It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

CIT skeptics finally admit north side approach is possible after all!

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


And yet your witnesses are telling you it was a plane. So we are to believe that they are correct about the flight path, but they are lying about what hit the building?




posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITThat has nothing to do with anything let alone the north side approach evidence!


WHOOO HOO!!! so you know PRECISELY which thread I am referring to!! Man, GOTTA LOVE IT!
just about spewed my drink as I watch you still try to side step the facts even on here regarding that thread! Like I said, I have watched you, case and point this thread now, blatantly deny facts that are very much relevant to your case... when they debunk it that is




[edit on 28-9-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

And yet your witnesses are telling you it was a plane. So we are to believe that they are correct about the flight path, but they are lying about what hit the building?


Lying?

No. I don't know why you would think that.

Their unanimous placement of the plane proves they were deliberately deceived into believing the plane hit.

Most freely admit they couldn't really tell for sure from their perspective, in fact many couldn't see the Pentagon at all due to trees.

But all are 100% sure it was on the north side of the gas station.

Sgt Lagasse would even bet his life on it.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


Sorry darling you have made no case whatsoever.

You are referring to a time when I made a completely irrelevant mistake.

I owned up to it.

Although I didn't believe it at first and it took me a while to actually go through the footage to verify, once I did I admitted my mistake.

That is what true honest researchers/investigators do.

But this mistake is completely irrelevant to the north side evidence so I have no idea what you are going on about.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
This is merely a thread of desperation to flood this Forum. I'm having no part of this charade except to post the following:

Here's what proves the CIT garbage wrong.....

1. The physical evidence (FDR, flight path damage, wreckage, DNA, etc.)
2. 84th RADES data (Radar Records)
3. Reagan National Radar records
4. Andrews AFB Radar Records
5. ATC Communications Recordings
6. Tribby Video
7. Looney Photographs
8. Aerodynamic Analysis of required flight paths
9. All CIT witnesses (save one) indicated AA77 struck the Pentagon.
9. Common Sense

[edit on 28-9-2008 by Reheat]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Good to see you Reheat!

So do you stand by your admission that a banking north of the citgo flight path as illustrated by exponent is aerodynamically possible?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


You do know that the parts in the wreckage are 757 parts, and some of them weight thousands of pounds, right? So you think that someone ran around in a matter of minutes after the explosion and scattered them everywhere? My team had to unload a 727 main gear strut (which is smaller then a 757's) off an aircraft for another aircraft that was in maintenance, and it took the whole team plus a belt loader to move the thing. It would generally take two people to move a main break assembly without the wheel or rim attached. The Wheel and rim would take an additional two people. So the gear assemblies that you see in the photos would have to be moved by a fork lift.

Now these things are FACTS, how do you explain them away?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
WHY DOES THE FAA FLIGHT-PATH DIFFER FROM THE NTSB ACCOUNT?

The North-side turn is possible. The jet was not flying at 400 kts at the time. THAT is the crucial difference.
The FAA does not differ; all RADAR confirms the FDR heading, and tracks. FAA, RADAR, confirms FDR. The animation is not real.

You are right, 77 was going over 463 KIAS.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5


You do know that the parts in the wreckage are 757 parts, and some of them weight thousands of pounds, right? So you think that someone ran around in a matter of minutes after the explosion and scattered them everywhere?

Now these things are FACTS, how do you explain them away?



Now you are changing the topic but I'll answer you anyway because I am feisty tonight.


There is no evidence of any of the very few parts out on the lawn as having weighed "thousands" of pounds.

In fact here is the extent of the somewhat distinguishable significant sized pieces found outside:


Now here are some FACTS......

We know that shortly after first responders arrived everyone (INCLUDING the first responders) was frantically evacuated for fears of another plane crashing.



Frankly I think there were few enough pieces outside that they could have been easily planted just before the event but they could have VERY easily pulled it off during this evacuation as well.

Either way it's no big deal for them to pull off.

A better question is why there were so few significant sized pieces to begin with!

Now inside the Pentagon is a whole other story because most of the images were NEVER officially released as some mysterious civilian named "Sarah Roberts" first released them on rense.com.

Yep....a conspiracy site that the state department website has the gall to link to as a source for the images!



So most of these images really could have been taken anywhere for all we know.

However, I believe they were really taken in the Pentagon.

Here's another FACT for you....

The damaged portion of the building had been under renovation for years.

It was scheduled to be complete on the week of 9/11.

This is why there were relatively few deaths when there would have been potentially thousands if any other portion of the building was "hit".

However this also gave them the opportunity to plant whatever they wanted in some secure unoccupied newly constructed room.

So the landing gear or any of the somewhat large pieces could have been easily planted inside weeks or months prior to the event.

Or simply placed there after for a photo op.

Because here's another FACT.......

NONE of these parts have been positively identified to "AA77" or tail #N644AA.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReheatHere's what proves the CIT garbage wrong.....

1. The physical evidence (FDR, flight path damage, wreckage, DNA, etc.)
2. 84th RADES data (Radar Records)
3. Reagan National Radar records
4. Andrews AFB Radar Records
5. ATC Communications Recordings
6. Tribby Video
7. Looney Photographs
8. Aerodynamic Analysis of required flight paths
9. All CIT witnesses (save one) indicated AA77 struck the Pentagon.
9. Common Sense



What I am going on about, Craig, is all of *this* and all of the other evidence that has been shown to you that you deny. You deny the facts that are right there put in front of you and go off of only what supports the theory that (dare I say it...... I think I shall) you can use to your advantage... be it $$ or recognition or some other twisted personal agenda.

Feeling feisty, eh? how, errr... cute.


[edit on 28-9-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


Ok so now you are not only switching the discussion but also making wild generalized claims and personal accusations.

None of that is evidence against the north side approach.

They amount to noting but faith based claims which is why you are unable to even verbalize WHY or HOW any of that allegedly refutes the evidence I present.

I present and only accept independent verifiable evidence.

If you have some, or a relevant argument, let me know but as it stands you are unable to even communicate your points effectively let alone back them up with evidence.







[edit on 28-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma

Originally posted by ReheatHere's what proves the CIT garbage wrong.....

1. The physical evidence (FDR, flight path damage, wreckage, DNA, etc.)
2. 84th RADES data (Radar Records)
3. Reagan National Radar records
4. Andrews AFB Radar Records
5. ATC Communications Recordings
6. Tribby Video
7. Looney Photographs
8. Aerodynamic Analysis of required flight paths
9. All CIT witnesses (save one) indicated AA77 struck the Pentagon.
9. Common Sense



What I am going on about, Craig, is all of *this* and all of the other evidence that has been shown to you that you deny. You deny the facts that are right there put in front of you and go off of only what supports the theory that (dare I say it...... I think I shall) you can use to your advantage... be it $$ or recognition or some other twisted personal agenda.

Feeling feisty, eh? how, errr... cute.


[edit on 28-9-2008 by justamomma]



To be fair, he does have witnesses in different locations all placing the Plane approx in the same location or area which differs greatly from the official story. That might be hard to get around since he interviewed most of them directly.

What it means? Well CIT believes it means a fly over since the damage is not consistent with a plane coming in from the NORTH SIDE. I myself, don't know what to think and I don't think we can just brush it off.

Let us just assume for a moment, just for a moment that it is true, that a plane flew North of the Citgo Gas station, what would this entail? Then we can go from there.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Now you are changing the topic but I'll answer you anyway because I am feisty tonight.

If you want to take this into another thread, I'll be happy to. I was just asking you a few questions though, and it did not seem like it was worth making another thread over as I don't have a ton of time left on here tonight.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
There is no evidence of any of the very few parts out on the lawn as having weighed "thousands" of pounds.

Your picking and choosing pictures though, here:
757 Main Gear Strut:
(Probably weighs over 2K, the 727 one I mention above runs around 2K)

Image Source

Main Gear Wheel Assembly with Breaks:
(each break runs about 500lbs without the rim or wheel, there are two in the this picture, so this part is over 1K lbs)

Image Source

Forward Cargo Door Frame and Interior:
(no idea the weight, but its got to be heavy)



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
A better question is why there were so few significant sized pieces to begin with!

Because in most crash scenes that we are used to seeing in the press, the pilot is trying to minimize the crash and save the plane. In this instance, they rammed the building full speed with the intention of causing as much damage as possible. Besides this the inertia of the aircraft would cause most of the parts to be inside the building, not outside.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Now inside the Pentagon is a whole other story because most of the images were NEVER officially released as some mysterious civilian named "Sarah Roberts" first released them on rense.com.

Yep....a conspiracy site that the state department website has the gall to link to as a source for the images!

I have never heard that one before, its interesting if its true.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
However this also gave them the opportunity to plant whatever they wanted in some secure unoccupied newly constructed room.

So the landing gear or any of the somewhat large pieces could have been easily planted inside weeks or months prior to the event.

Wouldn't the construction crews and most of the folks at the pentagon have know about this though?


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
NONE of these parts have been positively identified to "AA77" or tail #N644AA.

Well that is an easy one. Parts are changed out all the time on aircraft, and they are not always logged. They get swapped between airlines, they get swapped between aircraft, and some of them are not even bought from the original manufacturer but rather from third parties. Its much like a car, sometimes when you have an issue with your car you go get after market products, "you pull it" parts, rebuilds, and so on. The airlines are allowed to do the same thing with aircraft as long as the part passes all the necessary tests.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Yeah Talisman, that's pretty much my feeling on it. The fact of the very real possibility of a northside flightpath is such a major scenario, contradicting the official story, that arguing over such things as flyovers or potential impacts is really a secondary consideration.

The implications of the northside flighpath alone are immense, and the evidence for this has still yet to be refuted.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by almighty bob]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman


Let us just assume for a moment, just for a moment that it is true, that a plane flew North of the Citgo Gas station, what would this entail? Then we can go from there.


no we can't..

Ranke won't touch anything that goes beyond a flyover/NoC scenario.. he has been very careful not to speculate..
and no skeptic will, (for the sake of argument), accept the original premise of a NoC flight path..

this conversation is dead ended right there..

however, if I may.. for Ranke to go further with his "supposed" truth.. he will have to provide actual flyover and fly away witnesses, of which there are none.. and the skeptics are not able to actually "prove" the parts are from AA77.. Occams razor will be ignored.. as always..

I for one think CIT is full of "it"
the "physical" evidence agrees..

the majority of the "full" contingent of witnesses, do as well..

cheesy, smart alecky smile here..



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5



Your picking and choosing pictures though, here:
757 Main Gear Strut:


I did not pick and choose!

I included that image.

You have no valid "image source" because the photographer is unknown.

Sourcing it to conspiracy websites is not sufficient.

You have NO IDEA where that image came from let alone if it was really taken in the Pentagon at all, OR even if it was, whether or not it came from "flight 77".







Main Gear Wheel Assembly with Breaks:


Image Source


Now you are resorting to sourcing a conspiracy BLOG!

It's not even a website!


Sorry bro but this is NOT official evidence or evidence at all for that matter.

It is innuendo and internet rumor.



Forward Cargo Door Frame and Interior:
(no idea the weight, but its got to be heavy)



Let's assume this is a legitimate image (even though you still have not provided photographer credit or an official source) since you can actually see that it's in the A - E drive by the strange anomalous C-ring hole.

You CAN NOT tell what part of a plane this is from, or what type of a plane, or whether or not it is FOR SURE a plane part at all.

You are GUESSING that it is a "cargo door frame".

Regardless there is zero proof it came from tail #N644AA anyway which makes it faith based evidence.








I have never heard that one before, its interesting if its true.


It's true which is why you are unable to provide photographer credit for ANY of these images.

This is the alleged EVIDENCE you rely on to accept the government story.




Wouldn't the construction crews and most of the folks at the pentagon have know about this though?


Why?

It could have been done in the middle of the night after the room was completed and deemed "off limits" or "secure".

This is the Pentagon after all.

You don't think they have control of their own building over contractors?

Plus any of the contractors could have been assets.

No doubt that would help them secure the deal if they were.




Well that is an easy one. Parts are changed out all the time on aircraft, and they are not always logged.


Prove it.

I have had pilots tell me that positive identification of parts is definitive and standard procedure.

Regardless.....there is NO documentation of ANY serial numbers or open disclosure of this alleged physical evidence to the people.

I don't know about you but I demand hard documented proof before accepting my tax money being spent on permanent global war.

The "war on terror" will cost A LOT more than the 700 billion dollar financial bail-out that was just approved.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by almighty bob
The implications of the northside flighpath alone are immense, and the evidence for this has still yet to be refuted.

Refuted, by the FDR.

The final heading and track information from the FDR. (9/11 winds 330 10 knots)

70 degrees magnetic heading.
71.4 degrees magnetic track
59.8 degree true heading
61.2 degree true track

all NoC paths are false



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   
So there's 'all this' wreckage thats 'obviously' from flight 77 but the serial numbers don't match?

Simply amazing.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut

Originally posted by almighty bob
The implications of the northside flighpath alone are immense, and the evidence for this has still yet to be refuted.

Refuted, by the FDR.



The FDR data cannot be considered as untainted if the data released from it came from a Government agency, affilliate or Government sponsored group.

The eyewitness testimony has a far greater weight to its validity than information released by an organisation that is potentially trying to protect itself.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by almighty bob]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut

Refuted, by the FDR.



So there you go people.

We should dismiss what the independent citizens on the street report based off nothing but data released by the government in 2006.

Is everyone cool with that?

Does that really make logical sense to you?

Frankly I don't think you would be posting at this forum AT ALL if it did unless you had an agenda.




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join