The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

reply to post by djeminy


What is wrong with being gay sweetie pie?



[edit on 5-9-2008 by TheBobert]

Originally posted by fleabit

Swing: No, I think people would notice. Planes do NOT fly that low, that close to the Pentagon.

They are flying extremely low and close to the Pentagon all day every day.

Listen to our interview with heliport air traffic controller Sean Boger and you will hear about this in detail.

You haven't even viewed the evidence you are commenting on.

Wow.

That is amazing to me.

Originally posted by TheBobert
reply to post by djeminy

 

What is wrong with being gay sweetie pie?



[edit on 5-9-2008 by TheBobert]

Who is stating this!!!!????

You asked me if I was gay.
I was asking you if there was something wrong with being gay.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
They are flying extremely low and close to the Pentagon all day every day.

I cannot fathom why neither myself nor Ray, a former Air Force officer, missed a big 757, going 400 miles an hour, as it crossed in front of our window in its last 10 seconds of flight. ... As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. It was coming from an odd direction (planes don’t go east-west in the area), and it was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft. Trailing a thin, diffuse black trail from its engines, the plane reached the Pentagon at a low altitude and made a sharp left turn, passing just north of the plume, and headed straight for the White House. All the while, I was sort of talking at it: "Who the hell are you? Where are you going? You’re not headed for downtown!" Ray and Verle watched it with me, and I was convinced it was another attack. But right over the tidal basin, at an altitude of less than 1000 feet, it made another sharp left turn to the north and climbed rapidly. Soon it was gone, leaving only the thin black trail.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
They are flying extremely low and close to the Pentagon all day every day.

www.geocities.com...

I cannot fathom why neither myself nor Ray, a former Air Force officer, missed a big 757, going 400 miles an hour, as it crossed in front of our window in its last 10 seconds of flight. ... As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. It was coming from an odd direction (planes don’t go east-west in the area), and it was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft. Trailing a thin, diffuse black trail from its engines, the plane reached the Pentagon at a low altitude and made a sharp left turn, passing just north of the plume, and headed straight for the White House. All the while, I was sort of talking at it: "Who the hell are you? Where are you going? You’re not headed for downtown!" Ray and Verle watched it with me, and I was convinced it was another attack. But right over the tidal basin, at an altitude of less than 1000 feet, it made another sharp left turn to the north and climbed rapidly. Soon it was gone, leaving only the thin black trail.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by TheBobert
You asked me if I was gay.
I was asking you if there was something wrong with being gay.

Nothing that I'm aware of!!

reply to post by djeminy


Are you gay?

Originally posted by TheBobert
reply to post by djeminy

 

Are you gay?

No!!

reply to post by djeminy

Funny that you would ask me if I was gay.

reply to post by TheBobert


Is this how people hook up at the ATS?



If this is an Fed up situation I hope someone rights it. I'm just dropping in to clarify a point made by Craig on page one about the "flyover witness"

Roosevelt is the critical first flyover witness. He did not see the Pentagon attack jet on the approach at all. He only saw it immediately after the explosion as it banked away from the Pentagon.

There is absolutely no possible explanation for what he saw other than the flyover.

Wrong! There are other ways to interpret it, lots! Like the "plane hit the building" on TV and the "another plane" was 77. This video explains it really well I think. Food for thought and it's actually funny, at the end at least. Implications.... haha! We don't lead witnesses... LMAO!

video link
Spmeone with rights should embed this too. url = www.veoh.com...

Originally posted by TheBobert
reply to post by djeminy

 

Funny that you would ask me if I was gay.

Why??

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
They are flying extremely low and close to the Pentagon all day every day.

I cannot fathom why neither myself nor Ray, a former Air Force officer, missed a big 757, going 400 miles an hour, as it crossed in front of our window in its last 10 seconds of flight. ... As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. It was coming from an odd direction (planes don’t go east-west in the area), and it was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft. Trailing a thin, diffuse black trail from its engines, the plane reached the Pentagon at a low altitude and made a sharp left turn, passing just north of the plume, and headed straight for the White House. All the while, I was sort of talking at it: "Who the hell are you? Where are you going? You’re not headed for downtown!" Ray and Verle watched it with me, and I was convinced it was another attack. But right over the tidal basin, at an altitude of less than 1000 feet, it made another sharp left turn to the north and climbed rapidly. Soon it was gone, leaving only the thin black trail.

Not entirely sure what your point is, Ultima1.

The transcripts show that GOFER06 had been directed to reduce altitude from 4000 to 2000 after the impact at the Pentagon and whilst still on approach.

Just over a minute later he accepted a request to turn to a heading of 270 (W) and climb to 3000. A minute and a half after that he is requested to turn to 330 (NNW) and climb to 11000.

Literal accuracy of direction, altitude and timelapse aside, the testimony you have produced is perfectly reconcilable with the RADES84 data and the transcripts.

Thankyou, come again.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by discombobulator
Literal accuracy of direction, altitude and timelapse aside, the testimony you have produced is perfectly reconcilable with the RADES84 data and the transcripts.

Oh i hope maybe someday you either learn how to read or learn how to stop twisting other peoples post.

Maybe some day you will be adult enough to look for and admit to facts but i doubt it.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by discombobulator
Literal accuracy of direction, altitude and timelapse aside, the testimony you have produced is perfectly reconcilable with the RADES84 data and the transcripts.

Oh i hope maybe someday you either learn how to read or learn how to stop twisting other peoples post.

Maybe some day you will be adult enough to look for and admit to facts but i doubt it.

Blah blah blah blah blah.

What was your point?

Originally posted by discombobulatorWhat was your point?

My point is and i have shown that beleivers cannot post evidence to support their claims or to support the official story.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by discombobulatorWhat was your point?

My point is and i have shown that beleivers cannot post evidence to support their claims or to support the official story.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

And how exactly did you make that point?

Mystifying.

Edit: Is Craig Ranke the "believer" you are referring to? Because looking back at your post it actually appears now that you are in fact debunking him when he says that planes flying in that direction were an everyday occurance.

Was that your intention?

[edit on 5-9-2008 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by discombobulator
And how exactly did you make that point?

By simply proving that most of the evidence has not been released. So the beleivers that keep stating they have evidnece of what happned are not being honest.

So again they cannot prove thier claims or support the official story.



[edit on 5-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Planes fly so low that close to the Pentagon, that they could crash into it at any time? Wow, that's news to me.

Oh well, I guess proponents of this theory will continue to dismiss or ignore eyewitness testimony if it goes against the grain of their beliefs, not much anyone can do about that. As long as anyone with basic cognitive funtionality looks at this, they are going to the same conclusion as the majority of citizens: a plane crashed into the Pentagon. Because most people don't ignore facts if they quite suit them.

You say: eyewitnesses who saw a plane crash into the wall of the Pentagon.. actually witnesses the event as it occured, were duped, or apparently, stupid.

I can just as easily say: your witnesses have been paid off to tell you what they told you, by foreign governements, to try to discredit our own government, and make it look like we started a war unjustly.

My theory based if based on your logic, is as solid and believable as your own. Can you discount my theory? Did any of your witnesses take pictures? No? Clearly they are lying, they were paid off. Prove otherwise.

That's how you come off with the eyewitnesses who saw the plane crash into the Pentagon.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by discombobulator
And how exactly did you make that point?

By simply proving that most of the evidence has not been released. So the beleivers that keep stating they have evidnece of what happned are not being honest.

So again they cannot prove thier claims or support the official story.

You're just talking in circles now.

You just produced a quote with witness testimony that supports the RADES84 data and transcripts for.... no real reason at all?