The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Pretty slick, huh?

That's because Ranke is a snake oil salesman.

What he doesn't tell you is that EVERY SINGLE ONE of his witnesses who were in a position to see said they observed the aircraft impact the Pentagon.

There are more twists and turns in this crap than in the most bizarre pretzel than anyone has ever witnessed.

He has been saying for over 2 years that this is a "smoking gun", the ultimate proof, irrefutable, triple corraborated and "scientific" just because he says so. Why doesn't he take this garbage to Court? He hasn't and he won't because he would be laughed out of a Courtroom within 5-10 minutes.

There is a mountain of physical evidence that he just hand waves away as if it doesn't exist. He tries to use the weakest form of evidence (by twisting and misinterpreting witness statements) against proven physical evidence.

Ask him how many interviews he has conducted of the first responders, or the thousands of people who fought the fires, removed the wreckage, gathered and removed the human body material for DNA testing, and cleaned up the carnage. When is he going to get around to that as if he's interested even remotely in the truth.

In over 2 years of promoting this trash he has been unable to formulate a flight path that even remotely conforms to the witness statement. He draws incomplete lines on photo graphics that look neat and smooth, but under aerodynamic examination they are not even remotely plausible.

He doesn't like the article at the following link at all. He will accuse me of posing a strawman or of using logical fallacies yet he obviously doesn't understand those words. He will try to imply there was some super sekret aircraft using exotic technology that might have been able to make the impossible turns, but he's unable to come up with any now, even 7 years later.

A Goodyear Blimp or a Sopwith Camel might have flown ANY of the paths he outlines with ANY of the witnesses.

www.911myths.com...

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
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.

Did we all read Craig's post carefully? Did we all see how Craig wouldn't deal with this undeniable fact I pointed out above?:

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.

Not to be mean, but it's sure fun watching Craig Ranke make a fool of himself. I am beginning to think he wants to show himself as a fool.




[edit on 6-8-2008 by jthomas]

Originally posted by Boone 870
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."

I'm sorry but I fail to see where I misrepresented what he said.

You took my quote out of context and are misrepresenting what I said.

Here is my full quote:

"Sean does in fact state that he watched the plane enter the building which would seem to be hard to deny coming from someone who watches aircraft for a living and saw the plane approach but of course the CMH failed to ask him any specific questions as to where he saw the plane.

Naturally when we spoke with Sean in order to get these details he corroborated all the other witnesses by specifically and definitively placing the plane banking on the north side of the gas station.
This means he could not have watched the plane enter as he stated."

Did you WATCH the presentation and LISTEN to our interview with Sean?

Sure doesn't sound like it.

Making deceptive false comments regarding evidence your have not even reviewed is not a very scientific approach.

reply to post by jthomas


Pssssst.

Roosevelt Roberts Jr. is a flyover witness.

There is no way else to explain his officially documented and independently confirmed account of a silver jet banking way from the Pentagon at less than 100 feet immediately AFTER the explosion.

Thanks to CIT/Craig for your time, money and effort investigating this. Beautifully done and well planned. This is the sort of stuff the movement needs.

To the people saying 'why did everyone not see the flyover'.. well when a big damn explosion happens and debris goes everywhere on a national landmark, do you think they'll be looking for a plane which shouldn't exist going by rational initial judgement...? Nope.
The C130 is a great way to explain away the plane if there were more accounts of it overflying. Straw man tactics at their finest. edit: not to mention falsified radar tracks to discredit people further... 'you say this .. WE HAVE PROOF IT WAS THIS, TRUST US, YOU'RE A LOONY!!111!' etc. Good one govt.

I'll give a quick wave to the freshly arrived dis-info agents above me 'o7'.

They'll bicker with you over the most trivial points to deflect attention to the real issue, no doubt you're used to this.

Thanks once again!

[edit on 6/8/08 by GhostR1der]

[edit on 6/8/08 by GhostR1der]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

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.

Aldo isn't the least bit "furious"

Not according to well-placed informers within CIT. They also say you've been busy trying to draw a "flyaway" flight path of AA77 after it's supposed "flyover" of the Pentagon but you can't come with any possible flight path without being visible to thousands of potential eyewitnesses.

In other words, your goose is not only cooked, Craig, it's burnt to a crisp.

How deserving to a real swell kid who couldn't keep his lies straight.

Originally posted by GhostR1der
Thanks to CIT/Craig for your time, money and effort investigating this. Beautifully done and well planned. This is the sort of stuff the movement needs.

I would go much further and say it's just the sort of stuff the "movement" deserves.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Did you WATCH the presentation and LISTEN to our interview with Sean?

No.

Did he change his statement and claim that he didn't witness the aircraft impact the side of the Pentagon?

That's a rhetorical question, you don't have to answer it.

He said that he witnessed it, you said that he couldn't have. Why are you misrepresenting what he says?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Notice I am not challenging the 'smoking gun video' here... just offering my own viewpoint.

In March 2005, Popular Mechanics published the results from a panel of experts who examined every conspiracy theory claim.

The following is a quote from structural engineer Allyn Kilsheimer who was actually AT the Pentagon immediately after the crash:

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

PopSci

Now contrast this with the 'evidence' in the OP.

I know I know... it's all part of the cover up, but if I have to examine the evidence then all you truthers need to take a fair look at the other side too.

reply to post by Reheat


Psssst.....

CIT does not have a flight path.

We merely report what the witnesses say.

They report a relatively slow bank north of the gas station.

This evidence has nothing to do with CIT so stop blaming us.













Oh and did you forget how Robert Turcios even saw the plane "pull up" over the highway?

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

 

Did you WATCH the presentation and LISTEN to our interview with Sean?

No.

Did he change his statement and claim that he didn't witness the aircraft impact the side of the Pentagon?

That's a rhetorical question, you don't have to answer it.

He said that he witnessed it, you said that he couldn't have. Why are you misrepresenting what he says?

Too funny.



He saw the plane banking on the north side like everyone else.

That means it could not have hit the building.

Making deceptive false comments regarding evidence your have not even reviewed is not a very scientific approach.

reply to post by GhostR1der

To the people saying 'why did everyone not see the flyover'.. well when a big damn explosion happens and debris goes everywhere on a national landmark, do you think they'll be looking for a plane which shouldn't exist going by rational initial judgement...? Nope.

What about the people on the east side of the Pentagon that didn't see the approach? Did the NWO flip on the Klingon cloaking device? How about the controller in Reagan National Tower, he was 1 mile away from the Pentagon watching Flight 77 as it approached, how did he miss the flyover?

The C130 is a great way to explain away the plane if there were more accounts of it overflying

Not according to CIT. There's no possible way for witnesses to confuse a twin-engine jetliner with a four engine, propeller driven C-130.

Originally posted by emsed1
Notice I am not challenging the 'smoking gun video' here... just offering my own viewpoint.

Please stay on topic.

Please create your own thread to offer irrelevant viewpoints.

If you are not addressing the evidence presented direct then there is not a need for you to reply in this thread.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Reheat

 

Psssst.....

CIT does not have a flight path.

We merely report what the witnesses say.

They report a relatively slow bank north of the gas station.

This evidence has nothing to do with CIT so stop blaming us.

I will take that as an OFFICIAL CIT ADMISSION that CIT is unable to verify that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon and, therefore, withdraws all previous claims and assertions that it did NOT hit the Pentagon.

I will also take your statement above that you disown all claims you have made asserting that AA77 flew over the Pentagon instead of hitting it.

Is there any other admission you would like to make, Craig?





[edit on 6-8-2008 by jthomas]

Originally posted by Boone 870
Not according to CIT. There's no possible way for witnesses to confuse a twin-engine jetliner with a four engine, propeller driven C-130.

Please refrain from telling people what I think.

I have never said such a thing nor do I believe it.

In fact this is why the 2nd plane cover story was so effective.

Are you suggesting that the C-130 was banking over the south parking lot at less than 100 feet IMMEDIATELY after the explosion?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Making deceptive false comments regarding evidence your have not even reviewed is not a very scientific approach.

Does he still claim that the Airliner impacted the Pentagon?

Yes or no?

reply to post by Boone 870


Why can't you relax enough to view the evidence before spouting off about it?

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

 

Making deceptive false comments regarding evidence your have not even reviewed is not a very scientific approach.

Does he still claim that the Airliner impacted the Pentagon?

Yes or no?

I said it in the OP and quoted myself saying it in my response to you!

Why are you asking the same question?

His placement of the plane as banking on the north side of the gas station corroborates everyone else and proves he was deceived in regards to the impact.

I figured you would understand this by now as you have been paying close attention to our research for quite some time.

Please stop playing dumb and go review the new evidence.

It's close to 2 hours long.

Originally posted by emsed1
Why is it being faked?

Because the whole affair was deliberately concocted to:

Motivate us into a war without end (the "terrorists" will ALWAYS be there);

Get us to give up liberty for "safety" (the "Patriot" Act, a 900+ page document which - if honestly written, and even if not - would have taken 2-5 years to hash out, agree upon, write and so on showed up in less than 3 months! for a RUSH! signing... It was written LONG before 9/11, and one does not write such things on the off chance someone MIGHT attack);

Indebt us further to the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) and then give us as indentured slaves thereto;

Make money for the War Suppliers;

Move aggression to Iraq (oil and the oil standard the US Dollar is currently on are substantially behind that);

Take more control of the poppy fields and oil lines in Afghanistan;

Get rid of the White Elephants that the Towers were, being as they were slated to be deconstructed by 2007 and implosion was ruled too risky, making it a requirement to build a scaffold at (I think it was) 15 million;

Make money on insurance, capture the gold that was there, get rid of Enron evidence and other evidence, get rid of habeas corpus, get rid of posse commitatus, give Fuhrer powers to the President...

You can be sure all this was expected from what they did.

No mystery to ME why all this was manufactured.