aircraft! Oh, he will accuse me of a strawman and logical fallacies as he always does, but he CAN NOT REFUTE the math and physics involved.

His lines look smooth and neat on his slides. However, note that he only shows PART of the flight path.

This following link totally DESTROYS this crap USING HIS OWN WITNESSES. Although those at ANC are not mentioned the flight paths and the numbers still apply.

A GoodYear Blimp or a Sopwith Camel are the only thing that could have flow his impossible flight path.....

www.911myths.com...

Now, sit back and watch him squirm, spin, and twist!



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Holy crap, just look at the interviews. You said you were going to, and didn't. Now you are asking question or spouting out accusations with out keeping your end of the agreement. None of the witnesses said they saw the impact, that is the point. There have yet to be any confirmed impact or official flight path witnesses.


I am happy to save my questions for the end if you guys like.

I still think this would be a fantastic debate topic for the Debate Forum.

The only accusation I stand behind is that I believe the one dude is Canadian, but I may be wrong.

OK I shut up now. I will watch the WHOLE video and if you guys are still here I will bring it.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

This means he could not have watched the plane enter as he stated. He has also claimed since day one that he hit the deck so the obvious conclusion here is that he reacted as anyone would and hit the deck as the plane approached headed right towards him and simply missed the pull up.


Hi Craig. Why are you intentionally misrepresenting what Sean Boger said?


"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."




[edit on 6-8-2008 by Boone 870]



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by pmexplorer
 



Reagan National Airport is right next to the Pentagon and they are the ones who control the airspace.

The heliport ATC's did not have any access to radar at all.


The traffic controllers at the Reagan airport MUST have seen the whole thing go down.
The pilot in that plane was no terrorist, he had to be highly trained to pull this off.

Also the damage pictures show what looks like a side shot at the side. A big hole deep into the building. The official path the plane would have glanced off the building and took out the tower.
The official path can't be correct as per the damage to the building. IMO


[edit on 6-8-2008 by merky]



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Just out of curiosity, why are you assuming these witnesses are all correct? One of which couldn't even see the gas station?

I still don't grasp the complexity of it all. If we needed a reason to start a war, I think taking down the two tallest buildings in NYC would do the trick. I don't see ANY point to the plane over PA if there is a conspiracy, and the other building that collapsed with supposed explosives that was "a steel structure and this has never happened before," what's the point? Ok.. so killing our own civilians in the WTC *and* blowing up the Pentagon isn't enough. We also need to blow up a tinier building that means nothing. This is logic? Providing more possible loopholes is a good idea?

I heard dozens of witnesses the day of the attack, say they say the jumbo passanger jet flying at the pentagon at a low altitude. And NONE.. not a single one, saw it flying away. Wouldn't a jumbo jet be sort of noticable? How in the world would people miss it?

I still don't buy it. I see:

Dozens of folks who saw it flying at the Pentagon.
Wreckage.
Dead passangers (identified by their dental records).
Black box found.

And on your side, you have:

Four people say they say it flying at a different angle than others.

I don't buy for a moment that it just banked up and flew off. Have you *watched* jets take off? They are loud. They are slow. They are OBVIOUS. It's not an F16, it can't just zoom out of the picture. It would have been noticed by dozens of people.

While you can try to convince me that four people know the truth by what they say, you'll never convince me that dozens of witnesses did NOT see a big ol' jumbo jet flying away. That's ludicrous in the extreme, imo. Especially when everyone's attention would be focused in that direction!



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 
I forgot the link in my previous post.

Link

[edit on 6-8-2008 by Boone 870]



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Gave the thread a flag and star because of the effort that went into it and because it's important to keep asking questions. Doesn't stop me having major gripes with the Pentagon CT though...

They were VERY LUCKY that their whole elaborate plot wasn't captured on video/film by some random person filming/photographing in the area. You're telling me they would risk that? Maybe they did and got away with it. Maybe.

How did they knock down all the light poles on the "official" flight path if that's not really where the plane went at all? Why didn't people see the poles being cut down or mysteriously falling over for no apparent reason as they drove by?


Why not just crash the actual plane into the building by remote instead of conjuring up some overly complicated series of stunts that could have backfired at any stage? Would have been 100x easier.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty about the official story that stinks - but some of these conspiracy theories don't make much sense either.

I still applaud the thread though



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by merky
 

The traffic controllers at the Reagan airport MUST have seen the whole thing go down.



They did.

Stephenson looked at the radarscope and saw that the jet was about five miles to the west.

The airplane was completely out of place. "I knew what had just happened in New York. I had a pretty good idea what was up," he said.

He looked out the tower window and saw the jet turning to the right and descending. The jet did a full circle and whoever was flying knew what he was doing. The wings never rocked or oscillated, Stephenson said.

The jet disappeared behind a building in nearby Crystal City, Va., and exploded into the Pentagon. A fireball blew several hundred feet into the air. For several minutes, a huge cloud of debris — paper, insulation and pulverized building materials — hung in the air.

Stephenson and the others stood in stunned silence for several seconds. But then the phones started ringing again and they got back to shutting the airport down. Source


No mention of a flyover.





new topics

top topics



 
204
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join