Why does CIT have NO eyewitnesses to a flyover?, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 09:13 PM by djeminy

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by jthomas

Lets also remind people to think for them selves, however if you think that is not proof that is your opinion only, thank you.

I'll remind you that I am asking for for people here to provide verifiable eyewitness testimony that an jet aircraft was seen flying low and at high speed over and away from the Pentagon as claimed by CIT and P4T as clearly presented in the first post of this thread.

Please read carefully so that you do not confuse the C-130 and E4B for the postulated aircraft under discussion.

Any evidence that you can provide to support CIT's claims of a flyover is welcomed.

Are you telling us that we are not allowed to respond to the silly post by pinch, or are
you telling us that we should just quite simply ignore this persons unfounded and
biased opinions?

It would also be rather fun to know whether you agree with the following quote from
pinch'es post further above in this thread?

pinch:
"If there are no other witnesses to such an event, and if nobody else sees it, then your witness is a) wrong, b) mistaken, c) lying through his grommet or d) being manipulated by charlatans. I vote for D."

If you agree with his 'I vote for D', as I assume you do, then, what's the bloody point of
starting a thread like this??

Please enlighten us!

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 09:13 PM by cogburn

reply to post by SPreston

Yes, I did... In fact your quote and my post are different because in re-reading what I posted I realized I was in total error.

You posted as I was correcting what I had said.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by cogburn]

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 09:27 PM by cogburn

reply to post by djeminy

Based on my professional experience I am 100% convinced of 2 things:
* Ranke is an awful investigator and interrogator
* Ranke is, at this point in time, motivated more from ego than a search for real facts

Peer review is a fundamental component in all research. It's peer review that Mr. Ranke cannot deal with as one would expect from someone with what one would think would be "truther motivation".

Yeah, I give no qualifications about my personal experience, but I'd be happy to verify who I work for if you really care that much. My title is Sr. Research Analyst and I stare at other people's science all day long.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by cogburn]

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 09:38 PM by SPreston

posted by cogburn
reply to post by SPreston

Yes, I did... In fact your quote and my post are different because in re-reading what I posted I realized I was in total error.

You posted as I was correcting what I had said.

Yes you did . . . . what? I see no correction in your post reflecting what I posted about. Perhaps you could explain to every person's satisfaction how a large aircraft could pull up and still hit the 1st floor of the Pentagon?

posted by SPreston

Didn't you forget something? Didn't Turcios describe an aircraft pull up at the Hwy 27 overhead sign? How can a large aircraft pull up and still hit the building 1st floor? Since no light poles were knocked down along that flight path, then the aircraft had to be 40+ feet above ground level along that entire flight path. Correct?

[edit on 11/18/08 by SPreston]

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 09:45 PM by LordCarpainter

It's simple. Independent corroboration proves conclusively that the plane flew on the North Side and pulled up, yet the physical evidence disagrees. Answer? Flyover. Why do so many people have trouble figuring this out?

I think that a lot of spooks are here, actively trying to cover up the Flyover. The missile theory was based on built-to-fail evidence, as was the A3 theory. The Flyover is based on rock solid first hand accounts from 13 people?

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 09:57 PM by djeminy

Originally posted by cogburn
reply to post by djeminy

Based on my professional experience I am 100% convinced of 2 things:
* Ranke is an awful investigator and interrogator
* Ranke is, at this point in time, motivated more from ego than a search for real facts

Peer review is a fundamental component in all research. It's peer review that Mr. Ranke cannot deal with as one would expect from someone with what one would think would be "truther motivation".

Yeah, I give no qualifications about my personal experience, but I'd be happy to verify who I work for if you really care that much. My title is Sr. Research Analyst and I stare at other people's science all day long.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by cogburn]

?????

You must be responding to somebody else's post!!

I personally don't really care who you work for, or anybody else for that matter, so do not know what you're talking about!! Sorry!

[edit on 18-11-2008 by djeminy]

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 09:57 PM by cogburn

Sorry, I had some nonsense in my post about light poles that you captured in your quote.

He said his view of the planet at impact was obstructed and could not see the impact. He said he saw the plane lift up "a little bit" (24:15).

Listen to the rest of Turcios's account. When asked about the plane flying over the Pentagon his voice changes notably to a tone of surprise to which he replies "No, no I did not see a plane fly over the Pentagon". This is already after he has indicated that he was in the absolute perfect position to witness the plane at such a dramatic angle.

There is NOTHING in his testimony that indicates the motion portrayed in that animated GIF everyone is posting. That means that GIF is NOT representative of what Turcios recounted.

EDIT: Note the difference between the top of the Pentagon from the top of the sign. "A little bit" still puts a portion of the aircraft below the roof of the Pentagon from Turcios's angle. It is completely plausible that after clearing the sign that the plane nosed down into the 1st floor. However we don't know how much "a little bit" is since Ranke never bothered to follow up to clarify.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by cogburn]

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 10:01 PM by cogburn

reply to post by djeminy

LOL you had addressed Pinch, but I left my opinion anyway.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 10:10 PM by djeminy

Originally posted by cogburn
reply to post by djeminy

LOL you had addressed Pinch, but I left my opinion anyway.

Actually my previous post was addressed to jthomas!

To be truly accurate!

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 10:24 PM by Hal9000

Attention!

As I have said in many other threads, disrespectful posts will no longer be tolerated and any more will result in a post ban.

Please discuss the topic without the insults. Thank you.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 11:51 PM by SPreston

posted by cogburn
EDIT: Note the difference between the top of the Pentagon from the top of the sign. "A little bit" still puts a portion of the aircraft below the roof of the Pentagon from Turcios's angle. It is completely plausible that after clearing the sign that the plane nosed down into the 1st floor. However we don't know how much "a little bit" is since Ranke never bothered to follow up to clarify.

You expected Craig to climb up on that overhead highway sign with a tape measure in a restricted high security area? Turcios was standing about 1000 feet away from that overhead highway sign and the decoy aircraft was probably flying about 300 to 400 feet per second; so he had about 2.5 to 3.5 seconds to watch it. That is not a very long time to determine distance to a pull up nor height above the sign. That sign is also lower than the 40 ft light poles, and the aircraft had to be higher than they were.

That same overhead highway sign is about 700 feet from where the high explosive went off at the construction trailers. Since you people reckon this was Flight 77, do you expect a 90 ton 757 flying at 300 to 400 feet per second to be able to pop down after a pull up like a Cessna, to fly level into the 1st floor? Hani Hanjour may have trained on a Cessna; but that doesn't mean he could fly a 757 like a Cessna.

And forget about matching those faked parking lot videos with level flight across the lawn. There just ain't no way.

[edit on 11/18/08 by SPreston]

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 12:17 AM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by SPreston

Hilarious.

The simple point that obviously eludes this cogburn character is that if the plane is ANYWHERE near where Robert Turcios and 12 other independent witnesses who corroborate him place it then we know for a fact that it did not hit the building.

ANYWHERE between the station and ANC 100% proves a flyover and this is what they all unanimously report.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 01:34 AM by cashlink

reply to post by SPreston

I agree with you about the airplane flying at that speed. I should know I’ve been a flightsim fanatic for ten years, and I do fly the boeing 757 and one thing I do know is at those speeds, if you pull up even just a tad, you can not just pull the yoke straight down its too much stress on the airplane. However if this so call airplane did this imposable maneuver, then I know it could not have been set up on autopilots flight plan. In addition, it would have been imposable to fly that aircraft manually epically at those speeds. Those Boeing commercial airlines are not design to fly like F18 fighter jet.
What these so call witness are saying what they saw was imposable.

As retired Naval aviator and commercial airline pilot Ted Muga says:
"The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...

When a commercial airplane gets that high, it get very, very close to getting into what you refer to as a speed high-speed stall. And a high-speed stall can be very, very violent on a commercial-type aircraft and you never want to get into that situation. I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.

***

Commercial airplanes are very, very complex pieces of machines. And they're designed for two pilots up there, not just two amateur pilots, but two qualified commercial pilots up there. And to think that you're going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low, that it's bordering on impossible."

georgewashington.blogspot.com...

[edit on 11/19/2008 by cashlink]

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 06:14 AM by cogburn

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by SPreston

Hilarious.

The simple point that obviously eludes this cogburn character is that if the plane is ANYWHERE near where Robert Turcios and 12 other independent witnesses who corroborate him place it then we know for a fact that it did not hit the building.

ANYWHERE between the station and ANC 100% proves a flyover and this is what they all unanimously report.

I'm sorry, I have proven that it may very well be consistent in another thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 08:31 AM by jthomas

Originally posted by SPreston

Didn't you forget something? Didn't Turcios describe an aircraft pull up at the Hwy 27 overhead sign? How can a large aircraft pull up and still hit the building 1st floor? Since no light poles were knocked down along that flight path, then the aircraft had to be 40+ feet above ground level along that entire flight path. Correct?

I am asking you to provide the verified eyewitness evidence that any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon as claimed by both CIT and P4T.

I'll ask you again to please stick to the topic of this thread.

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 08:40 AM by jthomas

Originally posted by djeminy

Are you telling us that we are not allowed to respond to the silly post by pinch, or are you telling us that we should just quite simply ignore this persons unfounded and biased opinions?

I have no authority nor desire to tell anyone what to do or to whom to respond.

I am simply asking for people here to stay on topic and provide verifiable eyewitness testimony that an jet aircraft was seen flying low and at high speed over and away from the Pentagon as claimed by CIT and P4T as clearly presented in the first post of this thread.

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 08:50 AM by jthomas

Originally posted by SPreston
Perhaps you could explain to every person's satisfaction how a large aircraft could pull up and still hit the 1st floor of the Pentagon?

That is not the subject matter of this post. Let's not rehash year's of claims and counterclaims but stick to the topic.

Your mission is to support CIT's and P4T's claims that a jet flew over and away from the Pentagon as required by their claims by providing verified eyewitness testimony.

No such testimony has ever been presented and all of the eyewitnesses CIT has presented either saw the jet impact the Pentagon, believe it did, or never stated they saw a flyover.

It's time to move on to provide positive, verified eyewitness or media reports of a jet flying over and away from the Pentagon as claimed and required by CIT's and P4T's theory.

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 09:01 AM by jthomas

Originally posted by LordCarpainter
It's simple. Independent corroboration proves conclusively that the plane flew on the North Side and pulled up, yet the physical evidence disagrees. Answer? Flyover. Why do so many people have trouble figuring this out

Because it makes no sense to claim that because some eyewitnesses think the saw a different flight path that we should dismiss ALL of the physical evidence. To any investigator, and scientist, that is completely backwards. And it makes even less sense that ALL of those eyewitnesses claiming a North Side flight path either saw the jet impact, believe it did, and didn't claim to see a jet fly over and away from the Pentagon as required by CIT's claims.

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 09:16 AM by jthomas

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The simple point that obviously eludes this cogburn character is that if the plane is ANYWHERE near where Robert Turcios and 12 other independent witnesses who corroborate him place it then we know for a fact that it did not hit the building.

ANYWHERE between the station and ANC 100% proves a flyover and this is what they all unanimously report.

No positive, verified evidence of any flyover has ever been presented.

Again, it serves no purpose to rehash your NoC eyewitnesses, all of whom either saw the jet impact the Pentagon, believe it impacted, and never claimed to have seen any flyover whatsoever, including Roosevelt Roberts whose statements are confused and corroborated by no one.

Since CIT and P4T have been completely unable to provide any eyewitnesses who claim they saw any jet fly over and away from the Pentagon as your theory requires, you are at an impasse without that evidence.

This is why I am asking that we use this thread as a repository for any and all positive, verified eyewitness or media reports showing that there were actual eyewitnesses reporting a jet flying low and fast over and away from the Pentagon as you claim.

I would hope that CIT and P4T would want to support their theory by looking for this crucial and necessary evidence.

Remember that your claims mean that a jet would be very visible and VERY loud as this low flyby of a 757 conclusively demonstrates.:

YouTube Link

reply posted on 19-11-2008 @ 09:17 AM by SPreston

posted by cogburn

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by SPreston

Hilarious.

The simple point that obviously eludes this cogburn character is that if the plane is ANYWHERE near where Robert Turcios and 12 other independent witnesses who corroborate him place it then we know for a fact that it did not hit the building.

ANYWHERE between the station and ANC 100% proves a flyover and this is what they all unanimously report.

I'm sorry, I have proven that it may very well be consistent in another thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You have PROVEN nothing.

You have several wild speculations using mostly your imagination and a sketch pad. What you attempt to visualize is much too small to be a 757 aircraft with a 44 ft 6 in tail stabilizer, which I have proven on your thread.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^