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.

 

New Pentagon Video Detailing Actual Flight Path Over Naval Annex

page: 10
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by Reheat
BTW, Mr. CIT, all of the North of Citgo witness are proven wrong via aerodynamics because you continue to use Morin as a "Professional Aviator" witness who is obviously a reliable witness.

So, Reheat, you agree with Morin, who is obviously a reliable witness, when he stated that the plane he saw was over the Naval Annex and North of Columbia Pike?




posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Oops I forgot this

www.abovetopsecret.com...

that's the thread where swampfox claims that the outer wall of the pentagon was not as structurally sound as some would think...in any case, I asked him to verify and he is going to go through the book again to be certain.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Well, I can believe that you are ignorant of aerodynamic physics simply because of the other witness leading up to that point make it impossible.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Do you remember who it was that said witnesses don't need to be "mathematically correct"?

Who was that?

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Reheat]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Has anyone else noticed that all of the ANC witnesses point to the South Flight Path? I don't wonder if that is just a coincidence as they all admitted to running for cover and obviously didn't see the aircraft for more than a second or two. I guess they ran for cover just like Ranke says Sean Boger dove for cover as he said he watch the aircraft enter the building. Hmmmmmm......



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

You keep switching flight paths, so who knows. I guess now that you admit the North of Citgo flight path has been proven wrong you've switched it to "Over the Naval Annex".

Reheat, this is the part that you might not understand.

The official government story has to stick to only one flight path. There is no room for error. None. It must fly the official path. There is no deviation from this - the government story is locked in place.

Craig, however, through investigation and research has the opportunity to refine the approximate flight path based on witness testimony. Craig is not locked into providing any particular flight path, unlike the official story.

Craig, indeed anyone for that matter, only needs to show that the official story flight path is wrong.

Whether the actual flight path was NOC, ONA or both, doesn't really matter. What matters is that there are identifiable witnesses, recorded on location, who state that they saw the plane on a different flight path to the official story.

Reheat, please show us all of the identifiable witnesses that have been recorded on location, who state that they saw the official government SOC flight path.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
You're misquoting Morin again. He still says the aircraft was over him and the outer edge of the Annex. That makes it pretty close to Columbia Pike, doesn't it? Why do all of your graphics show the flight path NORTH of his position and over the middle of the Naval Annex?

Don't forget that during the first Edward Paik interview, Edward put the body of the plane over the middle of Colombia Pike and the right wing over the VDOT building.

The hand drawn flight paths produced months later do not match his previous testimony.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Do you remember who it was that said witnesses don't need to be "mathematically correct"?



I said that because it's true.

No witness should be accepted as mathematically accurate nor will they be correct about all details.

It's the GENERAL details that can be independently corroborated that are proven accurate.

We should expect a reasonable margin of error when it comes to SPECIFIC details like exact heading, exact speed, and exact location down to the foot.

That's why we only rely on them to report on the general location in relation to the ground they are standing .

GENERAL details like whether or not it was on the north or south of the citgo to people at the citgo and whether or not it was north or south of Columbia Pike to people on Columbia Pike.

It's common sense and basic logic.

Paik and Morin were in the PERFECT place to judge where the plane was in relation to Columbia Pike and the Navy Annex and they both unequivocally say it crossed to the north side of the street, directly over the building.

This alone proves the plane did not hit but the Citgo witnesses and Roosevelt Roberts remove any notion of a reasonable doubt that may be left to honest skeptics.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
Don't forget that during the first Edward Paik interview, Edward put the body of the plane over the middle of Colombia Pike and the right wing over the VDOT building.

The hand drawn flight paths produced months later do not match his previous testimony.


In addition, his suspicion that the aircraft may have struck the VDOT antenna indicates where he thought it flew, straight down Columbia Pike. I'm not surprised his statements didn't match. Whose would with all of the babble being whispered into his ear?



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
In addition, his suspicion that the aircraft may have struck the VDOT antenna indicates where he thought it flew, straight down Columbia Pike. I'm not surprised his statements didn't match. Whose would with all of the babble being whispered into his ear?

The original four accounts are highly problematic - William Lagasse has changed so many elements of his story over time it is no longer funny. Chadwick Brooks has changed his story regarding witnessing light poles being knocked over, and his hand drawn flight path does not even closely match his verbal testimony that puts the plane over the Citgo gas station. Robert Turcios is not shown on the Citgo video where he claims he was. Edward Paik's verbal testimony supports the accepted chain of events, but his hand drawn flight paths are slightly different.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by discombobulator]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Paik and Morin were in the PERFECT place to judge where the plane was in relation to Columbia Pike and the Navy Annex and they both unequivocally say it crossed to the north side of the street, directly over the building.


Not quite. They only need to be off a little in order for everything to fall into place. You just said they don't need to be "mathmatically correct", but now you're apparently changing your mind again.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
This alone proves the plane did not hit but the Citgo witnesses and Roosevelt Roberts remove any notion of a reasonable doubt that may be left to honest skeptics.


No, they don't. A witness only provides witness testimony when presented in a Courtroom. Witness testimony proves nothing without corroborating physical evidence. Where's your physical evidence? What Roosevelt Roberts says is a confusing joke.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by discombobulator
 


So all the witnesses are wildly and drastically mistaken in the exact same way because "discombobulator" deems them "problematic".

And of course all the ANC guys and Roosevelt Roberts were all hallucinating the same thing as well right?

Your desperate attempt to discredit scores of witnesses who were really there because they don't support your govt fantasy speaks volumes.

Honest logical skeptics won't buy it.

But thanks for showing up to keep the thread active!



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
The original four accounts are highly problematic - William Lagasse has changed so many elements of his story over time it is no longer funny. Chadwick Brooks has changed his story regarding witnessing light poles being knocked over, and his hand drawn flight path does not even closely match his verbal testimony that puts the plane over the Citgo gas station. Robert Turcios is not shown on the Citgo video where he claims he was. Edward Paik's verbal testimony supports the accepted chain of events, but his hand drawn flight paths are slightly different.


Correct. That's why only members of the CIT cult buy the fraud. There are more holes in it than they pretend exists with the "Official Story". They can spout this stuff all over the Internet with impunity, but no one of reasonable intelligence or critical thinking skills is going to formally give it the time of day.

In fact, I've wasted too much time on it already.

Every part of the flying portion of their crap has been proven wrong in several different ways. The final flight path is indirectly proven correct by the fact that the C-130 followed directly behind AA 77.

They can spout all over the Internet that Government supplied data is fraudulent until they get into any Courtroom in the world (except perhaps Iran). The civilian supplied data to include the Tribby Video and the Looney Photographs prove them wrong, as well.

We haven't even gotten to the physical evidence in the Pentagon and the hundreds of witnesses available to provide direct testimony of what they saw and did. This entire fraud is going nowhere except on a few Internet CT sites.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So all the witnesses are wildly and drastically mistaken in the exact same way because "discombobulator" deems them "problematic".

No, you didn't read what I said. I find your witnesses problematic because they keep changing their stories.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
And of course all the ANC guys and Roosevelt Roberts were all hallucinating the same thing as well right?

Did the ANC guys see the "flyway" plane over Lane 1 of the south parking lot?


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Your desperate attempt to discredit scores of witnesses who were really there because they don't support your govt fantasy speaks volumes.

The current entry under Desperate Attempts To Discredit Witnesses is what you pulled on Joel Sucherman.


[edit on 29-6-2009 by discombobulator]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
By the way Craig, can I ask how many of your witnesses have accepted the invitation to attend your July 11 seminar in Arlington and give their testimony in person?

Any of them?



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by discombobulator
 


Nobody has EVER "changed their story" about the north side claim and several ANC employees are on record placing the plane in the same place to the CMH.

That is the ONLY detail that matters because it is the ONLY thing that proves Roosevelt Roberts and the witnesses Erik Dihle referenced correct about seeing the plane fly away.

There is so much independent evidence for this it's ridiculous.

Anyone who views the presentation will see this perfectly.

Keep it bumped!



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
By the way Craig, can I ask how many of your witnesses have accepted the invitation to attend your July 11 seminar in Arlington and give their testimony in person?

Any of them?


I sent the DVD for National Security Alert and an invitation to the conference to all of them.

Sorry but I didn't require an RSVP.

ETA: Yes I invited Lloyde and Sucherman.



[edit on 29-6-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Keep it bumped!

Good observation, Craig.

It's obvious that they feel this is an important enough topic to keep on bumping it, giving it maximum exposure at the top of the forum.

I'm still waiting to read how Reheat defines over the Naval Annex to mean something other than over the Naval Annex.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

Erik Dihle?

This is the guy who passed on hearsay that the Pentagon was bombed and the plane flew away? The nameless witnesses? The ones you haven't spoken to?

Let me ask you something... How do you think you could have interviewed so many people without a single person saying anything other than they believe the plane hit the building, yet this Erik guy has a treasure trove of multiple unnamed witnesses, none of whom are on the record, who all managed to see something (presumably a bomb dropping into the Pentagon and the plane flying away) that not a single other person in the area saw?

Was it a sophisticated military deception that fooled everyone like you claim it did, or did it only fool those with verifiable names and testimonies?



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by discombobulator
 


Nobody has EVER "changed their story" about the north side claim and several ANC employees are on record placing the plane in the same place to the CMH.


Well now, that's dandy. When Steve O'Brien steps up and states where he flew they will all be disqualified and back to digging graves again.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
That is the ONLY detail that matters because it is the ONLY thing that proves Roosevelt Roberts and the witnesses Erik Dihle referenced correct about seeing the plane fly away.


My, my, my. Whatcha gonna do when the people you've disqualified get their say? Whatcha gonna do when all of the hundreds of people who worked on fighting the fire and cleaned up the Pentgon afterward testify about what they saw and did?


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
it's ridiculous.


I agree.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Anyone who views the presentation will see this perfectly.


Without you present to spin, I don't think so.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join