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

reply to post by justamomma


You are comparing a 2 seat fighter jet slamming into a nuclear reactor wall of about a dozen feet of solid concrete with an almost 300 seat 90 ton Boeing plowing through a mere 24 inch outer wall of the Pentagon with a combination of concrete, brick, and relatively soft limestone.




That analogy is clearly less valid than apples to oranges.

[edit on 30-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT



Yeah, I didn't think it would matter. I do already understand that the example was a bit extreme, but the pentagon was designed to withstand explosions and other threats, and considering a 757 rammed into it, I'd have to say that the designers were brilliant in building a tough structure. Anyway, carry on with your unproven theory.

Let me clarify that there is a total of 24 inches where the building juts out, but where the plane actually hit, my partner was told by R. Pickering that it is about 14 inches of wall there. That is what is seen in the picture.

So in short it is 14-24 inches thick.

They certainly don't make nuclear reactor walls this thick right?

(LONG)

That video of the plane hitting the brick wall is interesting. I've read this whole thing, and it seems like people on both sides of this particular fence are omitting answers to certain 'damnable' questions. I have to say that I find it hard to beleive that an airplane that big simply 'poofed' out of existence, and left that little evidence of it's even being there, especially considering the supposed speed it was travelling. But leaving that alone for a moment, one of the things I have always wondered, is why there doesn't appeare to be hole in the building coinciding with impact points from the engines or wings? I would imagine you would at least have a rough outline of a plane shape, seen either from the front of back, in the side of the building. I keep seeing Loony Tunes cartoons in my head, where they slam into a snowbank, and you see the outline of the character. Perhaps someone can explain that to me. If it doesn't "work that way", then let me know. But I remember watching a wrecking ball hit the side of a building and not only leaving a round hole, but also a cut-out of where the cable holding the ball had hit. Also, why wasn't there a deeper impact into the structure itself? Seems very little damage for something that big going that fast?

The one poster said something about one-ton titanium engines. I was wondering how accurate that statement was? Are they really one-ton? And Titanium? That would seem to be fairly obvious wreckage. Yet I don't remember seeing anything like that. Perhaps I am not looking hard enough? Maybe someone can show some pics that I missed. It sure would put to rest the whole "They staged all the evidence after the evacuation" angle now wouldn't it? Pretty hard to move something that heavy, I would think, without specialized equipment? All these arguments (it seems to me) can be made or broken with a little bit of evidence for, or against. Alot of what I see here does look to be somewhat of a personal attack. It seems to me like there is a distinct lack of evidence either way.

People will probably scream "What about the bodies??" Well, people dissapeare without a trace all the time, if you want a body, you can get a body. Maybe they were passengers on a plane that hit, maybe they were stored in that area as a precursor the the event itself. Point is, who can say either way?

People have already screamed "What about the witnesses that saw the impact?" Well I wonder, how many people actually watch a car wreck as it happens? I would think anyone close enough to the event would see the plane (possibly) barrelling down on them and duck & cover. Think about it from that perspective ('cause that's all we have, are perspectives), you see a plane coming right at you, you duck your head, or hit the ground, there's an explosion, wich you still don't look up to see 'cause your afraid your going to combust any second. So when you do look up, there's a hole, or something that looks like one, and some stuff littered around on the ground, and you assume it had to have hit. It's a theory anyways (like all the rest of these things, if you ask me, THEORIES). I would like someone or multiple someones to point out the flaws, as I am very interesting in the how's and whyfor's of this topic. I am looking for information that says: "This is how it works." I would appreciate it if all the "because I said so" posts could be kept to a minimum, and just post the facts. Are there any construction workers on here that can tell us what they know about how buildings react to high velocity impact? I know this thread was first implemented to inform about the flight trajectory (it has since devolved into other things), so I wonder if it is wrong to ask all these other questions? Please exscuse me if so.

Chrono

I have always wondered about the fact that when the plane hit the Pentagon concrete building wall, we are told that the wings "folded back" and it dissapeared inside that, relatively, small, rounded hole.

But an hour earlier, when two planes hit the WTC steel walls, nothing happened to the wings at all and we have a perfect "outline" of a jet "dissapearing" into the building. With engines, wings, and all.

In regards to the OP, I think it would be better to just focus on the fact that 13 witnesses so far saw a north of Citgo approach. The people standing directly at the Citgo, certainly can't mistake it for a south of path.

And the north of Citgo path, simply cannot knock down the lightpoles (esp. 1 & 2), I don't think anyone have ever disputed that.

I don't see how witnesses are being lead, and video being manipulated. All interviews are full length and nothing has been edited. And the witnesses seem very credible, especially the two Pentagon police officers. They have no reason to lie and are "more than 100%", as Lagasse says, certain of a north side path.

Also, I find it disturbing that the FBI etc. won't release all videos from that day. I mean, there's no reason not to release them, no matter what they show, if the official story is correct. Why not release them, and why physically remove cameras from the the Citgo and the Marriot afterwards, as to say that there never was a camera there in the first place. It just seems like there's something to hide. Release everything and put and end to speculations, that would be the logic thing to do.

Regards
Martin

reply to post by Chronogoblin


I'm no engineer, but in response to the question about the plane hitting the building, as explained by experts, it would not leave a cartoon type outline in the wall. The hole you see is the expected result. The hole further in that is circular was caused by a jetstream of fire.

In one special I saw on this (they covered all claims people are making with experts explaining why they were mistaken), there was an engineer that specializes in this sort of thing. He seemed like a normal guy.. had long hair, has been doing this for something like 20 or 30 years, and he was one of the first responders at the Pentagon. He has spent hundreds of hours studying the impact, and resulting damage, and there was no doubt in his mind a plane hit. He actually seemed disgusted and angry that people could come up with ludicrous theories, based on their total lack of actual knowledge. In a nutshell saying, 'I've been doing this 30 years, I studied this crash, I know it was a plane, and you tools try to convince people something else happened, based on your complete lack of knowledge, and it disgusts me."

No one has ever flown a 757 into a concrete structure like the Pentagon. There is no way to really know exactly what would happen. I trust structural analysts and engineers, over random civilians who make wild guesses based on their preconceived notions about what they WANT to have happened.

But of course, it goes like this it seems: If someone support a plane hitting the Pentagon, and they are not an expert, they don't know what they are talking about, or they didn't really know what they saw. If an expert says it hit the building, they are clearly 'in on it.' If a witness supporting the conspiracy folks says anything at all, they are not mistaken, not wrong, not lying, exaggerating, or anything else, even if they are not an expert of any type. Of course, this goes hand in hand with conspiracy folks saying that the experts don't know what they are talking about in their own field of expertise, but the conspiracy people DO.

For example, the twin towers: People claim there are blasts going down the building as it collapses. Experts say it's just air blowing out windows. A building that large as it collapses, is full of a lot of air, and it has to go somewhere. At the speed of collapse, it was just blowing them out. It's obvious to the experts, but non-experts, who have no degrees in that sort of thing, claim they are wrong. Same thing here. Experts say it was a plane, there is plenty of proof, and non-experts insist that they know more than the experts do. It's all fairly amusing really... at least, I'm getting more amused as this continues.

Originally posted by Chronogoblin But leaving that alone for a moment, one of the things I have always wondered, is why there doesn't appeare to be hole in the building coinciding with impact points from the engines or wings? I would imagine you would at least have a rough outline of a plane shape, seen either from the front of back, in the side of the building.

I can't answer all your questions, sorry, but there are some really sharp ppl on here who can (Damn it, had to change my attitude for your sake haha.. I think Craig is intelligent.. I do want to make that clear; but having done some digging for evidence, I just don't see the honesty coming from that direction, IMO.. it isn't just about witness testimony and certainly if one is going to draw a conclusion from witness testimony, I would think to be fair, you would have to draw it from ALL the witness testimony). I can direct you to a picture though of the hole made by the plane. You can see it in the following post. www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 1-10-2008 by justamomma]

Craig,

I'm not sure if this issue has been put to rest in this thread as I'm only into the 2nd page, but as far as the right banking turn and the north side approach, you can possibly add Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien to the list. If not known, he was the pilot of the C-130 that was following flight 77. Watch the video.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


The parts were not planted, not one person saw the parts being planted, the people planting them would be on the parking video. Oops.

So you have no evidence. Just fantasy. So you have the military in on it. Sean never saw anyone plant parts. Not one of your witnesses saw someone plant parts. Are they all in on it?

reply to post by Griff


He would not count because the bank he is describing is from BEFORE the plane started the initial final spiral descent, or else a few minutes before the violent event.

O'Brien was too far away from the scene at the time of the explosion to even be able to tell that it was coming from the Pentagon!

"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE (in flight emergency) and was trying to make it back to National Airport."
-Lt. Col Steve O'Brien

Details here.

The bank we are referring to is within the final few seconds before the explosion.


This of course is the critical moment that reveals what actually happened that day and only a handful of witnesses were in the prime position to be able to tell.

Originally posted by justamomma


I can't answer all your questions, sorry, but there are some really sharp ppl on here who can (Damn it, had to change my attitude for your sake haha.. I think Craig is intelligent.. I do want to make that clear;

Aww that was unexpected and very sweet.

but having done some digging for evidence, I just don't see the honesty coming from that direction, IMO..

Now you are trying to save face.

Either back up your accusation or retract it.

I am not the least bit dishonest nor do you have a shred of evidence that I have ever lied.

it isn't just about witness testimony and certainly if one is going to draw a conclusion from witness testimony, I would think to be fair, you would have to draw it from ALL the witness testimony).

And we do.

Until you find 14 first-hand witness accounts definitively placing the plane on the south side of the gas station you have not refuted the evidence we present.

So far you have zero.

Originally posted by beachnut
Sean never saw anyone plant parts. Not one of your witnesses saw someone plant parts. Are they all in on it?

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

In all the chaos of the renovation clean up added with the presidential "dog and pony show" that Sean officially and independently testified to there is no reason he would have noticed a few scraps being placed at random places.

ESPECIALLY if they were placed after the violent event during the frantic evacuation.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


jesus craig.. You really are full of yourself aren't you? I DO think you are intelligent which is why I am so angry that you continue to push a theory that isn't based on intelligent thinking. It pretty much screams "personal agenda."

No, I have yet to take the time to place each and every person, but what I do know is that there is MUCH MORE witness testimony of the plane flying into the pentagon, there is a path of destruction that clearly shows the path of the descending plane (there is NO WAY that you can look at that path of destruction that was clearly caused by something of massive size and say something other than plane created it w/out anyone noticing), and there is of course the massive hole along with debris that was present BECAUSE A PLANE HIT THE BUILDING.

Hmmmm... 14 witnesses (in which some WERE being led by the so called investigator) vs. THE EVIDENCE. yeah, I am going to go with the overwhelming evidence on this one Craig.

Originally posted by justamomma

It pretty much screams "personal agenda."

Yet another baseless accusation.

No, I have yet to take the time to place each and every person, but what I do know is that there is MUCH MORE witness testimony of the plane flying into the pentagon,

Contradictory statement based on circular logic.

If you haven't taken the time to forensically analyze their accounts you DON'T KNOW anything about them.

You are ASSUMING they support the official story when the fact is that hard evidence points to the notion that there was a deliberate deception in this regard.

there is a path of destruction that clearly shows the path of the descending plane (there is NO WAY that you can look at that path of destruction that was clearly caused by something of massive size and say something other than plane created it w/out anyone noticing), and there is of course the massive hole along with debris that was present BECAUSE A PLANE HIT THE BUILDING.

Faith based assumption that ignores and avoids the evidence proving otherwise. In fact you haven't cited ANY valid evidence for this at all.

Haven't you read the thread that proves the official flight path aeronautically impossible?

How do you explain THAT?

Hmmmm... 14 witnesses (in which some WERE being led by the so called investigator) vs. THE EVIDENCE. yeah, I am going to go with the overwhelming evidence on this one Craig.

More baseless accusations.

You can not provide an example where I led them and you do not have a statement from ANY of them suggesting we misrepresented their testimony.

Your hollow accusations are unwarranted, impolite, and blatantly false.

Stop it.

Either back up your claims with evidence or admit you have no valid argument.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Interesting because in this article he describes it like this:

“When air traffic control asked me if we had him [Flight 77] in sight, I told him that was an understatement—by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was. That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn’t seem to know anything.” O’Brien reports that the plane is either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage means it is probably an American Airlines plane. “They told us to turn and follow that aircraft—in 20 plus years of flying, I’ve never been asked to do something like that.” [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/11/2002]

Seconds after impact, he reports, “Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.”

www.historycommons.org...

So, do we have a contradiction in story?

reply to post by Griff


You have basically nailed the heart of this deception.

There isn't a conflict with what O'Brien himself says.

The media reports deliberately and falsely suggest that O'Brien saw more than he did.

That is the heart of the 2nd plane cover story and why the operation was so effective.

The most egregious articles were written by Terry Scanlon for the Daily Press in the first weeks of the event.

They even go so far as to cite authorities making false claims about what O'Brien witnessed but feature heavily the proven false account of Keith Wheelhouse, who actually tries to get away with claiming the C-130 "shadowed" the jet airliner that was allegedly traveling 535 mph up until the violent event occurred, and veered away simultaneously with the explosion.





This simply did NOT happen and obviously serves as perfect cover for the flyover.

We got Wheelhouse to commit to this ludicrous claim on camera during our exclusive interview with him last year. If you haven't seen it everyone should pay close attention to this short video presentation The 2nd Plane Cover Story.

Bottom line there is NOTHING that O'Brien says that would indicate he "shadowed" anything let alone watched the plane go into the building.

He arrived there about 3 minutes later as confirmed by all the Arlington Cemetery witnesses as well as the Tribby video.




[edit on 1-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Absence of evidence is not evidence.

Wow, so profound.

Absence eh? Let's take a look at what's absent shall we? Weeeee, sounds like some fun is about to be had...

Of all the many people on the scene, there is an absence of anyone who saw plane parts, lightpoles and bodies being planted.

The jet seems to have completely disappeared, absent is any single person coming forward who knows it's whereabouts and can provide actual evidence of the plane or the passengers "alternative" demise.

Of all the witnesses who were in a position to see the impact, there seems to be an absence of anyone seeing the plane "fly over" the Pentagon.

Logic, reasoning, and common sense, and above all real evidence are absent from your theory.

reply to post by Soloist


I'm sorry but none of that refutes the copious amount of independent verifiable evidence that exists proving the north side approach.

Your post amounts to nothing but an argument from incredulity which is a logical fallacy.

Faulty logic does not refute scientifically validated evidence.

Neither does pure unadulterated faith in the official story.

Neither does pure unadulterated faith in the official story.

Faith? All your going on is faith in your little theory. Sorry, no matter how you spin it my post is valid, you have nothing. Nada. Zip. No hard evidence of anything at all to explain those very important facts.

People who might disagree (for whatever reason) about the correct path of the plane 7 years ago is simply not evidence of the convoluted tale you try to bully people into believing.

Tell you what, you find the answers and proof to those "absent" facts, then you'll have something worth talking about. Until then it's the same old broken record.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You can not provide an example where I led them and you do not have a statement from ANY of them suggesting we misrepresented their testimony.

I can.

1) Your interview with Wanda Ramey (www.thepentacon.com...). You fed her testimony from Lagasse, Brooks, Boger and Turcios before asking her whether the plane was to the north or south of the Citgo gas station.

2) You misrepresented Joel Sucherman's testimony with your placement of him on R27. He has stated this:

1.) Their literal take on my words ("I had just come up from the underpass") paints a not entirely accurate portrayal of my position. I was definitely a bit closer to the Pentagon then their characterization. Perhaps closer to the Dubil-Narayanan-Benedetto cluster.

But that's ok Craig, we know you have a short memory.