It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

page: 93
<< 90  91  92    94 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:27 PM
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

All your witnesses have impossible paths based on RADAR, FDR, physics, physical damage to lamppost, entry physics at the Pentagon, the impact KE, and other witnesses. All your witnesses support 77 impacting the Pentagon.

This has been shown to you a few times.

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:37 PM
Who, or what was the source of the RADAR, FDR data released? Was it released by a Government agency, Government affiliate, or Government sponsored group? If so, then the data released cannot be considered untainted or unbiased in the context of the conspiracy claim.

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:03 PM
reply to post by almighty bob

The alleged radar data was released in 2007 by the official government entity, the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron, or 84 RADES.

However even the FOIA originator (who is a strong CIT detractor) believes that it has been "altered".

We KNOW it has been altered as even the Arlington Cemetery workers we spoke with were able to confirm this solely in regards to where the C-130 or the "2nd plane" came from a few minutes later.

They all independently indicate it came from the northwest while the 2007 released 84 RADES data depicts it as coming from the southwest.

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 07:10 AM

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Can you provide an approximate time frame?

Well i received an e-mail the other day. So hopefully here within the next week or 2.

That's one week passed, Ultima. Just want to make sure that you're keeping on top of things.

That's two weeks passed, Ultima. Just want to make sure that you're keeping on top of things.

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by Fitzgibbon

Ultima was banned. He's at JREF now.

God Help Them.

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 12:05 PM

posted by LaBTop
The controversial FAA/NORAD animation made by AGI's daughter firm STK:
1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)

A MUST see! Download and open it with Windows Media Player, let it run one time, stop it just before it ends, and slide the slider slowly back to see the landmarks (crossing roof of NAVY Annex building, north of Citgo gas station, aside Arlington Cemetery with its maintenance buildings) and the right bank of the plane just seconds before "impact".
The video is too fast, but you can slow it down this way very well, or use the slow-down functions of Media Player.

To me it looks much more like a slow flying plane on a perfect landing course to the north tip runway on Reagan International.
If it impacted, it would have cut its right wing 5 meters deep into the Pentagon lawn, before impacting.
If not, it could never have impacted leveled out already a few hundred yards before, as seen in the toll boot cameras DoD videos, at the ceiling of the first floor. Just look up the length of its right wing.
Let ever, to hit that diesel generator as depicted in all those Pentagon photos.
And last but not least, it is totally impossible to have hit those 5 lamp poles at the clover junction roads on a non-existing south of Citgo course.

Thank you. Actually after watching that aircraft pass over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo, I noticed something else. With a wingspan of 124 feet 10 inches and that immense bank from this official aircraft, if it was to impact the hole in the 1st floor then:

1. The aircraft should have dug in a wingtip and cartwheeled across the lawn

2. 55 feet of the starboard wing should have buried underground or broken off

3. The starboard engine should have buried underground or bounced across the lawn

4. The port engine should have struck the building up in the middle of the 2nd story

5. The about 55 ft long port wing should have struck across all four storys of the facade

6. All 5 light poles would be completely missed

7. Hani Hanjour might have been able to spit on the generator as he went by

Aren't you faithful supporters of the official fairy tale just tickled that they decided to update their evidence? Even the 9-11 perps all admit now that eyewitnesses have proven that the actual aircraft flew over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo. They have just decided to live with it and go on from there. Why can't you guys see that?

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:17 AM
This is the link to my quoted post on page 92:

and the rest below the part that you quoted above explains why all that actually didn't happen:

To obtain some expertise, I went to the PilotsFor911Truth site, and found this informative post in their latest thread:

This NORAD/FAA data streams-based flight path has been prepared from May 2002 to June 2002 by AGI, and is already earlier shortly addressed in a PowerPoint presentation of that AGI firm, who made the flightpath video:
As being at that time, 2002, for internal use.

See their PP-presentation here:
The PowerPoint presentation seems to have been presented to NORAD officials at 11:30 on 06-03-2002.
As an internal memo at that time.

Why did they, the Headquarters of NORAD, knew already at such an early time (March 2002 is the earliest date on the papers, six months after 9/11), that flight 77 flew at the North side of the CITGO station, at nearly exactly the same flightpath as described by the 13 witnesses interviewed by the CIT team, and kept quiet about it ALL THESE YEARS ?
Knowing that the basis of the interpretation of the official flightpath, South of CITGO, being the downed 5 light poles and the internal Pentagon damage, which must thus be very questionable also.

And why did NORAD HQ let us getting obsessed in those following six and a half years by all these anomalies in the officially released events timelines and explanations, which turned out now, to be fraudulent from the beginning.

Why did someone decide to give this information free in a FOIA request, at this point in time? Normally the issuing institutions would black this sort of information out, so why not now?
Are some real patriotic Americans being pushed too far and too often over a certain threshold, which they couldn't accept anymore?

That flight 77 flight path animation was released just recently, but it was made and used already within months after 9/11. It existed for many years already, still unreleased to the public.

However, only when the reader believes that all the officially released FOIA data lately, and archived at John Farmers website, is in fact cleverly altered, this animation fits.
At least altered for the final lap of flight 77, or whatever other plane is shown in all that data.
And probably altered also for the flightpath of the C-130.
Strong evidence for both of those allegations are most of the CIT witnesses.

If you can believe that the few ones who control a government or a small part of it or it's military propaganda arm could plan and exercise something like this (which they did numerous times already in the past, and again after 9/11 btw), then it doesn't sound so alienated anymore to you, the reader.

Scenario 1. CIT and flyover.

The plane must have flown slower and higher at the final few hundreds of meters of its flight path to be able to exercise that kind of slow right bank north of CITGO witnessed by many interviewed by CIT, and passed in the same slow right bank low over the exploding charges and the Pentagon roof, and landed at Reagan Airport.
Or flew away northwards following the River Approach corridor to attract less attention.

Scenario 2. CIT and no flyover.

It was blown up exactly after the moment it was remotely pushed down and aimed to hit the west wall of the Pentagon. And at that exact moment a, not visible to the human eye, supersonic flying bunkerbuster hit the west wall, coming from the officially declared angle.
Launched from an unidentified, submerged submarine in, or a plane above, the Atlantic.
Indication of a last moment full blow up could be the strange pattern of roof fires, raging for a day and a night.
And those clipped poles were planted in advance. And the footage showing the planting, and the moments of impact, from those roof security cameras was altered.
Just a simple swapping of tapes or hard disks by one person at the right moment.
Time enough to plan for a solid scenario after the first WTC basement bombing.

Why not let it hit directly without added security of that supersonic bunkerbuster?
To be 100% sure that there were no survivors on board, and that the bunkerbuster would precisely hit the target inside.
That one is far better to program with a very small error range, than a huge massive 757 witch will have much more inertia at play.
The heaviest plane parts, like the two jet engines parts of the plane aimed at the wall in the last seconds would still impact the wall, but the rest of the plane would be blown to smithereens and bounce off the wall onto the grass and the helicopter port's landing pad.

The introduction of a third plane was to enrage the populace a notch further, and enforce the need for retaliation at all Muslim countries "involved".
And to hide the impact of a bunkerbuster.

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 04:58 PM
SPreston, I found this post of yours exceptionally relevant:

Look at the last entry in the following screen shot, that tail number only differentiates one character from flight 77's tail number, N644AA.
And both aircrafts were owned by the same corporation.
And were at the same minute near the Pentagon and Reagan Airport.

On the same thread at the beginning, it had been determined that an Air West A320 aircraft had landed at Reagan at 9:39 with the tail # N644AW. (Flight 77 had tail # N644AA) But it was determined through records that Air West did not use that tail # until 2003. But apparently somebody was using that tail # on 9-11-2001.

N644AW is Assigned
Model A320-231
Certificate Issue Date 02/10/2003
Also a good write-up on the mystery tail # on the old invision board.

American Airlines Flight 77:

Tail#: N644AA
Owner: Wilmington Trust Co.
Disappearing transponder signal location: Ohio, 8:56 am
Impact time: *9:38 am*, Pentagon

America West Flight 0098:

Tail#: N644AW
Owner: Wilmington Trust Co.
Departure: Ohio, 8:40 am (Wheels-off time)
Arrival: *9:39 am* (Wheels-on time), Reagan National Airport (directly on the other side of the Pentagon)

Sorry Merc, i was doing some research of my own. I think it's very interesting that both jets have a near-identical tail number. I think it's very interesting that they are owned by the same company. I think it's very interesting that they were BOTH near the pentagon at almost EXACTLY the same time. And here's the kicker: the AA jet's transponder code was lost over Ohio and the AW jet took off from Ohio. That's just too many coincidences that you just can't pass up.

SPreston, the next nagging questions arise :

From which direction did that plane land? North?
The wind blew the Pentagon smoke to the SSW, thus came from NNE.
If it however touched down and landed near the DCA radar beacon beside the northern tip of the runway at Reagan Airport, that would be a damn interesting fact to learn.
Since planes should land that day in the NNE wind, so, on the southern end of that runway, coming up the Potomac River, not down.
If we would find it landed reversed, with the wind in the back, than that revelation would add even more suspicion to this accumulation of above suspicious airplane data facts.

Isn't Wilmington Trust an, at the end, Warren Buffet owned company?
The same Warren Buffet who did organize a Captains of Industry meeting at Offut(?) AFB, where G.W. Bush also landed and stayed till he left at last, late afternoon, for Washington, on 9/11.

The three clocks fallen from the walls at the Pentagon at time of impact come to mind again, all three depicting an impact time of 09:32 to :34 instead of 09:38:11 as given as official impact time.
I once dropped a similar clock, and its minutes arm moved down a few minutes.
However, if those three clocks did not fall on their 6 o'clock bottom, but fell flat on their backs, then that extra 4 to 6 minutes time would be sufficient to circle around Reagan Airport and land from the normal direction, the south.

Also comes to mind the very suspicious lack of seismic records for the Pentagon impact, while numerous witnesses recalled f.ex. falling from books from the shelfs at home, >2 km away, shaking of the ground they stood on etc.
Thus we still can't glue a seismic impact time to the fallen clocks, or compare an eventual seismic time to the officially endorsed impact time.

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 06:53 PM
Yep, billionaire Warren Buffet and former CIA Director George HW Bush, still moving the chess pieces. Don't know what direction that Air West landed from, but they were emergency evacuating the Reagan terminal at the time from 9:30 on, so it could have been for that aircraft. ATC tower chief Stephenson did say he was busy closing down the airport at the time of the Pentagon explosion which he claims he saw.

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 07:44 PM
reply to post by SPreston

ATC tower chief Stephenson did say he was busy closing down the airport at the time of the Pentagon explosion which he claims he saw.

Can you provide a link to the source?

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 08:12 PM

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by Fitzgibbon

Ultima was banned. He's at JREF now.

God Help Them.

Thanks TY. I'd noticed him over there but figured he was just sharin' the luv.

Actually I pity the fool because he won't have near that latitude there in terms of woo that he's otherwise had. Out of curiousity, how'd he manage to get the big killfile here?

posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 06:33 PM
Is that .gif actual footage? because if it is, and that fizzy white line at the start was supposed to be an airliner, the scale of the white blur compared to everything else and all- I'll eat my hat. heck. I'll eat my cat's FOOD.

BTW- I grabbed the file and I had a look see with photoshop, and looked at the frames. I see the exhaust trail of a MISSILE. There's no tail, no structure, NOTHING.

here's what it SHOULD have looked like if it was a plane. I have it coming belly in, due to the limited frames:

Looks like Belly In is exactly what shoulda happened, yes? And just so you know, I guesstimated the plane size. I used (and hopefully haven't revoked) my artistic license.

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 06:23 PM
I'll be discussing "The North Side Flyover" on "A Call To Decision" with Pastor Butch at 9:00PM eastern on GCN live.

Tune in and call in with questions:

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I'll be discussing "The North Side Flyover" on "A Call To Decision" with Pastor Butch at 9:00PM eastern on GCN live.

Tune in and call in with questions:

Why bother?

You refuse to answer any questions about the evidence here or anywhere else.

I and others have already demonstrated that you have no evidence of a flyover, anyway, so all that is left for you to do is apologize and shut down your site.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 09:21 AM
reply to post by jthomas

Read the OP of this thread.

It contains evidence.

Unless of course you don't feel the witnesses presented are human.

Is that the case jthomas?

Are they human or not?

Do you have a problem with their race or something?

Just asking because otherwise your blanket denial of what they unanimously report in regards to the location of the plane makes no sense.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Do you have a problem with their race or something?

Nice. You stay classy, Craig

Just asking because otherwise your blanket denial of what they unanimously report in regards to the location of the plane makes no sense.

You are speaking of their unanimous assertions that the aircraft hit the building, of course.

Perhaps you could go back and re-affirm those claims from your witnesses. If the plane hit the building, as they steadfastly assert, the aircraft could not have been flying on a path that took it north of the service station, now could it?

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:47 PM
reply to post by pinch

Circular logic does not refute evidence.

They all physically had a MUCH better view of the plane as it passed by their location as compared to when it reached the building.

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 05:56 PM
reply to post by pinch

What witness believe happened is irrelevant and not even real evidence. What matters it what an eye witness actually saw.

93 pages and the official story supporters and CIT and P4T detractors still have not been able to provide verified 1st hand eye witness accounts that verify the plane was south of Citgo, hit the light poles and impacted the Pentagon?

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:17 AM
This silliness is still going on? I tend to not believe someone who says "Well, every single one of my witnesses is correct, not lying or mistaken, yet all the other witnesses who said they saw a plane hit the pentagon ARE all either mistaken, or lying." With vague assertions that because of an evacuation, it's magically impossible for anyone to see a 757 crash into the Pentagon.

Keep spinning... I've still not seen a shred of proof to discredit those who said they saw the impact. A less than half complete set of biased questions to witnesses, and baseless claims that that cannot prove that somehow, EVERYONE who could see the plane, magically STOPPED seeing the plane as it approached. No one saw it impact, AND no one saw it fly away. That's certainly the most elusive, quiet 757 on the planet, clearly.

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by jthomas

Read the OP of this thread.

It contains evidence.

Unless of course you don't feel the witnesses presented are human.

Sorry, Craig, you've already admitted time and time again the thoroughly implausible notion that you think its perfectly sane that there are absolutely no human beings who would have witnessed and reported AA77 flying over and away from the Pentagon in a geographic area containing thousands of human beings.

Even though you are happy to admit that there were over a hundred eyewitness reports of AA77 flying toward the Pentagon before it supposedly "flew over" the Pentagon.

new topics

top topics

<< 90  91  92    94 >>

log in