reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

---

Craig.... thanks for the follow up....

here is my problem though:




You place him that the red spot, yet that is one way traffic leaving the Pentagon.

If he was looking for a parking spot... then where was he?

reply to post by CameronFox

---

This is the exact image we showed him and asked him if he was closer to A or B:




He replied:



So most likely he was there but on the other side of the guardrail in the parking lot headed south rather than exiting.

We made the image as an approximation based off his original article and discussion with us to get him to pinpoint it and rather than alter the image for the article we posted the exact image that we had sent him in order to be accurate about our exchange and present his quoted response.

Note how he says "about right on the mark"

Well shucks CameronFox; quit the whining. You posted your graphic there; now let's tear it to pieces. See that straight line formed by that overhang of those stores next to A-One Auto Sales? Yep it is parallel with Columbia Pike right there; even on your graphics you have previously posted. That little white no parking square behind Edward is also parallel with the road isn't it? Both of Edward's arms are angled away from it diagonally aren't they? And the video itself taken as a whole is more useful to corroborate Edward's testimony, than any particular screen capture isn't it?

This graphic is from the same video isn't it Cameron Fox?



Now extend a line along Edwards pointing arm. Does it intersect the line formed by that overhang? Yes? On your graphic also. Then Edward's arm is not parallel with Columbia Pike is it, and therefore Edward is not pointing down Columbia Pike is he?

And so is this graphic isn't it Cameron Fox? Edward is angled diagonally across the parking space which is painted parallel to Columbia Pike, isn't he?



But your hypocrisy is nonsensical isn't it CameronFox, because you know for a fact that Edward told Craig that the aircraft body was over his garage which is more then 62 feet from the street isn't it? Therefore Edward in your gif above would be standing under the outer wingtip of the decoy aircraft which flew over him, wouldn't he? And the decoy aircraft would get further and further from Columbia Pike as it flew eastward, wouldn't it?



What do these graphics taken from the video (including yours) all have in common CameronFox? Edward is pointing away from Columbia Pike every time isn't he; indicating a flight path bearing away from Columbia Pike and cutting diagonally across the Naval Annex half a block down the road, isn't that correct? And they all compare favorably with the diagram he drew of the extended flight path cutting diagonally across the Naval Annex, isn't that correct CameronFox? It escapes me how you pseudoskeptics can incessantly deny the obvious. Edward even drew a little circle for you around his garage, which the fuselage (body) of the aircraft flew over according to his testimony to Craig. Can you see that CameronFox?






[edit on 1/7/09 by SPreston]

I fail to see how CIT has changed their flight path. The flight path(s) belong(s) to the eyewitnesses, and of course more information is added to the collection as more eyewitnesses are added to the pool of witnesses. Expect even more eyewitnesses to be added in the near future as the investigation is ongoing.

It escapes me why there are no dedicated Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY believers and faithful defenders down there in Arlington County Virginia rounding up and interviewing and videotaping eyewitnesses to the official Flight 77 south flight path south of Columbia Pike and the VDOT tower. Perhaps it is because they do not expect to find any such witnesses? If the Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY were true, there should be hundreds of such witnesses available, and just 20 or 30 should shut up CIT and many other Pentagon Truthers for good. So why no effort at all from the government loyalists?



Here I have produced a map with a too-scale 124 ft 10 in wingspan aircraft flying the flight path Edward Paik witnessed above him, interposed above the building next door. Of course we do not know the exact aircraft used by the 9-11 perpetrators for their decoy aircraft; thus I have used the 757 claimed by the official script.



Columbia Pike is parallel to Edward's parking lot, the stores next door, and the Naval Annex building. I have attempted to combine Edward's verbal testimony with his drawing; thus I have placed the fuselage slightly closer to his garage. The loud starboard engine hanging down from the wing would have been closest to Edward and would have been quite frightening. Throughout the video interview, Edward is adamant that the aircraft is angling diagonally across Columbia Pike, his parking lot, and the building next door. Knowing full well the location and placement of the Naval Annex along Columbia Pike, Edward extends that diagonal flight path across the Naval Annex roof in his description and drawing.

reply to post by SPreston

---

You said: "It escapes me why there are no dedicated Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY believers and faithful defenders down there in Arlington County Virginia rounding up and interviewing and videotaping eyewitnesses to the official Flight 77 south flight path south of Columbia Pike and the VDOT tower."

Why would official story believers need to interview witnesses? All the interviews have already confirmed the official story. You have obviously left we official story sheeple "in the dust" with the always-moving, never-ending changes to the CIT story. Now, it appears to be two planes where one pulls up for no reason while a second plane hits the Pentagon. That way, people will stare at the explosion site and won't notice a jetliner doing aerobatics on the deck and stealthily slipping over the Pentagon just outside the plume. It would be criminal to quench those vivid Rube Goldberg imaginations and unfettered chutzpah with a cold dash of logic and reason. To do so would deprive far too many, here and on JREF, from the latest episodes from CIT and pfft. Like the rodeo clowns, comic relief, and guys in foil hats, CIT provides nothing but pure entertainment as they deny logic, truth, physical evidence, witnesses, and everything else but their own fiction.
I can't wait to see what happens in the next iteration. Is NoC gone yet or will it come back in a dream sequence, like a dead character in a soap opera? Did you notice that the getaway plane had a hook down for a quick trap in the north parking lot? You thought that those things were guard rails? Hah. The Master Chief in the Annex sets the tension.
Regards,
Buster Gates

You did fail. Just like you failed on the April Gallop thread.

CIT didn't change the "flight" path. But they did along with PFT agree that the alleged "attack jet" could not have flown through the imapact point, but rather to the south of it.

Craig confirms this on page on of this thread Spreston. Try keeping up.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



Craig has also claims that ONA is the "new NOC" ...

So you see Spreston, your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

Thanks for demonstrating why Morin would not have seen the jet approaching or flying over him IF he were in between the wings as you and CIT claim.

That picture above is a good illustration why.

How are you and CIT going to extract yourselves from this fundamental error, SPreston? Another flight path change?



[edit on 8-1-2009 by jthomas]

Hate to burst your bubble jthomas, but that is A-One Auto down there where Edward Paik was the witness to the decoy aircraft who SAW the aircraft flying over his shop and continuing at a diagonal to fly Over the Naval Annex. There are 20+ witnesses, many of whom are verified and videotaped eyewitnesses, who also SAW the decoy aircraft Over the Naval Annex which totally destroys your Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY jthomas. Morin is further down the decoy aircraft flight path Over the Naval Annex and he HEARD the aircraft approaching and looked up and SAW the aircraft above him from between the wings. Then he ran out into the parking lot and SAW the tail, which means the aircraft did NOT dive down the hill out of sight in order to strike the #1 and #2 light poles. I found another ex-military alleged to be but not a crash witness Phillip Thompson ( here ) who also did not SEE the aircraft from Over the Naval Annex dive down out of sight behind the hill in order to knock down the #1 and #2 light poles. Your Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is dead dead dead jthomas.



Whyever did the 9-11 perpetrators choose you to defend their 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY when you are constantly screwing everything up and constantly taking threads off-topic?



Didn't you forget this drawing jthomas? This is a drawing by a real living and verified and videotaped eyewitness who was actually right there on the scene right directly under the plane, and not one of those phantoms that YOU call crash witnesses in your silly Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY who were miles away across the Potomac or perhaps in another state or behind tall buildings blocking their view down at the Reagan National metro platform or on the opposite side of the Pentagon where the building would block their view or perhaps nowhere at all.






[edit on 1/9/09 by SPreston]

What? another mistake by Spreston?

Paik was NOT in a position to see the plane fly over the annex. It was blocked by the dry cleaners building. (as posted previously)

Did you also listen to Paik when he said he ducked down?

Did you also listen to Paik when he was asked if he saw the plane fly overhead?

His response was "no i was facing the office."

Watch the original interview.




Did you happen to see Paiks other drawing?:




What side of the Citgo is that on?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>







OUCH

Well, as always, I don't hate to burst your bubble of nonsense. In fact, it's quite entertaining.

Perhaps you don't understand why your drawing demonstrates why Morin was not between the wings. I'll let you stay awake all night trying to figure out why you you debunked yourself.

Sweet dreams.

It doesn't matter. So Paik is lousy at freehand drawing standing out in a parking lot. So am I. The aircraft is still Over the Naval Annex isn't it?

Over the Naval Annex deals a death blow to the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY which requires the aircraft to fly south of Columbia Pike and south of the VDOT tower in order to strike the #1 and #2 light poles with wings level and create the official damage path through the Pentagon. Your fantasy tale is dead dead dead.

This is required



This is a nono

Spreston....

I laugh at the straws you grasp.

Not as much as CIT's damage control though.

Two points i was making.

NOC is not unanimous.

PAIK was ducking down when the plane flew over and was facing the office.

Go watch the first video again.

There has been no change of flight path by the CIT eyewitnesses. They simply reported what they witnessed with their own eyes and senses. Edward Paik and Terry Morin and 23+ other eyewitnesses, including previously published witnesses from way back in 2001, and 12 eyewitnesses from the Pentagon Crash Witness Accounts all place the decoy aircraft Over the Naval Annex or over ANC.

Over the Naval Annex is irreconcilable with the official flight path south of the VDOT tower and south of Columbia Pike contained within the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY. If the aircraft Edward Paik and Terry Morin saw on 9-11 was that official Flight 77 aircraft flown by Hani Hanjour, then this is what they should have seen.



Instead Terry Morin saw this aircraft view supported by 23+ additional eyewitnesses reporting the aircraft Over the Naval Annex or ANC



Instead Edward Paik saw this aircraft view supported by 23+ additional eyewitnesses reporting the aircraft Over the Naval Annex or ANC





12 witnesses - from the Pentagon Crash Witness Accounts place the aircraft Over the Naval Annex or Over Arlington National Cemetery to the north

Sean Boger - Aircraft flew directly Over Naval Annex straight at him
Albert Hemphill - Aircraft flew directly Over Naval Annex
William Lagasse - Aircraft flew Over Naval Annex
Lincoln Leibner - Thought aircraft was flyover Arlington National Cemetery
William Middleton Sr - Aircraft flew directly Over Naval Annex
Terry Morin - Aircraft flew directly Over Naval Annex
Steve Patterson - Aircraft flew over Arlington National Cemetery - small 8-12 passenger aircraft
Dewey Snavely - Aircraft over Arlington National Cemetery
Levi Stephens - Aircraft flew Over Naval Annex
Marine Commander Mike Dobbs - saw it come right over the Navy Annex at a slow angle
Noel Sepulveda - saw a commercial airliner coming from the direction of Henderson Hall next to ANC
Christopher Munsey - gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon, just hundreds of yards away







[edit on 1/10/09 by SPreston]

Now THERE'S a great rejoinder to a challenge!

"It doesn't matter".

Greta logic there. Superb analytical acumen. Tremendous citizen investigation skills on display.

"It doesn't matter". No wonder the CIT Sleuths and their minions will never take this to court. "It doesn't matter, your honor" won't go very far in proving your case.

reply to post by SPreston

---

Do you have an understanding of what "perspective" means? If someone is looking from the north towards the Annex and sees a plane flying, can he/she really tell if it is directly over the Annex, or is it 40ft past it flying along I-395?

Also here is Albert Hemphill's account with a very important part:


Over his right shoulder eh? not directly over his head? And how much of the plane was there? And lets not forget that "plane flew over me" can mean anywhere from the wingtip going over to the entire underside of the plane.

[edit on 1/10/2009 by GenRadek]

40 feet past it? Geeze the official flight path is 400 feet to the south past the Edward Paik flight path. 40? Sheesh.

Gee, I wonder if Sean Boger had trouble with 'perspective' in the helipad control tower, when the decoy aircraft came straight at him from Over the Naval Annex? Didn't some of those ANC eyewitnesses also state the decoy aircraft came straight at them from Over the Naval Annex? They sure did.



By the way, we use the term 'decoy aircraft' for aircraft Over the Naval Annex because the 'official aircraft' ain't supposed to be up there. It can't possibly be up there.

Do you have an understanding of what Over the Naval Annex means and Over Arlington National Cemetery means? It means the official Flight 77 flight path with ace Cessna reject Hani Hanjour in the cockpit depicted in the Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is dead dead dead.

While you are on the subject of 'perspective'; that notion applies to south flight path witnesses also, if there are any left. Sitting in a car to the south or anywhere else to the south and looking north, a person seeing the decoy aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex might be fooled by the 'perspective' and think the aircraft was closer than it really was. There is only about 300 to 400 feet separating the two flight paths. (they are converging flight paths and the 784 fps official 757 could be only viewed for about 5 seconds) They might think incorrectly that they were seeing the pretend airplane, when they were really seeing the decoy aircraft up above the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo.



Isn't it amazing how many witnesses there are on this semi-official witness list who place the aircraft Over the Naval Annex or Over Arlington Cemetery? The Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is not doing very well is it? Now that several local Arlington citizens have joined in the search, surely we will see many more north flight path eyewitnesses in the next few months. Isn't that exciting? We are getting closer and closer to justice for the victims of 9-11 and vengence against the traitorous 9-11 perpetrators.




[edit on 1/11/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston

---

Did Boger see the plane hit the Pentagon?

yes or no?

He did.

End of the Pentacon - Fly around nonsense.

SPreston, you might be able to dump all those DVDs on e-bay at a bulk rate in the Fantasy section.