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.

 

The Impossibility of CIT's Flyover... many SHOULD have seen it!

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Never forget, if these pseudo-skeptics really thought it was so "impossible" they wouldn't be so obsessed with us and our work.




Craig...you are the only truther (besides Captain Bob) that makes themselves available on line.

I assure you, if Richard Gage, Alex Jones, Jim Fetzer, Jessie Ventura, or any of the other wack packers were here, there would be more posting toward them.




posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I'll repeat what CIT and P4T have to deal with



Pentagon View Shed Analysis #1

I'm going to take a look at CIT's claim of a "flyover" from a realistic perspective by showing a View Shed analysis of the topography around the Pentagon to demonstrate the visibility of any aircraft flying over the Pentagon from any location in the area.

This analysis is not needed in any way to refute CIT's claims. Numerous individuals have easily refuted all of CIT's claims (despite angry denials to the contrary) here and on other forums. Reheat has done a masterful job right here. I am doing this because it just further illustrates why CIT refuses to deal with evidence and eyewitness reports.

A View Shed Analysis is a common feature of GIS software and is used to determine the optimal placement and height of transmission antennas intended for television, radio, public utility, microwave, phone, and cell phone usage. It's use is intended for hilly or mountainous areas where topography presents obstructions in direct line-of-sight transmissions, or broadest area coverage, between transmitters and receivers.

I've done a View Shed analysis to illustrate a fundamental problem CIT has with its claims that a "flyover" took place - but no such "flyover" has ever been reported.

CIT claims that one eyewitness, one Roosevelt Roberts, stated that he saw a jet fly over the Pentagon and then took a route to the left over the Potomac River, flying south of The Mall. This is the only eyewitness CIT has ever presented to a so-called "flyover" after persistent requests for eyewitnesses for a long time.

CIT now claims that this sole, apparent eyewitness, "proves" that a "flyover" took place in a planned, calculated deception by the "government" to deceive people into believing a passenger jet, American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon.

CIT has stated, for the record, that interviews with 13 other "eyewitnesses" have demonstrated conclusively that AA77 flew on the "north side of the Citgo gas station rather than the south side as the government has claimed," thereby flying a route to the Pentagon that, if it had crashed into the Pentagon, would have produced damage entirely inconsistent with the observed damage. (Not insignificantly, each of CIT's 13 eyewitnesses were in a position to see an aircraft approach the Pentagon.)

Therefore, CIT concludes, the observed jet could not have flown into the Pentagon but, consistent with the statements of 14 "eyewitnesses" CIT found, the jet must have flown over the Pentagon to land in parts unknown. Furthermore, CIT claims, a deliberate deception was planned so that, as the jet began its flyover, a pre-planted bomb in the Pentagon, at the intersection of the flight path of the jet, was detonated producing both an explosion and smoke that obscured the view of the 13 apparent eyewitnesses CIT relies on for its claim that a flyover took place.

I have confined my study to the claim that a "flyover" could have taken place without there being eyewitnesses anywhere on the far side of the Pentagon whose views would never have been obscured by the explosion and subsequent smoke column.

Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, sole members of CIT, the "Citizens Investigation Team," have declared individually and separately that no other eyewitnesses to a "flyover" are required. They put their sole trust in 13 eyewitnesses whom they readily acknowledge whose views of an actual flyover would have been obscured by the "explosion" and resultant smoke column at the Pentagon. There remains the one eyewitness, Roosevelt Roberts, on whom CIT's entire claim that a "flyover" took place rests.

The observation comes immediately to mind that if a flyover took place whose flight path would take the jet over and within view of a densely populated geographic area as it flew away from the Pentagon - and the explosion that took place - including heavily-travelled freeways and bridges, should there not be eyewitness reports from a wide geographic area on the other side of the Pentagon in which no topographical obstructions existed? CIT has been asked that question repeatedly and the response has either been that those eyewitnesses are not needed or, "do your own investigation."

The topography around Washington includes obvious obstructions of buildings, trees, overpasses, etc., which are not included in this first run. Obviously, a person standing behind trees or buildings obstructing the view toward the Pentagon, or looking in a different direction altogether, isn't going to witness a plane over the Pentagon as an explosion takes place there. That changes, of course, as the plane moves forward, climbs, and turns.

What is the probability that a such "flyover" could take place in a densely populated metropolis, with many drivers on various roads and bridges around the Pentagon, a spectacular explosion and smoke alerting numerous motorists, and unrefuted testimony that a jet was seen approaching and crashing into the Pentagon at high speed?

I am not in a position to calculate such a probability, but I am in a position to define the extent of the geographic area in which a plane over the Pentagon could have been easily seen.

In this view, I have deliberately limited the range to the jet to two miles, a reasonable distance in which an aircraft the size of a 757 would draw attention moving away from the Pentagon after an explosion. Of course, the jet can been easily at a further distance away.

This instantaneous view places the jet at 100 feet above ground level (not above the building itself) over the central courtyard of the Pentagon. The yellow-shaded area shows the geographic areas up to two miles away from that jet in which a person whose eyesight is five feet above the ground could see that jet, given the observation limitations of structures and vegetation outlined above. Any person within the two-mile range not shaded yellow would be unable to see a jet 100 feet above the ground over the Pentagon courtyard. As one can see, these are very few. It should be obvious as the jet moves forward, and climbs, on a flight path away from the Pentagon, the geographical area at a two-mile range expands, opportunity for it to be observed increases, and the number of potential eyewitnesses increases.



It should also be obvious how the potential for drivers on the freeways and bridges, whose positions are changing and whose attention is necessarily on their surroundings, are in an excellent position to see a jet fly away from the Pentagon, many of whom would see the jet in a direct line of sight to the fireball rising from the Pentagon.

Yet there are no such reports.

This View Shed analysis illustrates the tremendous problem CIT has in facing the probability that many numbers of eyewitnesses would most certainly have seen a flyover take place from a large geographic area and that no such reports have ever surfaced. It also illustrates why CIT refuses to look for any such eyewitnesses. We can imagine many drivers stuck in freeway traffic seeing the explosion at the Pentagon, immediately followed by a jet flying fast and climbing from the direction of the Pentagon. Some would reasonably think there is a connection - perhaps the aircraft dropped a bomb.

But the big problem for CIT is a very reasonable situation. These people who would have seen a flyover would wonder why there were no subsequent media reports of a flyover. Would not even a handful contact media outlets, each competing with each other for breaking news, and say, "Wait a minute! There was a jet flying away from the Pentagon right after the explosion!"

Furthermore, CIT's reliance on Roosevelt Roberts' description of the jet's turn to the left over the river actually puts CIT in a no-win position of having a jet visible from a large area.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I think Craig has you on ignore sir. Maybe he will read this?



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
funny how this thread is called 'the IMPOSSIBILITY', when in fact, there is nothing more than vaporous speculation from throat yogurt.
'cause he, 'just can believe it', it's, 'IMPOSSIBLE' in all caps.

more 'logic' from the shadow government watchdogs.

improbable, yeah.

impossible, no.

other improbable things....

flipping a coin and having it land on it's side

two 80 yr. old twins being killed on the same day by being hit by trucks while they are bicycling in a snow storm

the only 3 steel skyscapers in history to 'collapse from fire', collapse on the same day, within a city block of one another



IMPOSSIBILITY is not equal to IMPROBABILITY

unless you're a propagandist pedaling government lies.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
for reference:


Helsinki. On the morning of March 5, two elderly twin brothers were riding their bicycles, as was their habit, completing their separate errands. At 9:30, one brother was struck by a truck along coastal Highway 8 and killed instantly.

About two hours later and one mile down the same highway, the other brother was
struck by a second truck and killed.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Actually I have to disagree with you here billybob.

There is nothing improbable about the flyover at all.

Particularly when considered in context of the crime which was a world wide psychological military black operation.

Also when compared to the triple controlled demolition they pulled off in downtown Manhattan.

The flyover at the Pentagon was child's play compared to that.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt


I think Craig has you on ignore sir. Maybe he will read this?


Yes I read that completely unscientific and utterly false analysis that has nothing to do with what people on the ground can really see.

It's painfully obvious how like you, jthomas has never even been to the area and has no clue what he is talking about.

This is not a forensic analysis of true POV's.

You can't look at a map or satellite image and think you can tell what people can see.

I'd estimate that in about 90% of his shaded area it's impossible to see the Pentagon at all let alone the flyover.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Good thread, TY.

When discussing flyover witnesses, or the lack thereof, one should take Chris Stephenson into account. Stephenson was the tower supervisor at Reagan National Airport on the morning of September 11, 2001. Two reasons that I believe he should be considered are 1) he is a professional aircraft observer located in an elevated position with an excellent view and 2) he had advanced warning of AAL77's approach.


About 9:30, the phone that connects his tower to the Secret Service rang. A voice on the other end said an unidentified aircraft was speeding toward Washington. Stephenson looked at the radarscope and saw that the jet was about five miles to the west.

The airplane was completely out of place. "I knew what had just happened in New York. I had a pretty good idea what was up," he said.

He looked out the tower window and saw the jet turning to the right and descending. The jet did a full circle and whoever was flying knew what he was doing. The wings never rocked or oscillated, Stephenson said.

The jet disappeared behind a building in nearby Crystal City, Va., and exploded into the Pentagon. A fireball blew several hundred feet into the air. For several minutes, a huge cloud of debris — paper, insulation and pulverized building materials — hung in the air. Source


The impact point at the Pentagon was not visible from Stephenson's position, but the eastern side of the Pentagon was.





Now, the question is: did Chris Stephenson see the flyover?

AAL77.com has recently posted the audio recordings from Washington National Tower and the answer clearly is NO! The controllers reported that the aircraft crashed into the Pentagon and there is no mention of a flyover.

Go to the web site I just linked and click on the "1 DCA 110 LC 1332-1348 UTC_1" link to hear the audio.

The CIT is one Star Trek episode away from claiming Klingon cloaking technology.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870

The CIT is one Star Trek episode away from claiming Klingon cloaking technology.


This is just more more clog in the wheel of this fantasy. It has been proven wrong in a multitude of ways.

It really doesn't matter any more how many additional ways it is proven wrong simply because it is a CULT. The perpetrators and their supporters will continue to deny reality until the end of time.

At this point it is worse than pathetic. And the fraud goes on.....



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Absence of evidence is not evidence.

The north side approach proves that Stephenson either missed the flyover or lied.

It's quite possible that the massive explosion and fireball completely diverted his attention but we know for a fact that many operatives and assets had to have been used in a military deception on this level so it's also quite possible Stephenson was involved.

The fact remains that no true skeptic or intellectually honest person who adheres to critical thinking principles would suggest that Stephenson refutes the north side evidence because he was much too far away and his view of this critical part of the approach was blocked by buildings as he admits.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870

The jet disappeared behind a building in nearby Crystal City, Va., and exploded into the Pentagon.
A fireball blew several hundred feet into the air. For several minutes, a huge cloud of debris — paper, insulation and pulverized building materials — hung in the air.

The impact point at the Pentagon was not visible from Stephenson's position,
Now, the question is: did Chris Stephenson see the flyover?

According to what you typed, Stephenson did not see the alleged Flight AA77 crash into the Pentagon.

How does Stephenson know that the plane exploded into the Pentagon, if it disappeared behind a building?

It doesn't state whether he did or didn't see a flyover.

I wonder if the large fireball and huge cloud of debris may have obscured his view of a plane flying away? Read the quote, it hung around for several minutes and the initial burst was several hundred feet in the air.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by jthomas


Craig, there is nothing like using the foreshortening of a telephoto lens shot to deceive posters into thinking that jet is flying "over" the Pentagon when it is well beyond the Pentagon

I think that should earn you a warning. But it does demonstrate how low you stoop in trying to deceive Truthers.


Oh Really?


Yes, really. The photo does not show a jet flying over the Pentagon. Why did you lie about that, Craig?



Apparently you haven't bothered to listen to his interview where he no only corroborates the banking north side approach like all other witness but explains in detail how the air traffic from Reagan is so low as they take off and land over the Pentagon that you can see the numbers on them!


You have NO eyewitnesses who saw AA77 flying away from the Pentagon. CIT has no eyewitnesses on the departure side of the Pentagon.


Obviously from your foolish analysis it's clear you have never been to the area and are completely unfamiliar with the topography.


Obviously, my analysis makes mincemeat of your claim that there are no eyewitnesses to a flyover. And, Craig, you absolutely refuse to provide any flight path away from the Pentagon. So you have no ability to say who could or could not see AA77 fly away from the Pentagon.

That's as silly as first claiming there is an "official story" then claiming in the very same point that no "official story" could get out.

So, Craig, no only have you consistently refused to provide evidence of a flyover, I was able to simply demonstrate with commercial GIS software the wide geographical area within which anyone looking could see a jet 100 feet over the Pentagon courtyard.

And that area includes thousands of people in office, homes, on freeways, and on bridges that were in a position to see a jet in that location. Given your low standard of evidence, you know that even 5 eyewitnesses testifying to seeing a flyover from the departure side would be breaking news.

But:

1. You have NO eyewitnesses from the departure side of the Pentagon.
2. You absolutely refuse to find any.
3. You have NO media reports of a flyover.
4. You cannot even find one single eyewitness, Craig.


Add all the other evidence that scares you to death and you refuse to gather, and you're worse off than when you started. You've totally discredited yourself.

I am always happy to demonstrate that you have no possible way to support your fairy tale.

None. Zero. Nada.

CIT is finished





posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


They rely solely on conjecture and government provided data while dismissing independent verifiable evidence all in desperate defense of their faith in the government.

I honestly think some of these guys have even been convinced that 9/11 was an inside job but feel it's their duty to continue to defend and spin the "official story" because the deception had to have been accomplished for legitimate reasons of "national security".



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

There are virtually no questions of substance about 9/11 being raised by boob toob media.


Because none exist. AA77 still hit the Pentagon and no one has shown otherwise.


I think casual readers of the 9/11 conspiracy forum should be aware that some of the posts in these threads are intended as pure disinformation, the purpose of which is to deceive casual readers, who don't have time to look into and think about assertions made by those who don't accept the Bush administration's version of the events of 9/11.

This is spin doctoring. It is not an attempt at rational discussion of these issues. It is striking a posture intended to deceive the gullible. Bill Clinton did the same thing when he said "How dare you!" when confronted by demonstrators insisting that 9/11 was an inside job. Unfortunately there are still a lot of people in this world who fall for this kind of thing.

Every word of discussion of Flt. 77 could be put aside if the Bush administration would release all the videos that the FBI confiscated after the attack on the Pentagon. They won't do it. That is why there definitely are questions of substance concerning 9/11 and Flt. 77.

The 9/11 conspiracy forum seems to be divided into three sections now. Truthers who are convinced that in some degree the government was involved in or is lying to the public about 9/11, the inquisitive who haven't made up their minds but are seeking more information on the subject, and a small group of hard core adherants to the governnment's version of events. Some of this last group are very difficult to take as sincere people.

There is too much hit and run and glib disinformation in their postings. Francis Marion had a similar battle tactic during the Revolutionary War. jthomas's post brings this sort of thing to mind.

I'm not fooled by these people and I don't think many others are. For the most part they are posting to the wind.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt


I think Craig has you on ignore sir. Maybe he will read this?


He doesn't understand it. Too intellectual for CIT


Craig Ranke wrote: Yes I read that completely unscientific and utterly false analysis that has nothing to do with what people on the ground can really see.


Too bad that it is used for the very purpose of view shed analysis, obviously something you never heard of, much less comprehend.


It's painfully obvious how like you, jthomas has never even been to the area and has no clue what he is talking about.


Obviously, this software was developed so that you didn't have to physically test every single location in an area to determine maximum coverage for line-of-sight radio transmissions. I use it routinely. Given that you haven't been to every single location within the yellow shaded area and have absolutely no ability to show us a flight path away from the Pentagon or even one single eyewitness, you goose is cooked again, Craig.
This is not a forensic analysis of true POV's.


You can't look at a map or satellite image and think you can tell what people can see.


LOL!
Imagine that. You just admitted you haven't a clue what a view shed analysis is. Thanks for that confession, Craig. Not only have you cooked your own goose, it's burnt to a crisp!.

Unfortunately for your fairy tale, Craig, view shed analysis is dependent critically on topography. In order to do the analysis I did I relied on the United States Elevation Data (NED), data available to anyone, even including hopeless 9/11 Deniers like you, Craig.

What do YOU have? Nothing.


It's so much fun debunking you, Craig.




posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by tezzajw
 


They rely solely on conjecture and government provided data while dismissing independent verifiable evidence all in desperate defense of their faith in the government.


Desperate denial never helped you, Craig. You see, my view shed analysis is independently verifiable, even by you. Just as all the evidence you refuse to verify.

You can't refute the facts, Craig. You never have. Which is why you can never answer my questions concerning your claims.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by jthomas

There are virtually no questions of substance about 9/11 being raised by boob toob media.


Because none exist. AA77 still hit the Pentagon and no one has shown otherwise.


I think casual readers of the 9/11 conspiracy forum should be aware that some of the posts in these threads are intended as pure disinformation, the purpose of which is to deceive casual readers, who don't have time to look into and think about assertions made by those who don't accept the Bush administration's version of the events of 9/11.


No more desperate words from a 9/11 Truther have ever been said, knowing full well that I easily showed ipsedixit's claims to be utterly irrational

We note for the record that the evidence doesn't, never did, and never will come from the Bush Administration.

We note that the evidence is independent from thousands of different sources, never originating from, nor in the control of the government.

We note that 9/11 Truthers fall for the claims of their leaders that everything comes from the government, that it is just a "story." 9/11 truthers are SO brainwashed by their "leaders" and gullible that they can't see the evidence right in front of their eyes.

That's why 9/11 Truthers were given their proper name in March 2002: 9/11 Deniers.

A word from the wise on 9/11 Truthers profound self-deception:


"Self-deception is the process or fact of misleading ourselves to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid. Self-deception, in short, is a way we justify false beliefs to ourselves.

"When philosophers and psychologists discuss self-deception, they usually focus on unconscious motivations and intentions. They also usually consider self-deception as a bad thing, something to guard against. To explain how self-deception works, they focus on self-interest, prejudice, desire, insecurity, and other psychological factors unconsciously affecting in a negative way the will to believe."

[...]

"In How We Know What Isn't So, Thomas Gilovich describes the details of many studies which make it clear that we must be on guard against the tendencies to

1. misperceive random data and see patterns where there are none;
2. misinterpret incomplete or unrepresentative data and give extra attention to confirmatory data while drawing conclusions without attending to or seeking out disconfirmatory data;
3. make biased evaluations of ambiguous or inconsistent data, tending to be uncritical of supportive data and very critical of unsupportive data."


skepdic.com...



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   

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


Absence of evidence is not evidence.

The north side approach proves that Stephenson either missed the flyover or lied.

It's quite possible that the massive explosion and fireball completely diverted his attention but we know for a fact that many operatives and assets had to have been used in a military deception on this level so it's also quite possible Stephenson was involved.

The fact remains that no true skeptic or intellectually honest person who adheres to critical thinking principles would suggest that Stephenson refutes the north side evidence because he was much too far away and his view of this critical part of the approach was blocked by buildings as he admits.



Stop the evasions. Speculation is no substitute for providing the necessary evidence you refuse to provide, Craig.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


actually, i was more attacking the semantics of his post, not voicing my opinion. to point out the tactic of persuasion used by throat yogurt. also, the casual reader, who is only trying to break free of the media brain police, the idea of a flyover probably sounds improbable.

i don't find a flyover improbable at all, and certainly not impossible. there was definitely industrial smoke and magic going on at all three disaster sites.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

i don't find a flyover improbable at all, and certainly not impossible.


Yet, there is no evidence of a flyover.


there was definitely industrial smoke and magic going on at all three disaster sites.


You have no evidence. Instead, a faithful belief in the Official 9/11 truth Movement Fairy Tale is good enough for you.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Yes I understood and agreed with your post from that standpoint.

Just wanted to be clear on that one!




new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join