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: 15
23
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Ah, shoot! Lost the whole post.

Nutshell? I think CIT is incorrect, based on flawed 'eyewitnesses'...and I believe not all eyewitnesses' testimonies are being introduced, only selected ones.

I feel that the CIT group are selective in their efforts, which is somewhat disingenuous if you're really searching for 'truth'.

I also believe they are quite certain that they are correct. I am just disturbed that in their zeal they are ignoring other evidence that doesn't fit into a pre-conceived 'theory'. THAT is not science.

It takes a huge leap of incredibly convoluted "logic" to concoct such an elaborate scenario...when, everyone would normally agree that the best way to pull off a 'stunt' is to use the "KISS" method -- simpler is better.


To Ligon, look at this:
flightaware.com...

The Pentagon, though not depicted on the Approach Chart, would be approximately located where the words 'George Mason Memorial Bridge' are shown. Yes?

An East-bound track, IF a fly over from the Pentagon, would not go North, into area P-56...raise too many alarms, and they were already on alert.

SO...it would have to cross the departures for DCA....wouldn't someone in the Tower see that??? The TRACON didn't see it? The mystery airplane would also have to continue to the WaterFront area, and Anacostia...NO ONE saw nor heard anything? BigSarge asked about the Pentagon courtyard (previously used to be called 'Ground Zero', jokingly in the Cold War). No one answered him.

CIT's hearts, et al, may be in the right place, but for the wrong reasons.

"Don't shoot the messenger", hey!


EDIT again:

Forgot to add, it was lost from my original compsition...

The CIT NoC ground track diagrams are contradicting the 'eyewitnesses' claims. What I mean is, the stills you used, Ligon, just moments ago, show three 'witnesses' demonstrating about a 10-15 degree bank, but, Craig, earlier, claimed that the turn radius of the ground track could be accomplished with a 56 degree bank. Now, 56 degrees is well within the capabilities of the airplane...however, the witnesses don't say that and the DFDR doesn't show it.

Here is what a 15 degree bank will need, in radius, at 460 knots: 11.55 NM or 13.3 SM That gives us a circle circumference of 72.6 NM or 83.6 SM

IF the arc, as depicted from the Annex to the Pentagon is a fifteen degree change in heading then that's 1/24th of the circumference. In Statue miles, that's 3.48 miles. Since I was using knots (which I prefer) I'll include this -- it's 3.03 NM

Generously, if a ten degree heading change, then we get 2.32 SM/2.02 NM

I looked at the google satellite, and just a quick measurement shows about 3,000 to 3,500 feet from the Annex to the Pentagon....a Statue Mile is 5,280 feet. A Nautical Mile is 6,060 feet.

Feel free to show where I'm wrong.






[edit on 6/30/0909 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 6/30/0909 by weedwhacker]




posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
double...still working up above...

[edit on 6/30/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ligon

Originally posted by Reheat

NO ONE said or illustrated a significant bank at all.


I'm not even going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and ask if you are misinformed. You are lying and you know it.


Be careful with your wild accusations. The bank required to fly where the ANC people said the aircraft flew would require over 60 degrees of bank. In some cases over 80. That's significant. What they illustrate is is a AT MOST a normal bank of 25 to 30 degrees. Since they all said they were scared and running the obvious erratic roll control which has been mentioned numerous times could be erroneously interpreted as a bank.

You are obviously ignorant and don't know what you're talking about, so I'll reluctantly forgive you for calling me a liar this time.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Reheat]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ligon

Originally posted by Reheat

Dihle doesn't even remember saying what you indicate he said.


What Craig indicates he said?

Here is an mp3 of Erik Dihle actually saying it to the Center for Military History (right click and "Save As")

www.thepentacon.com...

Are you misinformed or are you trying to misinform others?


Here you go again. How 'bout the more recent phone call? Are you simply misinformed or are you just ignorant again? Don't bother answering as I don't pay attention to people who obviously don't have a clue, yet accuse me of lying.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Be careful with your wild accusations. The bank required to fly where the ANC people said the aircraft flew would require over 60 degrees of bank. In some cases over 80. That's significant. What they illustrate is is a normal bank of 25 to 30 degrees.

You are obviously ignorant and don't know what you're talking about, so I'll reluctantly forgive you for calling me a liar this time.


sig·nif·i·cant (sĭg-nĭf'ĭ-kənt) adj. Fairly large in amount or quantity

The banks described by the witnesses and shown above are most certainly that.

Moreover you said in your previous post "They all described and illustrated a very shallow bank."

If your arbitrary guesses of 25-30 degrees are accurate that is not shallow let alone "very shallow". You're contradicting yourself.

More importantly, even a bank of 25-30 degrees is:

sig·nif·i·cant (sĭg-nĭf'ĭ-kənt) adj. Having or expressing a meaning;

The banks described by the witnesses and shown above are highly significant in this sense of the word considering that they are incompatible with the official story and the notion that the plane hit the light poles or building, as you know.


The bank required to fly where the ANC people said the aircraft flew would require over 60 degrees of bank. In some cases over 80.


Only according to your bogus interpretation of Edward Paik's statements which have already been addressed earlier in this thread and a million times before that. You have the plane coming parallel to Columbia Pike when Paik clearly illustrates it flying at a more northerly heading, consistent with the other witnesses who saw the plane over the Navy Annex.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Ligon]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Ligon

Originally posted by Reheat

Dihle doesn't even remember saying what you indicate he said.


What Craig indicates he said?

Here is an mp3 of Erik Dihle actually saying it to the Center for Military History (right click and "Save As")

www.thepentacon.com...

Are you misinformed or are you trying to misinform others?


Here you go again. How 'bout the more recent phone call? Are you simply misinformed or are you just ignorant again? Don't bother answering as I don't pay attention to people who obviously don't have a clue, yet accuse me of lying.


You said "Dihle doesn't even remember saying what you indicate he said."

This language is misleading.

In saying "what you indicate he said" you imply that Craig is the source of the original Dihle quote (the quote in which Dihle says that immediately after the explosion witnesses were reporting that a bomb went off and that the plane kept on going), or that it is just Craig's opinion or assertion that Dihle said this as opposed to a verifiable fact.

This is not the case. Dihle is on record saying it to the CMH. I provided an mp3 to this interview.

I am fully aware that Dihle did not remember saying this when Craig asked him about it fairly recently on the phone. I never said otherwise. I'm also fully aware that Dihle also stated that if the CMH has provided a recording of him saying it then obviously he did say it.

I also did not call you a liar for making this misleading statement. I specifically left open the possibility that you were misinformed.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Ligon]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Sorry debunkers you have not convinced me that the plane flew south of Citgo!
P.S. you are rude, snide and condescending which makes it difficult to listen even if you did have a valid point.

Craig- You have the North of Citgo flight path verified with hard evidence. However with only one solid witness to the flyover that case is weak. I commend CIT's hard work to this point and hope you get a break in understanding what happened. I agree with BigSarge that you should tone your rhetoric down until you have the evidence that proves a flyover beyond reasonable doubt. I believe it hurts your argument to claim otherwise.

Craig I guess you have to expect the derision and anger but frankly I don't understand why we cannot discuss the evidence here on ATS in a civil manner(that remark is aimed at your detractors). Surprised the mods don't intervene more often. The debunkers are given a lot of latitude in their personal attacks.

BigSarge to answer your question about the passengers. If the criminals that committed 9/11 were willing to kill people in the thousands why do you think they would hesitate to kill a plane load of people?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


So why does the plane end up slamming into the Pentagon as confirmed by a majority of Craig's eyewitnesses?

And where are the "fly over" eyewitnesses on the opposite side of the Pentagon that would have seen the whole thing? Oh and one final thing, please do explain how they managed to find actual 757 parts inside the Pentagon, and the damage extent inside the Pentagon which actually lines up with the actual flight line south of citgo.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Ligon
 



Ligon, not to put you on the spot (though, I have to because this IS a search for truth, not hyperbole). WHAT do you consider a 'normal' bank angle is? I mean, when you ride in a passenger jet, what is your estimation of the bank angles used?

I anxiously await your response....


sig·nif·i·cant (sĭg-nĭf'ĭ-kənt) adj. Fairly large in amount or quantity

The banks described by the witnesses and shown above are most certainly that.

If your arbitrary guesses of 25-30 degrees are accurate that is not shallow let alone "very shallow". You're contradicting yourself.

More importantly, even a bank of 25-30 degrees is:

sig·nif·i·cant ....



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

Craig- You have the North of Citgo flight path verified with hard evidence. However with only one solid witness to the flyover that case is weak. I commend CIT's hard work to this point and hope you get a break in understanding what happened. I agree with BigSarge that you should tone your rhetoric down until you have the evidence that proves a flyover beyond reasonable doubt. I believe it hurts your argument to claim otherwise.



Thanks Leo, you have always been a big supporter and I appreciate it.

But if you accept the north side approach evidence you have no choice but to accept a flyover even with ZERO confirmed witnesses to this.

That is scientific fact unless you want to get into the realm of exotic weaponry somehow "disappearing" the plane which obviously Roosevelt Roberts proves did not happen.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


Leo, it's very simple:

CIT relies entirely on hand-picked 'eyewitnesses', and only provides interviews of those who agree with the NoC 'theory'.

Problem is, eyewitnesses are notoriously inaccurate...especially laypeople.

They are useful, of course, when used in conjunction with actual evidence...there is the DFDR, the Radar data, the C-130 that had departed from Andrews just nimutes prior (GOFER06), the ATC tapes, etc, etc.

There is the physical evidence from the scene, on the ground as well.

There are wild and unwarranted claims of certain aspects of aerodynamics that non-pilots just don't understand.

SO....CIT basically has hearsay, not real evidence. In fact, it appears to me, they ignore evidence when it doesn't fit the 'theory' in the way they want...that is not looking for 'truth'.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

So why does the plane end up slamming into the Pentagon as confirmed by a majority of Craig's eyewitnesses?



Because they were deceived as intended.

That's how deceptions work.

Most, like BigSarge, had their views obstructed of the alleged impact but had a perfect view of the plane as it passed by them north of the gas station.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



Most, like BigSarge, had their views obstructed of the alleged impact but had a perfect view of the plane as it passed by them north of the gas station.


Shame on you, Craig!

You are deliberately misrepresenting BigSarge!

In fact, your own photos, from the POV of the Cemetery, clearly show that the pentagon IS visible through the trees....the treeline is not so dense that it obstructs COMPLETELY...there are gaps between trees, as is normal. It is a line, not a forest.

Furthermore, BigSarge, and others, were in perfect position from that vantage to have seen any alleged "fly-over" or "fly-past" airplane. Yes?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


CIT relies entirely on hand-picked 'eyewitnesses', and only provides interviews of those who agree with the NoC 'theory'.





Prove it.

Stop making empty accusations based on lies.

You can not provide a single first-hand eyewitness account of the plane on the south side of the gas station.

Not one.

You are lying.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ligon
Only according to your bogus interpretation of Edward Paik's statements which have already been addressed earlier in this thread and a million times before that. You have the plane coming parallel to Columbia Pike when Paik clearly illustrates it flying at a more northerly heading, consistent with the other witnesses who saw the plane over the Navy Annex.


You can argue significant all you want, but Ranke has already admitted that (he says) 56 degrees is required. That is significant. As weedhacker has said what they showed is closer to 15-20 degrees or so, but I was liberal with not more than 30. That is not significant and certainly not enough to negotiate a turn that requires significant bank not normally executed by a transport category aircraft. As I've show it actually requires more.

Now to your quote: You are flat wrong in the entire quote. Not only did Paik initially indicate the aircraft flew down Columbia Pike, but his hand gestures indicated the same, and he thought it struck the VDOT tower, as well. This was before he was interviewed again and very likely had information "whispered in his ear" not seen on camera. His subsequent drawings are also different from what he said initially.

But, more importantly you're totally omitting Morin's statements. Morin corroborates Paik's initial statements and those two are the basis my analysis. It has not been proven wrong no matter how many times it's been addressed. CIT makes every attempt to distort Morin's position and what he said. This is the required flight path according to those two witnesses, so the aircraft can not get to the point where either the Citgo or the ANC witnesses said it was. The ANC people have been conclusively proven wrong about the flight path of the C-130 and there is no legitimate debate on that issue at all. Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude they were wrong about AA 77, as well. The C-130 followed AA 77, so they both flew close to the same ground track. They were simply wrong about both.

At any rate, the required bank to negotiate any of the turns required from Paik's position ARE NOT described by ANY witness whether or not you think the anyone described significant bank. No matter what, they did not describe the amount of bank required.

If you understood all of this you'd understand why Ranke has switched to Over the Annex instead of North of Citgo. And if you understood all of the things they get wrong you'd understand why it's all a deceptive FRAUD.

As a result you still don't know what you're talking about.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 

That would be speculation on my part. I know the government has lied to us before and therefore I would assume is quite capable of lying to us again. Thousands of examples of that...from small pox blankets for Indians to the run up to the Iraq war.

I know who benefited from 9/11 and it has not been the Arab world. Funny we always end up where the oil is, a resource war needs an excuse.

Craig presents a reasonable theory of a flyover with it's main purpose to control the damage to the Pentagon. In my opinion there is not enough evidence to say it is a fact. North of Citgo...WOW! Great work CIT!



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Shame on you, Craig!

You are deliberately misrepresenting BigSarge!

In fact, your own photos, from the POV of the Cemetery, clearly show that the pentagon IS visible through the trees....the treeline is not so dense that it obstructs COMPLETELY...there are gaps between trees, as is normal. It is a line, not a forest.


Wrong.

Shame on YOU.

Yes you can see the pentagon but no you can NOT see the alleged impact point and BigSarge ADMITTED that he did NOT see an impact!

'

Stop lying.



Furthermore, BigSarge, and others, were in perfect position from that vantage to have seen any alleged "fly-over" or "fly-past" airplane. Yes?


No, not at all.

It continued very low over the south parking lot as reported by Roosevelt Roberts and that is NOT visible from ANC.

I am going to stop responding to you because you have proven yourself ignorant when it comes to this info that you have admitted to not even viewing.

You are endlessly blathering on with ridiculous rants and straight up accusatory lies.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Ligon
 


Then produce the witnesses to which Dihle doesn't remember talking about in his CMH interview. It really doesn't matter what he said or what he meant in the CMH Interview. What I said was correct. Ranke refers to him as if he is a "flyover witness" and doesn't reveal that he can't even remember making the statements in the first place. His statements are worthless and that's why I specifically worded it as I did.

Roosevelt Roberts statements are a confusing pretzel of disjointed nonsense. A transport category aircraft CAN NOT fly the path he seems to indicate as best as can be determined based on his very confused description.

There are no legitimate "flyover witness" no matter how much Ranke tries to pretend there are.

If you think I'm wrong then draw a flight path with parameters that would fool all of the CIT witnesses into thinking the aircraft impacted and also flew over Lane 1 of the South Parking Lot, then circled around to the Mall Entrance proceeding back in the direction from whence it came.

If you do that I'll retract my statements that you don't know what you're talking about. Take all of the time you need, but I won't be holding my breath until you complete it.

Psssst.... A UFO enthusiast would be the most likely person to consultant.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Your POV jpeg clip shows gaps in trees....

A quick search, took longer to jot stuff down than the search...

Steve Anderson, Deb Anlauf, Lt. Col. Stuart Artman, David Battle, Gary Bauer, Richard Benedetto, Sean Boger, Pam Bradley....

A few of them are witnesses CIT uses...

Let's see what Mr. Boger said...in writing:

"I just watched it hit the building." (Of course, referring to the AAL77)
Also, I"I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

Deb Anlauf "...saw the impact..." from her 14th floor room at the Sheraton, National Airport.

David Battle was on Pentagon property, ..."about to enter..." the building...

Well, I'm sure you have a reason to discount all of them...and that's just a partial list.


Adding, from above post:

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I am going to stop responding to you because you have proven yourself ignorant when it comes to this info that you have admitted to not even viewing.


That was a day or so ago....


You are endlessly blathering on with ridiculous rants...


'ridiculous rants'? Because I think CIT is ridiculous? Your skin is growing thin.


...and straight up accusatory lies.


Just calls 'em as I sees 'em, boss. I have asked and or pointed out valid questions/points. Sorry that there are some too uncomfortable to face.

I have said if you had a valid case, then it would be a good thing you are doing. So far, the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

[edit on 6/30/0909 by weedwhacker]



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

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

BigSarge to answer your question about the passengers. If the criminals that committed 9/11 were willing to kill people in the thousands why do you think they would hesitate to kill a plane load of people?


Exactly the answer I was looking for, thank you. So the criminals were willing to fly the actual 2 aircraft full of people into the WTC, but at the Pentagon, they chose to make the plane full of passengers miss? And risk someone seeing and/or videotaping the plane missing the Pentagon and thus PROVING beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was a bomb or missile rather than a plane? This isn't Flight 93 in the middle of nowhere. This is one of the busiest areas in DC/Northern VA area, in the middle of the morning. Not only did they choose to take this risk, but then had to fly a plane full of innocent people to an undisclosed location and murder them? Or risk keeping them alive? Maybe they passed them off to the aliens? Stuck them up on the moon to live on the secret base there?

For me, this is the toughest pill to swallow. Why would any conspirator do the above when it would be SO easy to simply fly the plane itself into the Pentagon? It makes no sense at all to risk having something like that exposed/proven to be an inside job when crashing the plane into the structure just like they did at the WTC would have been so much safer in keeping the "conspiracy" hidden/secret.

I still haven't heard a good explanation of how pieces of an AA aircraft was wrapped, impaled, embedded, and mixed so thoroughly into the debris from the Pentagon itself without there being an impact. The theory that this evidence was planted is LAUGHABLE. Unless the Incredible Hulk himself snuck in while the place was still burning and carefully planted thousands of pieces of a plane by weaving intricate threads of parts amongst the wiring and pipes etc. inside the building. I know how tough it was to get the stuff out, and it took hundreds of workers weeks on end to do so. THIS is the smoking gun of impossibility, not the fact that the plane may have been slightly north or south of either the official flight path or multiple eyewitness acounts.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join