CIT - Changes Their Flight Path., page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 02:17 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by ipsedixit


Thanks man.

I know that reasonable true critical thinkers can see the facts and evidence and understand how we are being completely logical, honest, and providing hard independent verifiable evidence for our claims.

I am actually grateful to our large contingency of obsessed detractors who serve to keep this discussion at the forefront. The fact that they even exist and work so hard to spin what we present is validation!

But I have more hope for this being exposed.

We have too much evidence and it keeps getting validated.

There will be more to come.


reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 02:20 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CameronFox


Yes the part when he is talking about the "RIGHT WING" and I suggest it was over the road when he really meant it was over the building.

Did you hear the part where he said he thought it was going to hit the last wing of the Navy Annex?

Can you see this drawing that he made or are you blind?



Over the Navy Annex proves a military deception and perfectly corroborates north of the citgo.


reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 06:22 PM by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by CameronFox


I apologize for the lengthy external quote. It is the summation of someone else and I think it's worth reviewing, again.



According to the Citzen Investigation Team, the Government or whomever wanted to fool the world into thinking American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, along a certain heading that took it through several light poles and low over the freeway just prior to impact.

To do this, They executed the following:

* They flew an aircraft over the Pentagon
* The aircraft traveled along a different heading entirely, on the opposite side of a visible landmark (viz. the Citgo station)
* The aircraft passed nowhere near the light poles in question
* The light poles were sabotaged anyway, in some completely different fashion than aircraft impact
* One light pole was staged to penetrate the windshield of a car, in traffic, again despite the actual aircraft not passing anywhere near overhead
* A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by
* The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual
* The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77
* A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft

And, finally,

* The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.



reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 07:30 PM by infinityoreilly
reply to post by jthomas


Happy New Year jthomas. Ever check into the Pentagons official word on the guard shack videos? Just curious.


reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 09:52 PM by CameronFox
Originally posted by Boone 870



Boone,

With this new positioning of the "attack jet," I was looking at the picture above. This diagram from PFT clearly shows a 100% disregard to one of their witnesses (Morin's) testimony.

Morin claimed the plane flew right over him at the edge of the Navy Annex and watched it go directly toward the Pentagon. It appears PFT missed that one by around 500 feet.

Here is part of an interview he gave:

Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5, I was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4 when I became aware of something unusual. I can’t remember exactly what I was thinking about at that moment, but I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left. As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening. I instantly had a very bad feeling about this but things were happening very quickly. b][The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB). Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities.

Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon.Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.

source

This interview clearly discredits CIT's latest claim of a south of impact flyover. Morin was in a perfect position to describe in detail what he saw, and was in a perfect position to see a flyover.


reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 10:34 PM by Boone 870
reply to post by CameronFox
It appears PFT missed that one by around 500 feet.


It certainly appears that way. I guess it depends on what your definition of directly is.


Now where's my copy of Wooster's Dictionary???


reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 09:02 AM by jthomas
Originally posted by infinityoreilly
reply to post by jthomas


Happy New Year jthomas. Ever check into the Pentagons official word on the guard shack videos? Just curious.



Happy New Year to you, too.

How much longer till you produce those eyewitnesses to a flyover? It's been seven years and you still can't find any?

Amazing.


reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 12:11 PM by jthomas
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
CIT has never had a flight path.


Yes, CIT specifically stated the jet flew over and away from the Pentagon.

We were not witnesses to the event.


As I showed repeatedly and you are unable to refute, you have no eyewitnesses to any aircraft flying over and away from the Pentagon.

We simply report what the witnesses tell us.


And they said the jet hit the Pentagon confirming that no NoC flight path was possible.

We also understand how no witness will ever be 100% accurate and it is unreasonable to expect them to be.


But you will use Roosevelt Roberts to claim he saw what he didn't see and when he specifically contradicts himself.

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.


It is not reasonable since ALL of the evidence must be accounted for.

The witnesses who were there unanimously place the plane north of the citgo.

This proves the plane did not hit the building.


Quite false and backwards. I've already shown that is an illogical and false statement. The preponderance of all the evidence demonstrates conclusively that a NoC flight path did not happen.

Craig, please tell everyone here when you will provide the eyewitnesses all around the Pentagon who would have seen any aircraft flying over and away from the Pentagon as you claim. We've been waiting over two years for you to provide that list. You, of course, realize, that your new flight path would have provided the opportunity for even more eyewitnesses to see a flyover, including those whom you have claimed the "explosion" was designed to fool eyewitnesses into thinking the jet hit the Pentagon.







[edit on 1-1-2009 by jthomas]


reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 07:27 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CameronFox


We trust Morin for one simple, GENERAL corroborated claim that the plane flew directly over the Navy Annex.

We understand how Morin is not a computer and how it is unreasonable to expect him to be perfectly accurate regarding specific details such as exact heading.

Particularly when his "parallel" claim is not corroborated by anyone and particularly when even that claim is fatal to the official story.

North side of Columbia Pike/directly over the Navy Annex AT ALL proves the plane did not hit.

Period.

Furthermore we know that Morin's stated position about 10 feet inside between the wings and his description of the plane directly above him would only allow him to see it for a fraction of a second. This accurately depicts his POV of the plane:


Naturally heading would be EXTREMELY difficult to tell under these circumstances.

He did NOT have the benefit of seeing the plane on the approach as Ed Paik did which is why Ed Paik is a MUCH better witness for heading as indicated by his illustrations.

Now....if the official story were true and the plane was traveling 535mph as reported in the alleged FDR that means it would only be about 4 seconds from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon...

BUT the plane would be completely invisible to him as soon as it descended below the trees between the Navy Annex and citgo which would only be 2 seconds away!

Here is Morin's view from the Navy Annex:


You can barely see the roof of the Pentagon!

The low and level approach/impact would be invisible after 2 seconds if the official story were true.

So no matter how you slice it his account is 100% irreconcilable with the official story.

He would not be able to see the plane all the way to the Pentagon.

The ONLY way he saw the plane at all after coming out from between the wings would be if he caught a glimpse of it as it was flying over or away from the building.

The explosion confused him/diverted his attention so naturally, as intended, he thought the plane hit the building.

His account really demonstrates how effective the deception would be. Depending on their location, even some people who saw the plane flying away STILL thought it hit!

You have to realize how quick it would all go down and how unexpected and confusing it was for people and how that massive explosion would immediately cause their minds to accept a crash.

These are the elements that helped make the deception effective.



reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 08:19 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CameronFox


There is nothing deceitful about it at all.

It is a hypothetical example.

Intelligent and reasonable people understand perfectly how there is no reason to expect that it is 100% accurate.

The GENERAL point of the image stands and that is the decoy jet was timed perfectly with the explosion effectively fooling people into believing it hit the building.

The north side evidence proves this GENERAL fact regardless of the exact placement, exact heading, and exact location of the jet once it reached the Pentagon which we will never know.

p.s why would you "assume" this is Aldo? I can assure you that I am Craig as my screenname says. I always post as Craig and he always posts as Aldo. We both use our real names whenever we post so there isn't a reason on earth for us to speak for each other.


[edit on 1-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]


reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 09:49 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by pinch


Morin states that he was 10 feet in between the wings when the plane flew directly over him and the Navy Annex and that he walked out to look at the Pentagon and was walking backwards uphill as he saw the tail of the aircraft after it had descended past the tree line.

If the official story were true the plane would be completely invisible from that vantage point in no more than 2 seconds so he would have not seen the tail of the aircraft at all.

The ONLY way he saw a tail at that point is if the plane flew over the building.

You're starting to get it pinch.


reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 05:58 AM by SPreston
posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Morin states that he was 10 feet in between the wings when the plane flew directly over him and the Navy Annex and that he walked out to look at the Pentagon and was walking backwards uphill as he saw the tail of the aircraft after it had descended past the tree line.

If the official story were true the plane would be completely invisible from that vantage point in no more than 2 seconds so he would have not seen the tail of the aircraft at all.

The ONLY way he saw a tail at that point is if the plane flew over the building.

You're starting to get it pinch.


pinch [snip] has finally opened his eyes? Good going there pinch. All it takes is the available evidence at hand and the actual verified eyewitness testimony, mixed together with a good measure of good old common sense and deductive reasoning, and the facts fit right together like a complex completed puzzle.

It looks nothing like the Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY does it? Again, congratulations pinch.



Didn't Edward Paik have the decoy aircraft flight path fairly accurate from the beginning? Right across the roof of the Naval Annex just as the ANC eyewitnesses verified, and also finally concluded by the FAA. (Apparently concluded by the FAA early on and publicly verified recently in 2008)



The roof of the Naval Annex seems to be a key piece of the puzzle, and the official 757 aircraft in the Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY was not supposed to fly anywhere near the Naval Annex. Kinda bursts that balloon doesn't it?




[edit: personal info removed]

[edit on 2-1-2009 by 12m8keall2c]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 13 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 7 days ago with 13 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 15 hours ago, 68 replies