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: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   

posted by 911files
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Thanks for the laugh Craig. Stop by AAL77.COM and after spending a month or so with the evidence (and actually understand it), then come back and tell me how I have "no evidence".



Gee Farmer. How long will it be before you delete all these files in a hissy fit?

Fact is there are 20+ real living eyewitnesses placing the real aircraft Over the Naval Annex rendering YOUR 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY impossible and you cannot stand it.



[edit on 1/28/09 by SPreston]




posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 


It´s AMAZING!!!
If there are witnesses that saw the plane crash against the Pentagon, they were tricked as if watching a “magic number” in Vegas!! Therefore, what they report is false. They are simple victims of the conspiracy.

If we have data from a recorder that was supposed to be on AA77 that says the plane was too high to hit the Pentagon, then that data is TRUE, is CORRECT. The Flight Data Recorder is legitimate and it proves that there was a “flyover”. (How that same recorder is discovered in the wreckage of the Pentagon beats me, since the plane is supposed to have flown away!!!) And thus we have the OBVIOUS “plane swap” as proposed in Operation Northwoods, that has by now become an obligated reference. (Doesn´t matter that this operation, like probably a few others was never carried out, it was rejected, and the man who came up with the idea was fired.)

But if we have firemen who “surrendered” the FDR to the authorities, this incident by some unexplained phenomenon was undetected, overlooked, by the conspirators. Amazing isn´t it???



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


First off:
I am surprised you are still hung up on this notion that the debris is not from an airplane or from a 757 or from Flight77. There is plenty of evidence of the landing gear, engines, parts of aircraft, etc inside to prove there was a 757 impact. Not to mention the witness accounts of watching the plane go into the building.
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

I don't think a coroner investigating a body that was just shot to death by four bullets to the chest and one to the head with 10 witnesses who can confirm it, will go and test for diseases/stab wounds/chemicals/toxins instead as potential killers, rather than confirming it was the bullets that killed the victim.

Second. You really think that the wings should have survived in one piece on impact with the Pentagon? Really? Tezz, basic physics would explain why you are wrong. This picture gives us a good idea of what happened to the wings when they made contact with the walls of the Pentagon at speeds over 400mph:

So tezz, where did the plane go in the photo above?
Then ask yourself, what is the size of the wing in comparison to the F-4 Phantom jet. (lets not forget the jet in the picture above had solid engine parts as well and they were obliterated in the collision).



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


You mean the same 13 who all confirm the plane smacked into the building as well? Right.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Thanks for the laugh Craig. Stop by AAL77.COM and after spending a month or so with the evidence (and actually understand it), then come back and tell me how I have "no evidence".



I said you provide no independent verifiable evidence.

Get it right.

No true skeptic would accept unverifiable data that has been sequestered, controlled, and provided for solely by the government as valid evidence and that is ALL you currently provide.

To accept any of that as valid support for the government story would be illogical and completely contradictory to all of the principles of true skepticism and critical thinking.

Not to mention extremely contradictory behavior for you personally since you have proclaimed that you caught the government "lying through their teeth" and that you fully believe they have "doctored" other evidence in the past.

To honest logical people this would establish a precedent that could not be ignored. For some reason as an alleged retired detective you seem to be strangely unfamiliar with that word and the implications under this context.

You've only provided one original witness interview that I know of and you removed it from the web when you deleted your website 911files.com that contained all your articles and everything you have personally published regarding 9/11.

Like Pickering you completely obliterated all of your extensive articles and research!

Just think about that!

Sorry but no honest researcher or truth fighter would EVER do such a thing.

Certainly not one who believed he was right!

But that is exactly what you did and you did it in a swirl of obscenities while proclaiming the truth movement is "worse" than the government.

We've predicted your every move and have refused your numerous attempts to get us to take your bait. Now you've been reduced to furiously attacking us personally and obfuscating the evidence on internet forums literally on a daily basis.

But the cat's out of the bag. There is nothing you can do to stop it. The north side evidence will only grow from here with or without CIT because this is where the plane really flew. Now people understand the serious implications of this detail when it was supposed to remain ignored or seem like an irrelevant minor detail.

That is one thing we have permanently changed even if we quit today.

But we aren't quitting. CIT is barely getting started.

You can bet we will NEVER obliterate all of our research and website and attention to this evidence is only going to grow.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

So tezz, where did the plane go in the photo above?


You are TOO much with these old debunked irrelevant off-topic arguments.

The notion that you would compare a 2 seat fighter slamming into a solid concrete nuclear reactor wall about 10 feet thick to a 90 ton Boeing allegedly hitting 2 feet of limestone, brick, and concrete is downright silly.



Give it up.

The damage you pointed out from days after the collapse simply did not exist immediately after the attack and was therefore not caused by a plane.




[edit on 28-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by tezzajw
 


This picture gives us a good idea of what happened to the wings when they made contact with the walls of the Pentagon at speeds over 400mph:



How fast can a Boeing 757 go at low altitude? Can it go 400mph at a low altitude?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Gee Farmer. How long will it be before you delete all these files in a hissy fit?


You might want to make a donation to the site if this really concerns you Preston. The only site I deleted was 911files because I was tired of dealing with the security issues. Now I just post my commentary at JREF. No hosting fees and no security hassles. But the expense of keeping up the site may or may not be in next years budget, so you might want to download the materials for yourself. Or, if you wish to pay the duplication and shipping expenses, I'll be happy to copy all of the original materials for you.


Originally posted by SPreston
Fact is there are 20+ real living eyewitnesses placing the real aircraft Over the Naval Annex rendering YOUR 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY impossible and you cannot stand it.
[edit on 1/28/09 by SPreston]


Oh, you mean those witnesses who saw the plane fly over the Annex and hit the Pentagon? The witnesses at the southeast corner of the Pentagon lots told CNN they saw a helicopter fly around to the west side, but somehow managed to miss a huge 757 fly over it. Eyewitnesses in the Courtyard saw no plane. I am open to the fly-over hypothesis if any verifiable evidence materializes to support it. To-date, I have seen none.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by 911files]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
I am open to the fly-over hypothesis if any verifiable evidence materializes to support it. To-date, I have seen none.



I can't believe you can bring yourself to type these words.

This is opposite everything you have ever said before you deleted your website.

As if it completely escapes you that only months ago you used our findings in Mark Gaffney's new published and distributed book focusing on the same north side evidence as perfectly valid as a means to float the notion of a 2 plane disinfo theory involving a north side flyover of the E4B!

I'm sorry but when you deleted your website with all your articles you did not delete your brain and everything you have maintained (much has been archived). You certainly can't delete what you published in Gaffney's book that's for sure.

You had stated over and over for almost 2 years prior (do I really need to pull out all the quotes?) that you accept the north side evidence as valid and you know perfectly well that this proves a flyover.

There is no new developments that could have legitimately caused you to change your mind because you already had to concede that the RADES data was altered to even assert your E4B north side flyover theory in Gaffney's book to begin with.

Indeed he told me that this was why he wanted to include it. As evidence that the RADES data had been manipulated. Obviously you knew this too.

Of course to any logical person that would set a precedent that you agreed had already been set by the manipulated security video and NTSB data.

There's that important word again.

The fact is you have provided nothing to counter the north side evidence other than government controlled data that you have admitted in the past had been manipulated.

As I tell everyone...the evidence we present is completely falsifiable.

Stick to critical thinking principles and provide 14 independent first-hand definitive south side accounts from people with equal to or better vantage points than the 13 north side witnesses.

It's that simple.

To accept anything less would expose a confirmation bias.

What's strange about you is that you said you were convinced of a north side flyover with even just the 3 citgo witnesses yet you STILL proceeded to personally attack us with all the furious might you could muster.

But now that it's been even FURTHER confirmed by 13 witnesses you have chosen to all of the sudden completely dismiss it all and actually step up your attacks against us.

It makes no sense.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
As if it completely escapes you that only months ago you used our findings in Mark Gaffney's new published and distributed book focusing on the same north side evidence as perfectly valid as a means to float the notion of a 2 plane disinfo theory involving a north side flyover of the E4B!


Two points Craig. First, that paper was written BEFORE you ever heard of the ANC eyewitnesses. As a matter of fact, you called the CMH interviews unreliable and disinfo because they came from the government. For you to now say I used OUR FINDINGS is bogus and flat out inaccurate. Quite the contrary, you have made quite a name for yourself distorting those same interviews to your advantage since I obtained them and made them public.

Second. The original paper (later an appendix to Gaffney's book), simply presented the case that there is evidence of something else in the air near the Pentagon and DC area at the time of the attack. Now whether it is adequate evidence remains to be seen. There has been a lot of additional data released since that book went to press. However, I am convinced that AAL77 did indeed impact the Pentagon based on the available evidence. So that begs the question, what is the explanation for the other anomalous data and eyewitness accounts? At this point, I don't know.

You have made a career of calling people liars or government agents if they disagree with YOUR interpertation of the eyewitness accounts. I have made NO effort to attack CIT, but I will continue to defend myself against your malicious attacks and accusations (to some degree). It is just a matter that I understand the tendency of eyewitnesses to judge distances a lot closer than they really were on recall. It is normal, and when the effect is taken into consideration, your 13 "north-of-the-Citgo" eyewitnesses drops to around 2 who are worthy of serious consideration, Lagasse and Brooks. However, in the end, they too may well be mistaken, just as Lagasse was about where the poles where hit and his pump location.

So nice try Craig.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Two points Craig. First, that paper was written BEFORE you ever heard of the ANC eyewitnesses.


I never said that it wasn't.

Very correct it was written before their accounts were confirmed and you STILL accepted their anonymous unconfirmed transcripts as validation of the citgo witnesses and a north side flyover!

You first published it just after we announced Roosevelt Roberts Jr, the first known flyover witness, and you initially included his account as well.

But exactly as we publicly predicted you would do....you used the information to assert a 2-plane disinfo theory involving a north side flyover of the E4B with a simultaneous impact of "Flight 77".

Obviously this assertion requires you to accept the north side evidence as valid.



As a matter of fact, you called the CMH interviews unreliable and disinfo because they came from the government.


Really?

Quote me.

You are lying about my claim. I said that we should remain skeptical until they are confirmed. That is a HUGE difference.




For you to now say I used OUR FINDINGS is bogus and flat out inaccurate. Quite the contrary, you have made quite a name for yourself distorting those same interviews to your advantage since I obtained them and made them public.


Actually a large percentage of your article is focused on the citgo witnesses and you fully credited Citizen Investigation Team for it. I can't imagine why you would deny that now as if the ANC witnesses are all you used as evidence for a north side flyover. It makes you look really silly and dishonest. These are your words as printed in Gaffney's book:



An Italian researcher (who wishes to remain off the record) alerted me to the work of a group called the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT). CIT had gone to the area and interviewed a number of individuals.....

pg 293
The 9/11 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America


You went on to discuss Brooks and Lagasse in extreme detail.

Indeed a north side flyover was the entire focus of your article!

So even though you are the one who asserted the anonymous unconfirmed ANC witness accounts corroborated the citgo witnesses about a north side flyover, you are actually accusing me of "distorting" their accounts when all I did was confirm what you already asserted about them in Gaffney's book!

How does that make sense?

You believed them when they were anonymous but chose to attack me for merely confirming what you already believed and asserted in a published book.

But even worse, you found out they were confirmed before the book went to print and kept this fact hidden proving you lied about the evidence.

You did this because their confirmed accounts supported a north side approach of ONE plane therefore effectively destroying your 2-plane E4B north side flyover disinfo theory.

So you chose to simply stay quiet about it until the book came out with what you knew to be false information.

But instead of conceding all of this you chose to completely change your position all together, delete your site, and step up the attacks against CIT.




Second. The original paper (later an appendix to Gaffney's book), simply presented the case that there is evidence of something else in the air near the Pentagon and DC area at the time of the attack. Now whether it is adequate evidence remains to be seen.


No matter how wishy-washy you choose to be now you have been VERY definite about 2 things in the past....

1. That a precedent has been set for evidence manipulation by the government.

2. That the north side evidence is valid.

The fact that you have continuously attacked us and gotten worse and worse with it as we get more and more validation for evidence you already accepted as valid is the strange part.




You have made a career of calling people liars or government agents if they disagree with YOUR interpertation of the eyewitness accounts. I have made NO effort to attack CIT, but I will continue to defend myself against your malicious attacks and accusations (to some degree).


Nonsense. We have only spent thousands of dollars in our self-funded quest for independent verifiable evidence to find the truth so this is no "career". We have never cared about other people's research or attacked anyone unprovoked. We defend ourselves strongly but that's it. You have made your name on attacking us and obsessing over our every move. You picked up where Pickering left off. You admittedly first appeared on the 9/11 research scene right around when The PentaCon was first released. You are really only known for consistently and aggressively attacking us and working as a conduit for government data in response to the independent evidence we put out.






It is just a matter that I understand the tendency of eyewitnesses to judge distances a lot closer than they really were on recall. It is normal, and when the effect is taken into consideration, your 13 "north-of-the-Citgo" eyewitnesses drops to around 2 who are worthy of serious consideration, Lagasse and Brooks. However, in the end, they too may well be mistaken, just as Lagasse was about where the poles where hit and his pump location.



They have completely opposite perspectives.

If Lagasse and Brooks are right than the ANC witnesses are right because THEY ALL MATCH.

You have said many times that they HAVE to be right and could not have been mistaken so bad.

You said:


I never denied the possibility of a plane to the north of the Citgo. Quite the contrary, I have always maintained that after my critical review of their accounts, there were things that only made sense if they did see something to the north (such as Lagasse’s yaw change).



In regard to Lagasse seeing the plane on the north side


Oh he had to. He had to. If he saw the plane, which I believe he did, he had to see it on the north side because from where he was at there was no way he could see it on the southern path.


You said it on numerous other occasions and clearly had no problems asserting it in a late 2008 published book.

They prove the ANC witnesses extremely accurate and completely remove all perspective error questions.

Plus Middleton had an entirely different perspective and he wouldn't have seen it on the official path at all due to the Navy Annex being in the way!

There is no way you can spin William Middleton to be a south side account and as you know he confirmed this in extreme detail to CMH in 2001 too.

The fact is that you already accepted the north side accounts as valid many many times over.

But the more validation that came in the more you backed off the evidence and stepped up your attacks against us.

That is not logical behavior.











[edit on 29-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
id est: The Center for Military History Arlington Cemetery Eyewitness interviews


posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You believed them when they were anonymous but chose to attack me for merely confirming what you already believed and asserted in a published book.

But even worse, you found out they were confirmed before the book went to print and kept this fact hidden proving you lied about the evidence.

You did this because their confirmed accounts supported a north side approach of ONE plane therefore effectively destroying your 2-plane E4B north side flyover disinfo theory.

So you chose to simply stay quiet about it until the book came out with what you knew to be false information.

But instead of conceding all of this you chose to completely change your position all together, delete your site, and step up the attacks against CIT.



Gee Farmer; what is with you? Huh?



Why all the subterfuge? Why the deleting of your previous information along with all the lies? Why would I wish to donate to your propaganda campaign?




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doomsday 2029
How fast can a Boeing 757 go at low altitude? Can it go 400mph at a low altitude?


Yes. I asked a long-time FED-EX pilot (MD-10s and MD-11s) friend of mine about the low-speed capabilities of a large airliner such as the 757. This is the money quote:



In answer to your question...............a 757, or a 767, or an MD-11 can easily do 450 KIAS at low altitude at least once and maybe many times before it would show signs of damage and could do well beyond that if it were meant to be total destruction.


Those engines are pretty powerful and can push that aircraft to some pretty impressive speeds at low altitude.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 


Why did you ask a pilot an engineering question? Maybe he was a test pilot that has flown a 757 at sea level 460+ knots?? Why not call Boeing and ask somebody there?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
I'll see pinch's FEX "MD-11 friend" and raise him numerous, actual 757 pilots from United and American who use their real name on Pilots For 9/11 Truth Roster, who say its highly unikely a 757 can achieve such speeds.

I'll continue that raise with Boeing, the manufacturer, who places limitations on such speeds for purpose, such as control flutter, controllability issues, (center of pressure vs. CG, "run out of elevator", etc), critical wing factors, Mcrit numbers... and so on.

It appears all pinch has is hearsay from an imaginary "close friend of the family" in which pinch didnt even know the type aircraft this supposed "close family friend" flew... when Pilots For 9/11 Truth have real, verifiable, professionals who have time in actual type.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by RockHound757]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


No sir, apparently you ignored or overlooked to what I was referring to with the F-4 Phantom picture. It was in reference to Tezz's assumption of the wings should have stayed in one piece after impact. Considering the size of the wings and the speed at which they impacted the Pentagon, the photo is a valid comparison. Be a little more careful Craig. Be sure you understand in what reference something is being said and to whom. I would also suggest to those that starred your response to take notice as well.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
No sir, apparently you ignored or overlooked to what I was referring to with the F-4 Phantom picture.

Completely, utterly off topic. In case you're not up with the current debate, GenRadek, the alleged plane that was alleged to have hit the Pentagon, according to the official story, was NOT a F-4 Phantom.



It was in reference to Tezz's assumption of the wings should have stayed in one piece after impact.

It seems like I have to play the same 'quote me' game with you that I do with other people who like to fabricate quotes. PLEASE show me where I assumed that the wings should have stayed in one piece??? QUOTE ME!

You try to deny the premise of the thread by stating that there were 'wing impressions' at the Pentagon but you can't supply ANY EVIDENCE of any wing wreckage that can be matched by serial part numbers to the alleged Flight AA77.

Keep up with the thread, GenRadek. It's not moving that fast to follow.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Why did you ask a pilot an engineering question? Maybe he was a test pilot that has flown a 757 at sea level 460+ knots?? Why not call Boeing and ask somebody there?


What you *meant* to post is "Why did I ask a pilot of a large airliner how fast it could fly in the low altitude regime if all restrictions and limitations are ignored?"

Right?

[edit on 30-1-2009 by pinch]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Tezz, this is what you said:


Well, you would think that if they found alleged wing imprints, they would have also been able to find the WINGS?!? You can't have 'imprints' without the wings that caused them, right?


So, you are saying they should have found the wings correct? And I showed you why this would be very very hard to do so using the F-4 Phantom into wall as a visualization of what happened to the wings on impact. They were obliterated. Into small tiny pieces. What is wrong with showing you an example visually?
Your obsession with the serial numbers is clouding your vision. Do you expect that every single shredded remains of the plane should be stamped with the serial numbers? If you could maybe supply us with other well known instances of airplane crashes where the Feds have checked all the serial number parts of the aircraft that crashed and made sure that it was the plane in question. This little game is getting a little old Tezz.

plus, the burden lays with you on trying to explain how it couldnt have been an AA Flight77 757 that crashed. You'd think that all the debris inside the Pentagon matches with a 757 and the DNA from the victims on board would be enough to prove you that it was what it was. Flight 77. I'd like to see a better explanation of how it was secretly planted in plain site.

[edit on 1/30/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Also tezz, there is one photo of a serial number, but I know you will ignore it and say it planted or something else.

You asked for a serial number you have one.

[edit on 1/30/2009 by GenRadek]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join