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.

 

Pentagon flyover witnesses reported by Center for Military History

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Sorry Cameron but only 2 out of the 3 witnesses you listed have been confirmed and interviewed direct with recordings provided and BOTH support the north side approach 100%.

The 3rd is nothing but unconfirmed government supplied data.


Just WHO did you say Roosevelt Roberts worked for, Mr. Craig Ranke? You remember, the guy who led you on a wild goose chase and contradicted himself.



Ode to CIT

[edit on 20-1-2009 by jthomas]




posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Sorry Cameron but only 2 out of the 3 witnesses you listed have been confirmed and interviewed direct with recordings provided and BOTH support the north side approach 100%.

The 3rd is nothing but unconfirmed government supplied data.




Hahahaha. I LOVE this. Ranke didn't talk to him....this means it's erroneous.

The witnesses SAW the impact. One day you will get it.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

posted by TrueAmerican

Is it even possible for a plane moving at that speed to land that fast at Reagan? Reagan is awfully close to the Pentagon. So close, I have to wonder if it could even be done. But assuming remote control, maybe so. Hell, they seemed to break all other known stress factors for planes and pilots with the attacks, so why not be able to land at Reagan? And if the flyover plane did not land at Reagan, then where did it?


Possible? At what speed? The official speed of 535 mph - 784 fps need not apply.

At 234 knots - 269 mph - 395 fps?

At 177 knots - 204 mph - 300 fps?

At 148 knots - 170 mph - 250 fps?

At 133 knots - 153 mph - 225 fps?

Pop the air brakes - flaps - line up with the runway - land - hide it in a hanger?



Normal landing speed for a 757 is 132 knots - 152 mph - 223 fps.

Of course we do not know what type of aircraft the 9-11 perps used do we?

Possible? What do you think?




Boeing 757 flight guidelines

• Minimum Runway Length: 5,000 ft.

• Target Landing Airspeed: 160 KIAS

• Retract Flaps to Flaps 3 at 165 KIAS

• Retract Flaps to Flaps 2 at 190 KIAS

• Retract Flaps to Flaps 1 at 210 KIAS

• Retract Flaps to Flaps 0 at 225 KIAS

KIAS = Knots Indicated Air Speed


Where else? Fly it up or down the DCA River Approach.

Any air base or airport or remote runway they had available.

Or ditch it out in the Atlantic in deep water. No witnesses.






[edit on 1/20/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox


Hahahaha. I LOVE this. Ranke didn't talk to him....this means it's erroneous.

The witnesses SAW the impact. One day you will get it.





We have shown time and time again how unconfirmed or clarified details are consistently misrepresented but when spoke with direct the witnesses unanimously support a north side approach.

We know that many believed the plane hit the building but until you clarify their actual POV and confirm their account direct you have NO IDEA what they really "saw".

So no matter how little regard you have for critical thinking principles this type of due diligence and independent confirmation is necessary if you want to be able to reference the information as evidence in support of the official story.

It doesn't have to be me.

So unless you plan to step up to the plate and go get some evidence to support your government fantasy it's clear that your only desire is to troll, derail, and obsess over us on a daily basis for your own admitted "entertainment" at the expense of the victims' families.

Shameful.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Some of you guys are becoming a nuisances, any time, someone posts something new, or different about the 911 truth or shows some proof the OS that is a lie. I will see 3 or 4 of the same posters, that gang up on the truther by ridiculing, and insulting the poster statements. YOU GUYS do not have any proof that he is WRONG! Stop “INSULTING” good people, who are trying to get to the bottom of the LIES, that some of you gate keepers with ridiculing, and belittling, that you all do so well!

Craig Ranke, I admire your hard persistent, of getting the truth out there. If ATS were to give out an award, for doing good work, and research, and standing up to these angry sheep I would demand they give it to you. You have earned it. Keep up the good work, it has not gone unnoticed.



[edit on 20-1-2009 by Gonenuts]

[edit on 20-1-2009 by Gonenuts]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
A Perfect Flyover Witness.....

....that didn't happen.

Some more information that continues to destroy the flyover theory. In this witness statement from the Military History archives, there was a witness that had the best view available of the sky over the Pentagon without any distractions or being duped by the alleged Military deception.


aal77.com...

In it she describes that she was walking down the A wing corridor, was slowed by some custodians in front of her, and was looking out the windows overlooking the courtyard. She was at the time opposite the Corridor 3 and 4 point at the courtyard. So at the time of impact, she was looking in the direction of the impact. She felt both the explosion and the secondary explosion. She saw the fireball come up from the other side of the building. She thought it was a truck bomb.


The drawing below shows where this person was during the time of the attack.



Once again...thanks Files911!
forums.randi.org...



[edit on 20-1-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT



We have shown time and time again .......


That when questioned 3 to 6 YEARS after a traumatic event, memories are not the same.



So unless you plan to step up to the plate and go get some evidence


If you would stop ignoring it Craig, you would understand no further evidence is needed.


at the expense of the victims' families.

Shameful.


I am not derailing or trolling. You started a thread regarding interviews that John Farmer released. I am simply posting some of the interviews that he posted that further deny your fantasy.

Your appeal to emotion is noted. (I am still awaiting what you have done for the 911 victims families)



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gonenuts
Some of you guys are becoming a nuisances, any time, someone posts something new, or different about the 911 truth or shows some proof the OS that is a lie.


You can't prove something that does not exist is a lie.

You may be too new at this to not realize that CIT has yet to refute the massive evidence that AA77 the Pentagon. But you are entitled to believe fairy tales if you wish.

Just don't insult real skeptics who demonstrate factually that CIT cannot demonstrate its claims.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that the jet kept on going.


The implications of this blatant flyover reference should be clear.


What appears clear is that this quote is a secondhand info at best. IE how many times was this observation passed on before reaching this person with a series of subtle modifications?

I'm sure many people have done that exercise where information is passed through a number of people with each making a slight change to it - what you get from the last person bears little resemblance to the original information. This person can't be considered a witness or even a reliable source (through no fault of his own).



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

"We have shown time and time again how unconfirmed or clarified details are consistently misrepresented but when spoke with direct the witnesses unanimously support a north side approach."


I note that you are unable to answer my question concerning Roosevelt Roberts's employment, obviously not wanting to reveal to us that he worked for the Government. According to you, this renders Roberts's statements unacceptable as evidence.


We know that many believed the plane hit the building but until you clarify their actual POV and confirm their account direct you have NO IDEA what they really "saw".


Turn your volume up, Craig, and listen to this recording of AA11 flying over a news team with video and audio recording. Listen to it carefully, Craig.



Did you notice how loud AA11 was before it hit?

Now tell us all right here if the sound was of AA11's jet engines was loud and noticeable or not. I know everyone else here who listens to it is going to want to know what you have to say.

Now, Craig, we know how low you have claimed your "flyover" jet would have to have been if it flew over the Pentagon, correct? You remember that I explained to you that it would have to be loud and noticeable and would not escape the attention of all those people around the Pentagon.

Now, Craig, tell everyone here at just what altitude AA11 was flying when it hit WTC 1?

Now, I know you don't like answering questions concerning your claims and evade doing so at every opportunity, but I am sure your remaining (few) "True Believers" here would want you to explain to them what it would be like to have that fanciful "flyover" jet of yours fly SO LOW over them.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   

posted by CameronFox
A Perfect Flyover Witness.....

In it she describes that she was walking down the A wing corridor, was slowed by some custodians in front of her, and was looking out the windows overlooking the courtyard. She was at the time opposite the Corridor 3 and 4 point at the courtyard. So at the time of impact, she was looking in the direction of the impact. She felt both the explosion and the secondary explosion. She saw the fireball come up from the other side of the building. She thought it was a truck bomb.


Perfect? We don't even know her name do we? Nobody can contact her and verify her account nor extract more details can we? She could easily be an actress reading a script couldn't she? But assuming she is a valid witness, let us check her account.

She states she was on the 2nd floor with two floors above her. Looking at a photo of the center courtyard from the west, there were a bunch of trees outside her windows. Was she behind that tall tree there in the courtyard next to her windows? There is a short area of the wall in the center with no windows.



Original image crop taken from

Ordinarily when a person is walking down an exterior corridor, they are not right next to the windows. She was walking south since her office was at E-Ring Corridor 7. She seems to have been following the slow maintenance guys for a while, so she was likely in the southern area of the A-Ring corridor. Therefore the explosion would have been slightly behind her if she was in the south side of the section. In fact she stated it was a "wide corridor" and the explosion "threw her against the wall". Since the fireball was apparently the explosion which threw her against the wall, perhaps she was not likely to see the aircraft flying slightly before the explosion, especially if there were trees blocking her view. Obviously she was not standing at the windows peering out was she?

If there was a flash/bang effect to the fireball which she claims she witnessed, then that image would have been frozen in her optic nerve for a number of seconds until the stunning effect wore off. Obviously she could not have seen anything flying over the courtyard if her optic nerve was stunned. It makes sense that the 9-11 Pentagon perpetrators would use a flash/band effect in their 'fireball' to increase the chances of their simulation succeeding and to limit the witnesses seeing something they shouldn't. The Mainstream News Media and you disinformation specialists could handle the rest.

And she claimed she was looking down at the people sunning themselves and not up at the sky before the fireball. And she was looking at the maintenance guys in front of her slowing her down, and the two officers crowding her from behind.

Not quite the perfect witness after all was she? Another member of the press corps who have proven beyond any doubt that they will lie and coverup for the corrupt politicians, and cannot be trusted, and she was attached to the Defense Dept which would make her account biased. At least she got the bomb part right didn't she?




[edit on 1/20/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Craig,
In the OP you take what the gentlemen says out of context to twist it to support your fantasy.
Internesting that you even promoting this because it seems to be from an anon source and I was under the impression that you dont support anon sources?



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Maybe that video was faked to discredit the CIT?



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The implications of this blatant flyover reference should be clear.








[edit on 20-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Where are the passengers then?
I know that you thrive on the internet with your beliefes but in the REAL WORLD extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!
Any realist will ask you, "so where are the passengers".
Let me give you another example.
I cant just run around the internet accusing my neighbor of being a child molester.
Well I guess I can if I dont want anything done about it.
I then need though to be able to prove to the authorities that he is in fact a child molester.
See Craig thankfully we live in a country where you are innocent until you are PROVEN GUILTY.
So far Craig I have to say that you have PROVEN NO ONE GUILTY.
I think it is time you took a break because your support seems to be dwindling just check out the number of non responses you get over at LCF.
I mean you have SPreston following you around from forum to forum for gods sakes!
That should tell you something

[edit on 20-1-2009 by 654321]

[edit on 20-1-2009 by 654321]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Great points SPreston.

If you listen to and read her accounts she describes herself as pre-occupied with all the people in the halls holding her up while she was in a hurry and then was thrown against the wall by the "shock wave" from the explosion!

IF and again that is a very big IF the flyover would have been visible from whatever window she was near at the time it would have been for a mere fraction of a second and there isn't a reason on earth to suggest she would have seen it while she was being pushed against the wall from the explosion!

But we do know who she is.

Lisa Burgess.

Here is an article that references her account that she even helped write for Stars and Stripes on 9/12/2001:



"I heard two loud booms — one large, one smaller, and the shock wave threw me against the wall," she said.

www.stripes.com...


Bottom line she is a non-witness.

The fact that she did not see anything proves nothing.

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

And these guys like to position themselves as critical thinkers.


The notion that this person who was inside the Pentagon and didn't see the plane at all remotely refutes the 13 north side witnesses is laughable.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

Perfect? We don't even know her name do we?


Well, ask your CIT buddies... she is very well known. Craig knows who she is.





Nobody can contact her and verify her account nor extract more details can we? She could easily be an actress reading a script couldn't she? But assuming she is a valid witness, let us check her account.


She is legit.

Think SPreston...she saw the fireball come over the building... not any flash. The building was blocking it. She was in a position to see the plane SPreston. She did NOT.

A perfect position to see the flyover....yet she didn't. Why?

There wasn't one.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT



Bottom line she is a non-witness.






A non witness to a flyover...yet in a perfect position to see it. We agree.

I'm wondering how many more nails we can fit on the Flyover coffin.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Absence of evidence is not evidence.

How could someone who claims they were inside the Pentagon and the shock wave from the explosion threw her against the wall be in a "perfect" position to see a flyover?

Especially when you have no idea exactly where the flyover would have flown or even what window she was near.

It's a ridiculous assertion and you know it.

There is nothing stopping you from obtaining and providing independent evidence to refute the north side witnesses but this is certainly NOT it.

We have always said the north side evidence is completely falsifiable.

You simply need to provide first-hand accounts of the south side flight path from a minimum of 14 witnesses with an equal to or greater than perspective of the flight path compared to the 13 north side witnesses presented.

It's that simple and if you settle for less you expose your confirmation bias.

So far you have zero so you've got a lot of work to do to reach 14.









[edit on 20-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 654321
 


I too wonder where the passengers are, and I don't have the answer.

But does this mean nobody can question events that occurred?

Do you think people want to be digging around for the sake of it? I happen not to think so. The reason so many people are questioning events surrounding the 11th of September 2001, is because the events are questionable. Nothing is as yet conclusive.

Read some of the statements by experienced pilots who said that the flightpath and speeds on the way to the Pentagon are virtually impossible for even the most highly experienced and capable pilots, let alone a barely qualified light aircraft "pilot". This is very strange - I don't know what the answer is, but I find it very strange.

As far as the aircraft noise you were derisively explaining in your post; it's really not an adequate refutation of the fly-by hypothesis. If there was a fly-by and landing at Ronald Reagan, the aircraft would have required an aggressive pull-up and throttle-back to make the landing (if it is at all possible - I am not familiar with the exact approach). In doing so, the aircraft would have been very quiet in the fly-by as it passed the Pentagon, because wind noise drops off as the square of airspeed reduction, and the engines at idle emit very little sound.

Another questionable point; I cannot for the life of me see a large commercial airliner in the security video. Wouldn't it stand out like dogs b@lls?

These are just examples of how a bit of thought can be used to highlight the plausibility of what is being said. I don't agree/disagree with what is being said, but I DO find the event questionable. And I haven't heard any conclusive explanations by either side of the argument.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Absence of evidence is not evidence.


If you keep repeating yourself.... does that make it come true Craig?

Do you think the shock wave would have reached her prior to the plane flying over the Pentagon?

No.

She was looking in the direction of where the plane hit the Pentagon. She saw the fireball. Therefore, she would have seen the plane. You know it, that's why once again you are forced into damage control. You're running out of excuses Craig.




Especially when you have no idea exactly where the flyover would have flown or even what window she was near.


Going by what you and PFT claim...she was in fact in a position where she would have noticed a large plane flying over.


It's a ridiculous assertion and you know it.


The flyover/around theory? Yes is is ridiculous.


There is nothing stopping you from ...... blah..blah..more words.....


What is stopping me is common sense Craig. I would not waste my time and money trying to prove something that I already know as factual.

But hey, keep spending your money on airfare and hotel rooms. The economy needs as much help as it can get!

(blue chips where way down today)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join