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: 13
23
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Reheat

Did that NCOIC know WHAT your were doing?


How could he not know?

Why else would he address the letter to Citizen Investigation Team and Craig?


First of all you are a proven liar. Second, we know based on Pickering's statements that you were representing yourself as attempting to disprove the missile theory for what hit he Pentagon.

You capitalize on the fact that every one of us here know what you're doing, but those you've interviewed and spoken with don't.

The letter you have from that NCOIC (with the blanked out name) is vague and in no way specific about "what you are doing".

I suspect (but, can not prove) that you are grossly misrepresenting what that supposed letter of encourage really refers to. It wouldn't be the first time you've misrepresented what people have said and I'm sure it won't be the last.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Yes it's clear you are rather riled up over the fact that a 9/11 hero supports us and sent a handwritten letter of appreciation to us on patriotic stationery.


You're only half right. I am riled up that you are likely misrepresenting what the letter is referring to.

I have known and know a great many Senior NCO's in all branches our military and I don't know of even one who would write you a letter of encouragement about what you are doing and then "keep his mouth shut" about something suspicious such as "no aircraft impacted the building" or that stuff might have been planted or any other allegation of misconduct that you allege has occurred. I simply don't believe you.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Think about that Reheat. Think real hard.


I have and you end up on the losing end.




posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
New Pentagon Video Detailing Actual Flight Path Over Naval Annex



Getting back on-topic, does anybody think that our newest eyewitness BigSarge is NOT another eyewitness to the true decoy aircraft flight path Over the Naval Annex, from his position inside Arlington National Cemetery below and to the northeast of the Naval Annex?



Of course the make-believe official Flight 77 aircraft on its official south flight path would have been invisible to BigSarge behind the Naval Annex from BigSarge's vantage point. The trees along the fence line would have blocked further views of the official aircraft as it flew down the hill as claimed and low and level across the lawn. It is likely that same treeline would have blocked any view of the Pentagon 1st floor at the explosion point from BigSarge's vantage point.


post by BigSarge
From my view, I couldn't tell if the plane flew DIRECTLY over the Annex or not as there are trees at eye level that blocked my actual view of the Annex.





post by BigSarge
By "over the Naval Annex" you would have to understand my vantage point. No way for me to tell if it was DIRECTLY over the Annex, but certainly came from that general direction, which from my point of view was from right to left. Had it flown far to the left of the Annex, it would have been directly over me, which it was not. Had it been far to the right of the Annex, it would have been obscured from my view by trees.


Official south flight path would have been obstructed by trees and the Naval Annex itself


It seems we can rest assured that BigSarge is another Over the Naval Annex eyewitness. And we all know for a fact that flying Over the Naval Annex renders the official south flight path through the light poles at 530 mph (780 fps) impossible don't we?

So come forward to the conference and identify yourself and give video testimony to what you witnessed BigSarge. Maybe you could contact your 14 fellows in the Delta Company unit and have them come forward also. I am sure that you are a patriot, and would like to help ensure justice for the 3000 victims of the 9-11 perps if you can do so.

IF 9-11 was an INSIDE JOB, then those who carried 9-11 out are traitors, and you know what we do with traitors. You honored patriots with your duties at Arlington National Cemetery, and traitors dishonor those fine people buried with dignity at Arlington.


post by BigSarge

In fact, based on some of Craig's posts the plane PROBABLY WAS north of the Annex. but again, from my vantage point, you could not see the actual Annex so it is hard to know for sure. But driving past it on my way home everyday I knew where it was, and that was the AREA that the plane came from.

The funny thing is, there were 15 Delta Company US Army Honor Guard Soldiers standing in that section that morning to conduct a funeral. If you interrogated all 15, you'd probably get 15 different sets of small details. We were all interviewed, on tape, individually by US Army Historians in the weeks/months following the event.


Incidentally, the interviews of BigSarge and his brothers from the US Army Delta Company, and many many others, are still censored by the Center for Military History. Only a few were released by FOIA lawsuit and even then their names and some details were redacted and not legible.

All of those ANC workers proving the actual flight Over the Naval Annex were interviewed by the CMH, and it is their interviews which were released by FOIA, and their testimonies have not changed since 2001. However they have given much more detail and added some crucial detais in their later video-interviews. CIT still managed to find them even without their names. BigSarge and his Delta brothers could also add many details with their recollections from ANC on the morning of 9-11-2001, and justice would be better served.



[edit on 6/30/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I love how there is a sudden influx of newly registered trolls keeping the thread bumped while arguing for Sucherman being a north side witness!


All "discombobulator" has done is confirm the north side approach.

This proves some people lied about the alleged impact.

Operation Mockingbird sets a very REAL precedent showing how mainstream media journalists are prime candidates to be involved with propaganda of this nature.

Let's review what discombobulator has allegedly accomplished:

1. He allegedly contacted Levi Stephens who did NOT retract or claim we misrepresented his placement of the plane on the north side.

North side approach: CONFIRMED

2. He allegedly contacted Sean Boger who did NOT retract or claim we misrepresented his placement of the plane on the north side.

North side approach: CONFIRMED

3. He allegedly contacted Joel Sucherman who says he was in a place on the highway making his account only reconcilable with a north side approach.

I'll admit we figured Sucherman was supporting the official story.

Thanks for correcting that!



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston


All of those ANC workers proving the actual flight Over the Naval Annex were interviewed by the CMH, and it is their interviews which were released by FOIA, and their testimonies have not changed since 2001. However they have given much more detail and added some crucial detais in their later video-interviews. CIT still managed to find them even without their names. BigSarge and his Delta brothers could also add many details with their recollections from ANC on the morning of 9-11-2001, and justice would be better served.




Precisely.

Great post SPreston.

We can only hope that he views the presentation and contacts us because he now understands the grave importance of what he witnessed.


Hopefully he comes back today to answer these simple questions:

BigSarge,

Did you see any other planes flying with the one you saw or another one soon after the explosion?

If you saw one after the explosion, please answer these:

1. How many seconds or minutes after the explosion did you see another plane?

2. What direction did the plane approach from?

3. What did the plane look like and how high was it?




[edit on 30-6-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

Sorry Craig, you don't get a second attempt to twist Sucherman's words to fit your fantasy flyover. You've already been caught red handed. You have zero credibility.

Sucherman's confirmed location on the Route 27 aligns his testimony with the "official" AA77 flight path.

And given the fact that he is an IMPACT WITNESS....

Official Flight Path Witness - CONFIRMED


Thanks Craig.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by discombobulator]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Sorry, Craig, I'm not going to be interrogated and questioned in that way. I will provide info that I have and continue trying not to speculate.

Just want to point out that my exact position in relation to where I was in the section would be comparable to about the 2 o'clock position in relation to the number 70 in that graphic of the cemetery. Probably 100 feet or so in that direction. My view of the Pentagon was better than my view of the Annex.

I watched the video, and while there are some valid points expressed in it, it still does not convince me at all. In fact, after watching some of the computer animations, the plane would have almost needed to be over top of my location to be very far to the north. And it was NOT over the cemetery at any point. I was very close to the border of ANC, and is was definitely not over me, not any part of it, not even a wing tip.

The funny thing about this debate, over what is really just a hundred feet or so left/right, is the size of the plane itself. Maybe you should superimpose a scale of the aircraft over some of these overlays to provide some depth. The plane is much wider than your flightpaths (obviously) and in some cases, the plane would overlap multiple flightpaths.

As far as other aircraft go, the next time I remember seeing or hearing any type of aircraft was when F16's or whatever type fighter jets they were buzzing overhead some time later. As soon as the explosion occured, my team was busy ushering the civilian family away from the gravesite. From there we headed down the hill and assisted those who were evacuating the Pentagon by jumping over the small stone fence that borders ANC so they could move to Ft. Myer for safety. We stayed there for maybe an hour before we were called back to base.

Based on your theory though, I have a question for you. How was whatever you think exploded into the Pentagon rigged in order to wrap and impale pieces of an American Airlines airplane into the structures wiring, pipes and concreate? I guess this is my own personal "smoking gun". I don't see how it would be possible, even if you wrapped this stuff around a large bomb, it would not be able to explode in the direction necessary to cause the damage that was there. For me, the only possible other explanation that would make any sense would be a 2nd AA plane hitting the building at that exact moment. But what sense would that make if you were going to try and pull off this conspiracy to do that? Why not just crash the actual plane you want people to think crashed? You needed all those people who boarded that plane that morning dead anyway.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT



I love how there is a sudden influx of newly registered trolls...


Really? "trolls"???

As opposed, to say, slobbering sycophants?


Precisely.

Great post SPreston.


And their 'Dear Leader' who basks in their idol worship?

OK....pass the Kool-Aid.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by BigSarge
 



....my exact position in relation to where I was in the section would be comparable to about the 2 o'clock position in relation to the number 70 in that graphic of the cemetery.


For Craig, that would mean: Look at the number '70', pretend you are looking down on a clock (or if horizontal clocks aren't your thing, imagine it's a sundial
) and put NOON at the top. "2 o'clock" would be about 60 degrees 'clockwise' from there....OK?

But, I fear that the position of the '70' on all the graphics will soon be moved anyways......



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

posted by BigSarge

Just want to point out that my exact position in relation to where I was in the section would be comparable to about the 2 o'clock position in relation to the number 70 in that graphic of the cemetery. Probably 100 feet or so in that direction. My view of the Pentagon was better than my view of the Annex.

I watched the video, and while there are some valid points expressed in it, it still does not convince me at all. In fact, after watching some of the computer animations, the plane would have almost needed to be over top of my location to be very far to the north. And it was NOT over the cemetery at any point. I was very close to the border of ANC, and is was definitely not over me, not any part of it, not even a wing tip.

The funny thing about this debate, over what is really just a hundred feet or so left/right, is the size of the plane itself. Maybe you should superimpose a scale of the aircraft over some of these overlays to provide some depth. The plane is much wider than your flightpaths (obviously) and in some cases, the plane would overlap multiple flightpaths.




BigSarge. Thank you for your honesty. Just several simple questions.

From your position at about the 2 o'clock position in relation to the number 70 in that graphic of the cemetery, could you see the Pentagon 1st floor near the alleged impact point?

If the answer is no, could you see the top story of the Pentagon near the alleged impact point? You might consider that what you could see of the aircraft was much too high too possibly hit the 1st floor and penetrate into the Pentagon interior as alleged. Could the explosion have drawn your eyes from the aircraft?

Could you see the lawn area out in front of the alleged impact point or the light poles and bridge at the Hwy 27 overpass?

If the answer is no, your account would dovetail quite well with the other ANC eyewitnesses who also were questioned by the CMH and placed the aircraft Over the Naval Annex and much too high to hit the light poles and Pentagon 1st floor and banking to the right.

Banking to the right


Banking to the right and Over the Naval Annex


Banking to the right and Over the Naval Annex



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge
Sorry, Craig, I'm not going to be interrogated and questioned in that way. I will provide info that I have and continue trying not to speculate.


In what "way"?

Politely and civilly? Because that is the only way I have addressed you. I have said I thought you were honest since the start. Everything you have said corroborates the other witnesses and proves the plane did not hit.



Just want to point out that my exact position in relation to where I was in the section would be comparable to about the 2 o'clock position in relation to the number 70 in that graphic of the cemetery. Probably 100 feet or so in that direction. My view of the Pentagon was better than my view of the Annex.


Ok.

Nowhere in that section is it possible to see the plane on the official flight path as required by the official data and physical damage.

The only way you would have witnessed it is if all of the witnesses in the presentation are correct about it being north of the gas station.



I watched the video, and while there are some valid points expressed in it, it still does not convince me at all.


Are you discounting the veracity of the north of the gas station approach as reported by the witnesses at the gas station and the Arlington Cemetery maintenance building?

You would not have seen the plane on the official flight path.



In fact, after watching some of the computer animations, the plane would have almost needed to be over top of my location to be very far to the north. And it was NOT over the cemetery at any point. I was very close to the border of ANC, and is was definitely not over me, not any part of it, not even a wing tip.


I'm not sure why you would say this because this is not what the animation shows nor is it what the witnesses reported.




Please watch it again.




The funny thing about this debate, over what is really just a hundred feet or so left/right, is the size of the plane itself. Maybe you should superimpose a scale of the aircraft over some of these overlays to provide some depth. The plane is much wider than your flightpaths (obviously) and in some cases, the plane would overlap multiple flightpaths.


That has certainly been done.

This image is to scale:


The reason this is such a big issue is because it is scientific proof the plane did not hit BigSarge.

The plane CAN NOT be where all the witnesses placed it and still hit the light poles and building. Furthermore, if it was where it needed to be you wouldn't have been able to see it at all.




As far as other aircraft go, the next time I remember seeing or hearing any type of aircraft was when F16's or whatever type fighter jets they were buzzing overhead some time later. As soon as the explosion occured, my team was busy ushering the civilian family away from the gravesite. From there we headed down the hill and assisted those who were evacuating the Pentagon by jumping over the small stone fence that borders ANC so they could move to Ft. Myer for safety. We stayed there for maybe an hour before we were called back to base.


Ok thanks.

There was a C-130 that showed up about 3 minutes later as confirmed by all those ANC workers in the presentation but there was a guy named Keith Wheelhouse who claims he was in the exact same section of ANC that you were located.

He claims he watched "AA77" approach for "60 seconds" but that there was a C-130 "shadowing" it up until it veered away over the cemetery at the last moment.



I'm sure you'll understand that this is quite impossible from your vantage point at the officially reported speed of 530 mph.

Especially when the top speed of a C-130 is 379 mph.

The Daily Press ran a series of articles about his account in the first few days after the event.

He is the ONLY person who talks of the C-130 as a "shadow" right alongside "AA77".

This did not happen BigSarge and I think you know this since you were in the exact same location where Keith Wheelhouse alleges he was located.

Tonight when you go home, watch the on camera interview of this extremely dubious and proven false account that serves as a perfect cover for the flyover here:

"The 2nd Plane Cover Story"

Google Video Link




Based on your theory though, I have a question for you. How was whatever you think exploded into the Pentagon rigged in order to wrap and impale pieces of an American Airlines airplane into the structures wiring, pipes and concreate? I guess this is my own personal "smoking gun". I don't see how it would be possible, even if you wrapped this stuff around a large bomb, it would not be able to explode in the direction necessary to cause the damage that was there. For me, the only possible other explanation that would make any sense would be a 2nd AA plane hitting the building at that exact moment. But what sense would that make if you were going to try and pull off this conspiracy to do that? Why not just crash the actual plane you want people to think crashed? You needed all those people who boarded that plane that morning dead anyway.



All I can say is we are talking about the Pentagon.

That exact section had been under "renovation" for years and was conveniently scheduled to be complete that week.

They have all the most advanced weaponry in the world. No matter how impossible it may seem to you and no matter how you may have been convinced of a plane impact during all the initial trauma, turmoil, and hysteria, this is impossible if you really saw the plane as you claim.

It's a scientific fact BigSarge.

The plane on the north side approach CAN NOT have caused the damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and building.

There is no way that you and all the witnesses we interviewed are simultaneously mistaken in the exact same way about the north side approach.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Apparently, you think no one notices what you are attempting to do.

Knock off the damned graphics and let the man tell his story without your "assistance".



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge

The funny thing about this debate, over what is really just a hundred feet or so left/right, is the size of the plane itself. Maybe you should superimpose a scale of the aircraft over some of these overlays to provide some depth. The plane is much wider than your flightpaths (obviously) and in some cases, the plane would overlap multiple flightpaths.


BigSarge,

The following images do have a scale 757 superimposed over an image. I think they will help you understand why this few hundred feet is so important. (Edit: the right edges seem to be getting cut off for some reason. See link below for full images.)









You refer to the orange lines as being Craig's flight paths. Please understand that they are not Craig's flight path's at all. They are the flight paths drawn by eyewitnesses such as yourself. It is where they say the plane flew. Craig didn't invent those flight paths; he reported what the witnesses told him.

Also, as you can see from the image above the plane would not need to be above you or the area in which you were located (not even the wing) in order to be consistent with most of the witness illustrations, or to be consistent with a hypothetical average of them.

Please see this FAQ question on CitizenInvestigationTeam.com.

FAQ: "Why does it matter which side of the gas station the plane flew on? Couldn’t the plane have flown on the north side of the gas station and still hit the light poles and building?"

It includes a much more detailed explanation of why this few hundred feet matters so much, and also more images with scaled 757's.

Finally, please understand that the small group of individuals in this thread who are despererately attempting to demonize or discredit Craig/CIT are putting on a show primarily for your benefit. Look carefully at what each side wants. These people are the ones who do NOT want you to tell your story in detail. They want you silenced; or rather, they want to manipulate you into silencing yourself. Craig (and myself and many others I presume) want you to tell your story, whatever it may be, in detail. Craig isn't trying to "interrogate" you, at least not in the sense of the word that has a negative connotation. He's trying to find out specifically what you saw that day in your own words. That's all.

I thank you for all of the details you have provided thus far.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Ligon]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

posted by Reheat
reply to post by SPreston
 


Apparently, you think no one notices what you are attempting to do.

Knock off the damned graphics and let the man tell his story without your "assistance".


Yes I know Reheat. I am trying to coax the truth out and you are trying to prevent the truth from coming out.

Do you think people cannot see your blatant attempts?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


By "way" I mean asking leading questions that get an answer from me that matches your theory. Certainly did not mean you have been disrespectful in any way.

Thanks for the overlay. If you look at the north side projections, while it is not exactly over ANC, if you were standing in that section and had a large passenger jet come overhead as where it is labelled "Witness drawings" I would need to look up in order to see it. From my vantage point, the plane was close to if not just above my eyeshot. I did not need to rotate my neck and head and eyes upward very much at all to see the plane. It was not within range that if I threw a baseball that i could have hit it. Hopefully this makes sense to you.

But I do agree with you in that, if it were flying the "official path" in relation to the annex, most likely I would not have been able to see it at all, just based on the lay of the ground I was on. My best guess is that it was located somewhere between the "official path" and flying directly over the Citgo. But, that's just a guestimate based on how far the plane appeared to be away from my location. It was also coming in at a slightly downturned angle, not straight in 50 feet off the ground so to speak.

I don't have any information about light poles, so really don't feel the need to speculate. Same with a C-130. I did not see one at any point that I remember, but doesn't mean it wasn't there. Just that I did not see it.

You say that it is impossible for the plane to have hit, but just as I said before, maybe take my advice in never saying never or impossible. Anything is possible, but maybe from your investigation you feel it is unlikely. If the plane were as I THINK it was, the damage inside is/was entirely possible, even scientifically. And you still don't answer my question. Saying "they" have "advanced weaponry" is just guessing on your part. I'd like to hear of something tangible that explains how anything other than a plane could have caused the actual damage and debris inside the Pentagon.



[edit on 30-6-2009 by BigSarge]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



There was a C-130 that showed up about 3 minutes later as confirmed by all those ANC workers in the presentation but there was a guy named Keith Wheelhouse who claims he was in the exact same section of ANC that you were located.


Careful. You're just about to 'bleeping' contradict yourself....


He claims he watched "AA77" approach for "60 seconds" but that there was a C-130 "shadowing" it up until it veered away over the cemetery at the last moment.


Ah...this ONE very 'reliable witness'??? "60 seconds" ?!?!? Hang on, I'll come back to that in a moment. ***


He is the ONLY person who talks of the C-130 as a "shadow" right alongside "AA77".


Say what again? Really? Well, tie this one up with a big bow, then!!


Now, for your contradiction. The dufus ('Keith') who saw AAL77 for "60 seconds" was in the same area as BigSarge, according to you...but still you say to BigSarge:


I'm sure you'll understand that this is quite impossible from your vantage point at the officially reported speed of 530 mph.


SO...the 'vantage point' statement is because.....? The airplane was going too fast?
Make sense, please. OR, are you trying to infer that AT "530 MPH" the airplane would not be in view, from the ground, from that location, for "60 seconds"? Is that it???


Especially when the top speed of a C-130 is 379 mph.


Ah, your lack of aviation knowledge rears up, again. Pity.

A C-130 is a four engine high winged turbo prop. The "379 MPH" figure refers to its maximum TAS at altitude....high altitude. What's more, as it was below 10,000 feet it would have been complying with the speed limit maximum of....(I'll let you research it...)

Now....IF your point is to claim that the C-130 could not "shadow" a B757 at 530 MPH, then hurrah! We agree!

Problem is....one joker, ONE! Who claims to see a "shadowing" airplane, but NONE of the ATC people, nor the Radar data saw this "shadow" airplane??

***I promised to address the "60 seconds" remark. Even if we use a number like, let's say, 280 MPH. That's 4.7 SM per minute. SO, mustache boy there would have had to have seen the "airplanes" from about (I'll be generous) 4 1/2 miles away at initial spotting. From the ground. With obstructions. To see airplanes not more than, oh, 5,000 feet above the ground.

Uh hum. Yup!! What you got there, you gots you a star witness, fer sure!!


The Daily Press ran a series of articles about his account in the first few days after the event.

He is the ONLY person who talks of the C-130 as a "shadow" right alongside "AA77".


Shouldn't that raise an alarm? It's a big 'ole giant red flag, to me!


This did not happen BigSarge and I think you know this since you were in the exact same location where Keith Wheelhouse alleges he was located.


Now, you're scrambling so hard, back-filling so much you've last track of where you started!!

Oh, and those drawings the "eyewitnesses" made of the "Flight Path" into the Pentagon, the ones you posted? Who supplied the satellite views for them to draw on? Was it you? AND, who wrote, on the images that they drew on, the word "FIREBALL"? Talk about leading a 'witness'!



[edit on 6/30/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weedwhacker, not to defend Craig as I do not wish to take sides in this, I think he was inferring that Keith Wheelhouse was a fraud.

If he says he was in that section of ANC, I'd really like to know how and why he was there. He certainly was not a member of the Honor Guard or ANC staff. He was not a family member of the funeral that was taking place as it was an African-American family. If he were a tourist, he would have been ushered away from that section prior to the funeral as they are considered private events and tourists are moved away. the only possible option that he would have been allowed to be in that section/area is if he where visiting an actual gravesite. So he should be able to tell you who he was visiting and why. Pretty easy to debunk if he doesn;t have that info.


Also, the graphic that says the nose of the plane created the hole in the C-ring hole. I beleive that is incorrect. We were told on site that the engine block of the plane is what created that hole as parts of the engine were found in that area. The nose would have been obliterated at impact as its metal not as dense as the engine.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


weedwhacker,

What kind of insane post is this? You're arguing against Keith Wheelhouse's credibility? Welcome to the club. I think CIT founded it. You seem to be implying that CIT thinks Wheelhouse is "reliable" or even a "star witness". This is the opposite of the truth as anyone who is familiar with CIT's work, or even who read and comprehended the very post by Craig that you are responding to, knows. What part of "This did not happen" do you not understand?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Originally posted by BigSarge
Sorry, Craig, I'm not going to be interrogated and questioned in that way. I will provide info that I have and continue trying not to speculate.


Ouch. That'll leave a mark...not that Craig will care.

"...trying not to speculate".

With that one statement, BigSarge, you have encapsulated Craig and Alpo's entire raison d'etre for this whole deal - speculation and making stuff up when they don't have a hard and fast concrete answer for something that matches their pre-conceived and forgone conclusions.

Just keep in mind, BigSarge, they will twist and cherry pick anything you say into some misshapen and disfigured monster that barely resembles your original words, so be careful what you tell them. If they don't like what you say, you will become a "plant, an operative, a deep spy sent out to ruin their plan". Keep monitoring their website for statements and claims that you may not agree with. Many others whom they interviewed have no clue their twisted and Frankensteined-words are being used to indict the military and government in ways they never intended to happen. Don't let that happen to you.

Craig and his minions have no clue whatsoever about the military - hence Craig's comment about the military having the most advanced weapons on the planet or whatever it was he said. That is a favorite comeback from the conspiracy theorists that goes back to the "speculation" aspect - when faced with some impossible or near-impossible event, they come back with "Black program! Its secret! Its the Pentagon!!!! Advanced weaponry!!" without having clue one apout what they are talking about. So, your question about aircraft pieces impaled in and wrapped around concrete pillars deformed by the effects of a 757 crashing into them was a question Craig can't answer, hence his "exotic weaponry answer.

Hilarious.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by BigSarge
 


Thank you, Sarge, for the comments re: Craig's post. IF he was discrediting Keith Wheelhouse, it certainly didn't come through that way to me.


Also, the graphic that says the nose of the plane created the hole in the C-ring hole. I beleive that is incorrect.


You are correct. The fuselage would have been shredded into small pieces within the first split seconds of impact. Section 43 (that's what Boeing calls the portion of the fuselage that contains the Flight Deck) is no stronger than the rest of the fuselage behind it.

Engines, on the other hand, are the single most massive components on the airframe.

The graphic 'implies' the nose of the airplane directly in line with the C-Ring hole, but as noted the chaotic nature of the impact means that not everything continues in a perfectly straight line as it follows a path of destruction. So, logic dictates that the C-Ring was penetrated by an engine.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Another question that just came to mind in reference to a flyover. Obviously, the "over" means it would have had to flown over the Pentagon and away from the explosion. As anyone who has been inside the Pentagon can tell you, there is a very nice courtyard right in the center. Very large, almost like a Central Park so to speak. There are ALWAYS people in there, either taking a shortcut from one side of the Pentagon to the other or just out getting fresh air, taking a break, etc.

Has anyone every been interviewed who was located in the courtyard that saw or heard a large passenger jet flyover? I can tell you, it was very loud as it passed with engines running high. Someone there would have seen or at least heard the very loud jets just overhead flying away from them. Even with the explosion.

Would be interesting to know if anyone from that location witnessed anything like that.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by BigSarge]



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join