What is interesting is that since CIT no longer believes a flyover took place above the impact point. Where did the plane go to end up in the south parking lot? (unnoticed)
CIT - Changes Their Flight Path., page 1
privacy
Topic started on 31-12-2008 @ 10:01 AM by CameronFox
We here at ATS have all seen the picture Craig Ranke has posted in here and on his website. The one of the plane flying up and over the Pentagon
through the explosion.
The claim was that the explosion would somehow mask the plane flying up and over the Pentagon. This alone is ludicrous for obvious reasons.
www.thepentacon.com...
Here is a quote from what appears to be a member of CIT at the JREF Forum:
link
So now, CIT is stating that the plane flew in front of the Pentagon and over the south parking lot? Or did it fly to the left of the impact point and do an amazing maneuver to get it in the south parking lot?
I'm curious where they are going with this change.
The claim was that the explosion would somehow mask the plane flying up and over the Pentagon. This alone is ludicrous for obvious reasons.
www.thepentacon.com...
Here is a quote from what appears to be a member of CIT at the JREF Forum:
CIT no longer believes the plane flew directly over the impact due to Roosevelt's testimony, as well as the description of a right bank.
link
So now, CIT is stating that the plane flew in front of the Pentagon and over the south parking lot? Or did it fly to the left of the impact point and do an amazing maneuver to get it in the south parking lot?
I'm curious where they are going with this change.
reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 10:21 AM by CameronFox
I was reading other witnesses from CIT. There is one that I would assume is more damning to the CIT claim:
Levi Stephens
www.abovetopsecret.com...
In this post from Craig he states this:
What I don't understand is this:
If he had his back to the pentagon, how could he have seen an airplane at all?
If he was in the parking lot at the time of impact... why didn't he see the plane flying over head? His back was to the Pentagon!
Levi Stephens
www.abovetopsecret.com...
In this post from Craig he states this:
He admits he did not see the plane hit any light poles despite the fact that they were right in front of him plus he does not describe the plane as being over the bridge that close either.
He claims he was on the phone with his sister with his back to the Pentagon at the time of the explosion which would explain why he missed the pull up and flyover.
What I don't understand is this:
If he had his back to the pentagon, how could he have seen an airplane at all?
If he was in the parking lot at the time of impact... why didn't he see the plane flying over head? His back was to the Pentagon!
reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 11:21 AM by Boone 870
reply to post by CameronFox
The CIT has realized that an "over the Annex-NoC-over the impact point-above Lane 1 in South Parking" flight path would be impossible if the "Decoy Jet" flew directly over the impact site.
We can expect more changes in the flight path and witness testimony as the grip is tightened around the neck of CIT's impossible theory.
I'm curious where they are going with this change.
The CIT has realized that an "over the Annex-NoC-over the impact point-above Lane 1 in South Parking" flight path would be impossible if the "Decoy Jet" flew directly over the impact site.
We can expect more changes in the flight path and witness testimony as the grip is tightened around the neck of CIT's impossible theory.
reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 11:38 AM by Craig Ranke CIT
CIT has never had a flight path.
We were not witnesses to the event.
We simply report what the witnesses tell us.
We also understand how no witness will ever be 100% accurate and it is unreasonable to expect them to be. We only rely on them for very general details that can be corroborated such as whether or not the plane was north or south of the citgo. That is a reasonable approach to eyewitness evidence.
The witnesses who were there unanimously place the plane north of the citgo.
This proves the plane did not hit the building.
This does not change regardless of what the exact flight path really was down to the foot (again witnesses are not computers) or what we hypothesize about it when considering new evidence that has been uncovered.
Probably the most significant piece of evidence we uncovered this year besides all of the Arlington Cemetery witnesses who corroborate NoC (north of citgo), ONA (over the navy annex), and the significant right bank of the plane was the discovery of the first known flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts Jr.
Because of his location and the fact that he saw the plane over the south parking lot it has led us to hypothesize that perhaps the plane did not pass exactly over the alleged impact point and was a bit further south.
Listen to his entire account in part 2 of the north side flyover.
When considering all this new extremely important very significant evidence that we uncovered during this productive year of 2008 we now estimate/hypothesize/suggest that perhaps the flight path was something closer to this:
Thanks to Pilots for 9/11 Truth they have already demonstrated with math and physics how something like this is aerodynamically possible for a conventional aircraft.
Of course it would be foolish to think that such a plane during such an operation would be a conventional aircraft anyway.
Regardless...as you can see from the illustration, it's not all that far from the alleged impact point anyway.
No doubt due to perspective it would still appear to be at the explosion for most witnesses.
We know that the deception would be effective either way because it WAS effective.
Most people were fooled into believing the plane hit the building when this is impossible because all of the witnesses in the most critical vantage points saw the plane north of the citgo.
But of course the murderers covered their tracks with a very elaborate 2nd plane cover story for the people like Roosevelt Roberts who may have seen it fly over or away from the building.
That is in fact exactly what Roosevelt Roberts thought he saw. A "2nd plane".
Get it now cameron?
2008 was a very productive year when it came to uncovering new independent verifiable evidence exposing the Pentagon attack operation.
We'll continue our efforts to uncover more evidence and fully expose this crime once and for all in 2009.
Happy New Year everyone!
We were not witnesses to the event.
We simply report what the witnesses tell us.
We also understand how no witness will ever be 100% accurate and it is unreasonable to expect them to be. We only rely on them for very general details that can be corroborated such as whether or not the plane was north or south of the citgo. That is a reasonable approach to eyewitness evidence.
The witnesses who were there unanimously place the plane north of the citgo.
This proves the plane did not hit the building.
This does not change regardless of what the exact flight path really was down to the foot (again witnesses are not computers) or what we hypothesize about it when considering new evidence that has been uncovered.
Probably the most significant piece of evidence we uncovered this year besides all of the Arlington Cemetery witnesses who corroborate NoC (north of citgo), ONA (over the navy annex), and the significant right bank of the plane was the discovery of the first known flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts Jr.
Because of his location and the fact that he saw the plane over the south parking lot it has led us to hypothesize that perhaps the plane did not pass exactly over the alleged impact point and was a bit further south.
Listen to his entire account in part 2 of the north side flyover.
When considering all this new extremely important very significant evidence that we uncovered during this productive year of 2008 we now estimate/hypothesize/suggest that perhaps the flight path was something closer to this:
Thanks to Pilots for 9/11 Truth they have already demonstrated with math and physics how something like this is aerodynamically possible for a conventional aircraft.
Of course it would be foolish to think that such a plane during such an operation would be a conventional aircraft anyway.
Regardless...as you can see from the illustration, it's not all that far from the alleged impact point anyway.
No doubt due to perspective it would still appear to be at the explosion for most witnesses.
We know that the deception would be effective either way because it WAS effective.
Most people were fooled into believing the plane hit the building when this is impossible because all of the witnesses in the most critical vantage points saw the plane north of the citgo.
But of course the murderers covered their tracks with a very elaborate 2nd plane cover story for the people like Roosevelt Roberts who may have seen it fly over or away from the building.
That is in fact exactly what Roosevelt Roberts thought he saw. A "2nd plane".
Get it now cameron?
2008 was a very productive year when it came to uncovering new independent verifiable evidence exposing the Pentagon attack operation.
We'll continue our efforts to uncover more evidence and fully expose this crime once and for all in 2009.
Happy New Year everyone!
reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 12:13 PM by CameronFox
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
CIT has never had a flight path.
We were not witnesses to the event.
Neither was anyone else on the planet, Craig.
We simply report what the witnesses tell us.
Then take down the misleading graphics on your website. Not a single witness saw a plane flying through an explosion and over the Pentagon.
We also understand how no witness will ever be 100% accurate and it is unreasonable to expect them to be. We only rely on them for very general details that can be corroborated such as whether or not the plane was north or south of the citgo. That is a reasonable approach to eyewitness evidence.
"Generally" speaking, you have not been able to show anything. you now have the plane flying to the south of the impact. Sorry, Craig not a soul on earth witnessed this. This would have been seen.
The person that does not get it ... is you and a handful of your faithful followers.
This does not change regardless of what the exact flight path really was down to the foot (again witnesses are not computers) or what we hypothesize about it when considering new evidence that has been uncovered.
I was not asking down to the foot. What I am stating is obvious. All your witnesses claim to have seen the plane fly into the Pentagon. (the ones that were able to) They would have noticed a plane flying to the south of the explosion.
Because of his location and the fact that he saw the plane over the south parking lot it has led us to hypothesize that perhaps the plane did not pass exactly over the alleged impact point and was a bit further south.
Your own witness Levi was in a prime location to witness your fantasy. He did not. He was in the south parking lot.
Thanks to Pilots for 9/11 Truth they have already demonstrated with math and physics how something like this is aerodynamically possible for a conventional aircraft.
They showed the plane pulling up and to the south of the impact point?
Of course it would be foolish to think that such a plane during such an operation would be a conventional aircraft anyway.
Yes Craig, it was a secret attack jet painted to look like an AA Jet.
[edit on 31-12-2008 by CameronFox]
reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 12:31 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CameronFox
Sorry cameron but sarcasm does not refute hard evidence.
Everyone saw the plane fly north of the citgo.
This proves the plane did not hit whether or not it passed directly over or a couple of hundred feet from the impact point.
The difference would be negligible to the witnesses during the few surprising seconds that this event went down.
The deception would still be just effective to most and the rest were handled with a 2nd plane cover story.
The evidence is conclusive.
The only way for you to effectively and honestly refute it is to provide 15 or more confirmed first hand eyewitness accounts of people who specifically place the plane south of the citgo.
So far you have none.
Better get crackin'!
Sorry cameron but sarcasm does not refute hard evidence.
Everyone saw the plane fly north of the citgo.
This proves the plane did not hit whether or not it passed directly over or a couple of hundred feet from the impact point.
The difference would be negligible to the witnesses during the few surprising seconds that this event went down.
The deception would still be just effective to most and the rest were handled with a 2nd plane cover story.
The evidence is conclusive.
The only way for you to effectively and honestly refute it is to provide 15 or more confirmed first hand eyewitness accounts of people who specifically place the plane south of the citgo.
So far you have none.
Better get crackin'!
reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 12:34 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CameronFox
Great compilation images of Paik and the north side flight path!
It clearly shows how he definitively places the plane north of Columbia Pike headed straight for the Navy Annex exactly like he describes.
He he even said that he thought it hit the last building of the Navy Annex.
This perfectly corroborates all of the other witnesses proving the plane could not have caused the physical damage.
Good job!
Great compilation images of Paik and the north side flight path!
It clearly shows how he definitively places the plane north of Columbia Pike headed straight for the Navy Annex exactly like he describes.
He he even said that he thought it hit the last building of the Navy Annex.
This perfectly corroborates all of the other witnesses proving the plane could not have caused the physical damage.
Good job!
reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 01:33 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CameronFox
You are quite wrong and desperately spinning what he said.
Watch the interview again.
This is a screen shot from the part where he was being extremely specific about the placement of the body of the plane and his assessment of the heading:
He is quite clear about this BUT I made sure he also illustrated it for you because I knew that intellectually dishonest people would STILL try to lie and spin what he said:
You are simply dismissing what he said AND drew for you and drawing something completely different (that ALSO contradicts the required south of Columbia Pike official flight path)!
The levels of pure denial in the face of definitive evidence you are exhibiting is utterly amazing.
To be clear....although Ed Paik definitively places the plane north of Columbia Pike and over the Navy Annex....we do not unreasonably expect him to be 100% accurate regarding exact heading.
That would be illogical because witnesses are not computers.
But the fact that his general ONA claim is corroborated by Terry Morin and so many others is hard proof that the plane was not south of Columbia Pike on the official flight path, was on course for NoC, and therefore could not have hit the building.
We only expect witnesses to be accurate regarding general details that can be corroborated.
To expect them to be 100% accurate about all micro-specific details such as exact heading or exact placement down to the foot would be unreasonable.
You are quite wrong and desperately spinning what he said.
Watch the interview again.
This is a screen shot from the part where he was being extremely specific about the placement of the body of the plane and his assessment of the heading:
He is quite clear about this BUT I made sure he also illustrated it for you because I knew that intellectually dishonest people would STILL try to lie and spin what he said:
You are simply dismissing what he said AND drew for you and drawing something completely different (that ALSO contradicts the required south of Columbia Pike official flight path)!
The levels of pure denial in the face of definitive evidence you are exhibiting is utterly amazing.
To be clear....although Ed Paik definitively places the plane north of Columbia Pike and over the Navy Annex....we do not unreasonably expect him to be 100% accurate regarding exact heading.
That would be illogical because witnesses are not computers.
But the fact that his general ONA claim is corroborated by Terry Morin and so many others is hard proof that the plane was not south of Columbia Pike on the official flight path, was on course for NoC, and therefore could not have hit the building.
We only expect witnesses to be accurate regarding general details that can be corroborated.
To expect them to be 100% accurate about all micro-specific details such as exact heading or exact placement down to the foot would be unreasonable.
reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 02:13 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
Actually no.
We've never made any of those claims.
Yes we have said it is likely that some allegedly civilian contractors who were working on the renovation that was wrapping up on 9/10 and 9/11 may have been assets or operatives.
Certainly this is quite possible but we have never stated that we know the exact career, position, or name of the individuals who were involved with the planning and execution of the event.
But the north side evidence proves the plane didn't the building.
No argument from incredulity with sarcastic language and inaccurate references to what we claim can refute the hard evidence we present that proves a military deception.
Next time you choose to compile a list of what we claim I suggest you quote us and source it.
Thanks.
Actually no.
We've never made any of those claims.
Yes we have said it is likely that some allegedly civilian contractors who were working on the renovation that was wrapping up on 9/10 and 9/11 may have been assets or operatives.
Certainly this is quite possible but we have never stated that we know the exact career, position, or name of the individuals who were involved with the planning and execution of the event.
But the north side evidence proves the plane didn't the building.
No argument from incredulity with sarcastic language and inaccurate references to what we claim can refute the hard evidence we present that proves a military deception.
Next time you choose to compile a list of what we claim I suggest you quote us and source it.
Thanks.
US Consulate Whistleblower Says 9/11 Hijackers Passports were issued by the CIA
Posted 18 days ago with 21 member flags
Posted 18 days ago with 21 member flags
Hollywood Stars Seek to Make Feature Film Focused on WTC Demolitions
Posted 19 days ago with 12 member flags
Posted 19 days ago with 12 member flags
An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T\'s List of Demolition Signs
Posted 15 days ago with 12 member flags
Posted 15 days ago with 12 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
Posted 7 days ago with 6 member flags
Posted 7 days ago with 6 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Hollywood finds one more way to shove Nazis up our ... noses!
Conspiracy Theorists, Posted 2 minutes ago
Conspiracy Theorists, Posted 2 minutes ago
Criminal attorney general Holder granted extra time to turn over Gunwalker documents
US Political Madness, Posted 8 minutes ago
US Political Madness, Posted 8 minutes ago
First Strike Scenerio in conjunction with the Departure of The Body of Christ.
World War Three, Posted 38 minutes ago
World War Three, Posted 38 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Nat Rothschild loses libel action against Daily Mail
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 14 hours ago, 30 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 14 hours ago, 30 flags
Video: Angry Dad Shoots Daughter's Laptop [Posts on Facebook]
General Chit Chat, Posted 12 hours ago, 30 flags
General Chit Chat, Posted 12 hours ago, 30 flags
Be sure to NOTICE how Threatening they are to YOU!!! Warning Graphic Footage!
US Political Madness, Posted 13 hours ago, 28 flags
US Political Madness, Posted 13 hours ago, 28 flags
Current Potential Habitable Worlds - Update February 2012
Space Exploration, Posted 7 hours ago, 17 flags
Space Exploration, Posted 7 hours ago, 17 flags
Egypt: Muslims attempt to purge village near Alexandria of its Christian population
Middle East Issues, Posted 10 hours ago, 15 flags
Middle East Issues, Posted 10 hours ago, 15 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Video: Angry Dad Shoots Daughter's Laptop [Posts on Facebook]
General Chit Chat, Posted 12 hours ago, 208 replies
General Chit Chat, Posted 12 hours ago, 208 replies
Most Canadians want the death penalty back
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 8 hours ago, 85 replies
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 8 hours ago, 85 replies
EWTN (Catholic TV Network) Sues Obama Admin Over Mandate
US Political Madness, Posted 10 hours ago, 71 replies
US Political Madness, Posted 10 hours ago, 71 replies
Be sure to NOTICE how Threatening they are to YOU!!! Warning Graphic Footage!
US Political Madness, Posted 13 hours ago, 70 replies
US Political Madness, Posted 13 hours ago, 70 replies
Egypt: Muslims attempt to purge village near Alexandria of its Christian population
Middle East Issues, Posted 10 hours ago, 63 replies
Middle East Issues, Posted 10 hours ago, 63 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.284 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.284 seconds
