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: 18
23
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
www.geocities.com...

Mark Bright

Defense Protective Service officer

9/28/01 ... manning the guard booth at the Mall Entrance to the building

"I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area," he said. "I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." The plane would have been seconds from impact -- the annex is only a few hundred yards from the Pentagon. He said he heard the plane "power-up" just before it struck the Pentagon. "As soon as it struck the building I just called in an attack, because I knew it couldn't be accidental," Bright said. He jumped into his police cruiser and headed to the area.



www.geocities.com...

Lisa Burgess

9/12/01 ... "I heard two loud booms - one large, one smaller, and the shock wave threw me against the wall."



www.geocities.com...

Omar Campo

9/12/01 ... cutting the grass on the other side of the road "It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire."



Ed. links don't work, don't know how to fix.

Mark Bright was reported in the "Henderson Hall News"

Lisa Burgess in "Stars and Stripes"

Omar Campo in "The Guardian"


[edit on 7/1/0909 by weedwhacker]




posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by BigSarge
 


We are talking about one very simple and very general detail.

North or south of the gas station.

I fully agree that eyewitness accounts can be unreliable which is why independent corroboration is so important.

That is the scientific method used to validate specific details.

So the fact that all of the witnesses in this area, including you, unanimously corroborate each other regarding the north side approach is scientific proof that this detail is accurate.

Unfortunately for all of us this simple detail proves the plane did not hit the light poles, generator trailer, or the building.

This isn't my theory BigSarge, it is what you and all the other witnesses report.





See, this is the one thing I dislike about how you are going about your investigation. Go re-read all of my posts. I never once verified anything of the sort. In fact, I said that if I had to guess that it would be somewhere between the Citgo and the Official Flight path. I also said, there is no way it was NORTH of the Citgo, because it was not that close to me.

So please, refrain from falsely re-telling the things I've said along the way and instead start providing direct evidence. Please post links to or official accounts of all the people describing exactly what they saw fly over and away from the Pentagon then if that's all you've got. You've thrown out 2 names, I'd like to see 20+. if there were 20+ people who saw the plane coming to the pentagon , there should be a MINIMUM of 20 who saw it miss and fly away.

Please post links to these official accounts so I can decide for myself rather than have you tell me.

Thanks.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by BigSarge]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


How the hell, in the view of THOUSANDS of eyewitnesses can they "plant" big chunks of metal, light posts. ect, with no one seeing it? Everyone in the vicinity was out there gawking!



FAQ: How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight?

Regarding plane parts outside: the conspicuous lack of debris is what got people questioning the event in the first place!

Regarding plane parts inside: that part of the building had been vacant for years during a renovation that was conveniently scheduled to be completed the week of the attack.

Since the suspect implicated by the north side approach evidence is the very entity in control of the Pentagon, the notion that they would pack a room or two full of plane parts and high explosives is entirely feasible.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Since the suspect implicated by the north side approach evidence is the very entity in control of the Pentagon, the notion that they would pack a room or two full of plane parts and high explosives is entirely feasible.




Ok, based on this quote from you, can you please explain what you think was shown on that video of something hitting the outer wall of the Pentagon and exploding? Did someone strap the bomb and all the plane parts to a missle? Maybe the American Airlines plane was really a modified F16 or Stealth Fighter and it shot the missle as it veered away through the invisible cloak or time warp that sent it and all its passengers to an alternate universe where they now live happily ever after. Is that the new theory?

I'd also like to know how you explain the child body parts that were found in the builing. Was there a daycare in that section of the Pentagon that no one knew about?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


The picture on your site shows a pole laying in the road. Now how would they throw that out into the street with no one noticing? Lloyd wasn't the only person out on the road, you know. A little hard to drag a friggin light pole out in broad daylight and lay it on the road, or on a taxi, without tons of people noticing this. The whole "authorities blocking off the scene would not prevent lookie loos on other roads, in their apartments, in other buildings noticing this.

As far as lack of plane parts, that is also erroneous. There were bits of plane part outside, but the angle of most of the photos taken, coupled with hilly terrain, and the amount of smoke pouring out of the building and the collapsing floors, made it impossible to even see fire engines and people, let alone plane parts.

Contrary to what you say, the part of the pentagon that was hit was not completely vacant for years, they still had some offices and personnel working in some places, around the renovation. There were a couple of offices with navy people stilkl working there. And given the amount of time, the size of plane parts, and the number of people that would need to be involved, there would be plenty of pentagon employees who would notice such a thing. Dragging plane engines, seats, and bodies into the Pentagon would have been unusual to say the least, and people would have noticed this.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 



...the part of the pentagon that was hit was not completely vacant for years, they still had some offices and personnel working in some places, around the renovation.



125 fatalities in the building, to be exact.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 



...the part of the pentagon that was hit was not completely vacant for years, they still had some offices and personnel working in some places, around the renovation.



125 fatalities in the building, to be exact.


Exactly. And IF it were a bomb inside, why was the blast hole of the outerwall INWARD and not OUTWARD? Wouldn't the bomb (with all of the thousands of pounds of plane parts that I personally helped remove from inside the Pentagon) have to explode pieces of that Pentagon wall out into the field along with those plane parts that were found outside?

Really truly, the more that is posted in this thread by all parties, the more ludacris this flyover theory becomes.

Face it, the plane crashed into the Pentagon just like they crashed into the WTC. Instead of spending so much energy attempting to disprove the obvious, why not investigate how this plane was allowed to make it to the pentagon in the first place. There was enough time to ensure Washington DC and it's most important epicenters could have been well protected from ANYTHING missle, plane, etc. that was incoming by that point in time.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge

See, this is the one thing I dislike about how you are going about your investigation. Go re-read all of my posts. I never once verified anything of the sort. In fact, I said that if I had to guess that it would be somewhere between the Citgo and the Official Flight path. I also said, there is no way it was NORTH of the Citgo, because it was not that close to me.



What you said, BigSarge, is this:



It was dipping slightly left and right, it was not steady, so it may very well have been turning and/or not flying in a direct path.
post source


That contradicts the required official flight path and corroborates the ANC employees who were right next to you but with an unobstructed view.

You also said:


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.
post source


Now that you are starting to understand the implications of this you have changed your story. That's ok, I don't hold it against you. It's a very natural reaction.

But you also said this:


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.
post source


This is a key admission on your part that ultimately proves your account supports the north side approach even though you did not have a clear view.

You will eventually be forced to come to terms with the fact that there is ZERO room for error in the official flight path particularly when you factor in the light poles, which you must.

The fact is BigSarge.....the ONLY way you would have seen the aircraft is if it was on the north side approach as corroborated by all the ANC maintenance workers and all of the witnesses at the gas station who ALL had an unobstructed view and were therefore in an infinitely better position to judge the location of the plane in relation to the gas station.

I think you know and understand all this already and the fact that you are trying to twist your own words to fit more with the official story is indicative that you are not psychologically ready to deal with this obvious fact and are instead going through a very difficult stage of denial.


And for the record you also said this:


Could the parts of an entire airplane, tons of luggage, IDs, etc. been planted in the Pentagon before hand? I guess it is possible, but highly unlikely.
post source


But later changed your story to suggest it was "impossible".


And just so we don't lose track you also admitted this:


No, I did not see the plane touch the Pentagon and never stated as such.
post source



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge


Ok, based on this quote from you, can you please explain what you think was shown on that video of something hitting the outer wall of the Pentagon and exploding?


Since that video was controlled and provided for by the very suspect implicated by the north side approach evidence, it is automatically invalid evidence within the context of an investigation into their involvement. Only independent verifiable evidence is accepted.

But there is plenty of reason to believe it has been manipulated.

FAQ: Doesn't the Pentagon security gate camera video that the government released show something hitting the building?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
OK, I give. This is like debating a 3 year old.

So the plane missed and flew over the pentagon. Now what.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


125? I thought it was more. Maybe I'm thinking of the total death toll, with the people who were on flight 77 included.

But yeah, I remember that there were several naval personnel killed there because the Navy had offices and people working there.

Big Sarge, you hit the nail on the head...AGAIN. With regards to the Pentagon and flight 77, there is no question in my mind that it hit the Pentagon. My question is: after being hijack confirmed, and after TWO planes hit the WTC, why flight 77 was pretty much flying unopposed for over a half hour, having been hijacked and off course much earlier, and why planes were not scrambled earlier to get their butts over the skies of D.C. until a couple minutes before the plane hit.

Why was the Air Force not immediately called in after flight 175 hit the South Tower, to get in the skies over D.C?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge



Exactly. And IF it were a bomb inside, why was the blast hole of the outerwall INWARD and not OUTWARD? Wouldn't the bomb (with all of the thousands of pounds of plane parts that I personally helped remove from inside the Pentagon) have to explode pieces of that Pentagon wall out into the field along with those plane parts that were found outside?



The evidence shows that the damage WAS blown OUTWARD.


There are also eyewitness accounts of chunks of limestone and concrete from the building being blown out to the highway.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge


So the plane missed and flew over the pentagon. Now what.


Go public with your account.

That will help us seek justice for the thousands of murdered innocents.

If you allow us to video record it on location like we have the other witnesses there will be no room for misinterpretation.

And if I lied or twisted it in any way you could easily call me out.


[edit on 1-7-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigSarge
OK, I give. This is like debating a 3 year old.

So the plane missed and flew over the pentagon. Now what.


Hate to say I told you so....lol

He'll take anything you say and twist it 10 different ways from Sunday. It just adds to the hilarity factor in the long run - faster and funnier, please.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by BigSarge


So the plane missed and flew over the pentagon. Now what.


Go public with your account.


Yes. Do that BigSarge. Go public. Tell the world that you have absolutely no doubt in your military and otherwise mind that AA77 slammed into the building. Tell the world that Craig and Alpo's ides are bull and that they twist peoples words and cherrypick their statements to their own benefit. Tell the world about the bodies and luggage and aircraft pieces you picked up in your own hands inside the building. Tell the world about pieces of aircraft wrapped around concrete pillars and impaled in concrete blocks. Tell the world what you saw, then dare these charlatans to call you a liar.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Yes Sarge... Tell the world about the super dooper sekrit gubmint plan that Ranke & his buddy uncovered!! Let's put that evil, elderly, cab driver where he belongs; with the rest of the evil perps of the US gubmint!!

Make sure you follow the "Ranke Plan" and threaten everyone you send your sekrit info to. If they don't respond to you, or don't respond to you in the way Ranke want's them to, you are encouraged to threaten them and accuse them of all types of crimes that will put them in jail for a long long time.



Maybe, just maybe Sarge, you will be able to find out where the secret closets were that hid all the plane parts. Oh..and perhaps you will be able to find the invisible machinery that hauled the heavier parts around.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by BigSarge

See, this is the one thing I dislike about how you are going about your investigation. Go re-read all of my posts. I never once verified anything of the sort. In fact, I said that if I had to guess that it would be somewhere between the Citgo and the Official Flight path. I also said, there is no way it was NORTH of the Citgo, because it was not that close to me.



What you said, BigSarge, is this:



It was dipping slightly left and right, it was not steady, so it may very well have been turning and/or not flying in a direct path.
post source


That contradicts the required official flight path and corroborates the ANC employees who were right next to you but with an unobstructed view.

You also said:


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.
post source


Now that you are starting to understand the implications of this you have changed your story. That's ok, I don't hold it against you. It's a very natural reaction.

But you also said this:


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.
post source


This is a key admission on your part that ultimately proves your account supports the north side approach even though you did not have a clear view.

You will eventually be forced to come to terms with the fact that there is ZERO room for error in the official flight path particularly when you factor in the light poles, which you must.

The fact is BigSarge.....the ONLY way you would have seen the aircraft is if it was on the north side approach as corroborated by all the ANC maintenance workers and all of the witnesses at the gas station who ALL had an unobstructed view and were therefore in an infinitely better position to judge the location of the plane in relation to the gas station.

I think you know and understand all this already and the fact that you are trying to twist your own words to fit more with the official story is indicative that you are not psychologically ready to deal with this obvious fact and are instead going through a very difficult stage of denial.


And for the record you also said this:


Could the parts of an entire airplane, tons of luggage, IDs, etc. been planted in the Pentagon before hand? I guess it is possible, but highly unlikely.
post source


But later changed your story to suggest it was "impossible".


And just so we don't lose track you also admitted this:


No, I did not see the plane touch the Pentagon and never stated as such.
post source


*SNIP*Do you see all of those qualifying adverbs or qualifying phrases I've underlined? Notice how Ranke ignores them and rewords them to be absolutes and then accuses the original poster of changing his story.

If you'll check his history this is repeated over and over again. In addition, some statements are interpreted literally and other are interpreted figuratively, and he explains what the speaker REALLY means in order to make the statements agree with the desired conclusion.
.
This is not only disingenuous, it's dishonest. *SNIP*

[edit on 1-7-2009 by Reheat]

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: 9/11 Forum Is Now Under Close Staff Scrutiny– Please Review This Link.

[edit on 1/7/2009 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Maybe, just maybe Sarge, you will be able to find out where the secret closets were that hid all the plane parts. Oh..and perhaps you will be able to find the invisible machinery that hauled the heavier parts around.


And don't forget to tell the world about how Craig's portly sidekick discovered the truly most amazing part - how the frozen corpses were trucked in the night before the event and strategically placed so that they would *appear* as plane crash and office victims.

AND...don't forget to tell the world how there was no smell of jet fuel *whatsoever* near the Pentagon. No where. By nobody. Anywhere.

This could be the 475th smoking gun for the CIT'ers! Finally!



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

And don't forget to tell the world about how Craig's portly sidekick discovered the truly most amazing part - how the frozen corpses were trucked in the night before the event and strategically placed so that they would *appear* as plane crash and office victims


125 people died in the Pentagon when the explosion hit. Are you implying that CIT denies this, even though they don't? Sure seems like it.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by Ligon]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

AND...don't forget to tell the world how there was no smell of jet fuel *whatsoever* near the Pentagon. No where. By nobody. Anywhere!

CIT does not deny that there was a smell of jet fuel (or at least what smelled like jet fuel) in the air. They have pointed out an obvious explanation for why this is not proof of Flight 77 having hit the building. Please stop making misleading representations of their views.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join