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: 22
23
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
All confirmed firsthand witness accounts in a position to tell unanimously place the plane over the Navy Annex or north of the gas station proving Roosevelt Roberts and the witnesses Erik Dihle referenced were not hallucinating or lying about the plane flying away immediately after the explosion.


WRONG - Only those witness who said what you wanted to hear place the airplane somewhere that it wasn't. This is in no way proven evidence, it is a witness observation not backed by ANY physical evidence. It is not proven in any way, shape, or form. The "flyover conclusion" is false logic in that the basis for it is not proven.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You are unable to remotely refute any of this rock solid scientifically validated evidence therefore I am unwilling to take the discussion with you any further.


It has been refuted dozens of times and to state that it is scientific is a joke suitable for a comic strip not an adult discussion.

I'm not surprised you want to end the discussion, but you WILL keep digging your hole.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Reheat]




posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by BigSarge
 


You left out the "unanimous" part as well as the "independently corroborated" part BigSarge.

Corroboration is a scientific process.

If the eyewitness accounts did not match about this simple north of the gas station/directly over the Navy Annex detail they could be considered "unreliable".

But since they all match it becomes proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The fact that you support them means you need to do the right thing and go public.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You are unable to remotely refute any of this rock solid scientifically validated evidence therefore I am unwilling to take the discussion with you any further.

Craig, all I am doing is simply asking you to point me to the "official" flight path you continuously refer to when you say that BigSarge could not have seen the plane from his position in ANC.

You have described or illustrated three different "official" flight paths, whilst simultaneously stating that any deviation from the "official" flight path is proof of a military deception. That's rather convenient when it comes to proving your case, isn't it?

It hit the poles? Oh, no... "official" story has the plane was too high.

It could be seen by the guys at ANC? Oh, no... "official" story has the plane was too low.

It could be seen in front of the guys on Route 27? Oh no, "official" story says the plane crossed northbound Route 27 about 300 feet south, meaning the plane was behind them or directly over them!

Can you please show me where I have a look at these multiple and contradicting "official" flight paths for myself?



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by BigSarge
 


You left out the "unanimous" part as well as the "independently corroborated" part BigSarge.

Corroboration is a scientific process.

If the eyewitness accounts did not match about this simple north of the gas station/directly over the Navy Annex detail they could be considered "unreliable".

But since they all match it becomes proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The fact that you support them means you need to do the right thing and go public.


They all match? Some north of the gas station and some over the Annex?

Flight paths all over the place, most impossible.

You definition of the word "match" and most other folks' definition definitely don't match. Muhahahahahah!

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Reheat]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by discombobulator
 


Why are you using quotes without quoting me and claiming I said things I haven't said?

We make one simple claim that proves a deception. That claim is this:

All confirmed firsthand witness accounts in a position to tell unanimously place the plane over the Navy Annex or north of the gas station proving Roosevelt Roberts and the witnesses Erik Dihle referenced were not hallucinating or lying about the plane flying away immediately after the explosion.

You are unable to remotely refute any of this rock solid scientifically validated evidence therefore I am unwilling to take the discussion with you any further.



[edit on 2-7-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


See post at top of page.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat


I'm not surprised you want to end the discussion,



Want to end the discussion?

No sir!

Keep bumping!



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by discombobulator
 

Why are you using quotes without quoting me and claiming I said things I haven't said?

Oh, I'll bite.

What quotes did I attribute to you, Craig?

What have I incorrectly claimed you said?



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Bump.

Because the CIT 'theory' is crumbling, and everyone can see it.

This is short, and sweet....pay attention to WHO is said to have reacted negatively (No one here at ATS, of course).




posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I would pay $$ to see these witnesses say in a Courtroom that they witnessed the impact (particularly Sean Boger) and witness the spectacle when CIT or their lawyer stand up to object and contend they deduced it!

That would be worth paying to see.......

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Reheat]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Weed, Reheat, could one of you guys address my question re: calibration of flight instruments.

I don't like to leave speculation hanging out there and would like my statement verified before I end up using it again.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by discombobulator
 


I must have missed your specific question, but....

An Altimeter must be within 75' of published field elevation on the ground. The two altimeters have to also be within 75' of one another.

There is no way to determine the accuracy of the airspeed indicators except with testing equipment.

I don't think there's any tolerance specified on heading indicators or at least I don't recall one.

Is there something else?



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Reheat,

What I said was:


Choice D: Pure speculation with a layman understanding of aviation instruments, but perhaps there are controls which, during flight, require manipulation from the pilots to remain precisely calibrated which were ignored by the hijackers. I think weed mentioned something about air pressure adjustments? (Perhaps Reheat or weed could provide more information here. I am not an expert. I design IT systems.)

This is in regard to the accuracy of altitude readings, etc.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Bump. Bump.

Mike Walters

Danielle O'Brien

Where are their comments? Here: (and others).........



103 witnesses saw the airplane hit the Pentagon

26 said it was an American Airlines jet

7 said it was a Boeing 757

For BigSarge, this happened at approximately 0938 EDT. NYC was the focus of attention, no?

When Center lost the AAL77 transponder it was difficult to find the primary target until it was in the Washington vicinity.

That left very little time to scramble and intercept.

AND, I ask: WHAT would they have done, IF they managed to intercept? Terrorist pilots wouldn't comply with hand signals to follow the interceptors. Their only choice, if they were even armed, would be a shoot down, and the resulting possibility of even more casualties on the ground? We all know how densely populated the DC area is.....



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Yeah, after Craig's Route 27 deception it brings a whole lot of impact witnesses into the mix who we now know could have witnessed what they claim to have witnessed from their stated locations.

Father McGraw
Joel Sucherman
Vin Narayanan

and I think

Mary Ann Owens
Richard Benedetto

I do believe the only remaining factor that, according to CIT, makes these people "dubioius witnesses" is that, with the exception of McGraw, they all had the same employer who was situated nearby.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by discombobulator
 


Sorry, I did see that, but didn't equate it to instrument accuracy. Above 18,000' Mean Sea Level the altimeter is set to a standard SL pressure of 29.92. Below 18,000' it is set to the local altimeter setting issued by ATIS or an ATC agency on approach.

The pilots did reset the altimeters on AA 77, but it's not reflected in the animation. It is shown in the CSV file. Pfffft makes a big deal about that not being reflected in a "working copy" of the animation.

All of the reminder bugs on airspeed, heading, and altitude would likely not have been set, but that would make any difference in what you see or what happened.

There's nothing else that I can think of that needs calibration.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Anyway guys, this has been one of the classics. I'm definately bookmarking this one for future reference.

Weed, Reheat, BigSarge, unless Craig has a change of heart and comes back for more I guess I'll see you all at the next Government Loyalist bqq. My handler tells me we're in line for a raise soon, so we'll have something to celebrate!

And weed, next time, when I say toss the salad...



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator

Oh, I'll bite.

What quotes did I attribute to you, Craig?

What have I incorrectly claimed you said?


You claimed I said:



"It hit the poles? Oh, no... "official" story has the plane was too high."


But I never said that. I stated that the witnesses prove this and that the official data is fraudulent.


You claimed I said:



It could be seen by the guys at ANC? Oh, no... "official" story has the plane was too low.


But I never said that.

The altitude reported by the witnesses + the south side HEADING required by the physical damage is what proves they wouldn't have seen it.

I stated that the official data is fraudulent.

You claimed I said:


It could be seen in front of the guys on Route 27? Oh no, "official" story says the plane crossed northbound Route 27 about 300 feet south, meaning the plane was behind them or directly over them!


I have made claims of this nature but have only claimed that it is definitively determined by the physical damage which of course is not debatable.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by discombobulator

Oh, I'll bite.

What quotes did I attribute to you, Craig?

What have I incorrectly claimed you said?


You claimed I said:



"It hit the poles? Oh, no... "official" story has the plane was too high."


But I never said that. I stated that the witnesses prove this and that the official data is fraudulent.

Don't think I didn't notice what you just did there, Craig.

You are now the one manipulating my quotes. There were no quotations marks around my statement before. Why have you added them?

To make it look like I was quoting you, when I was clearly paraphrasing your arguments.

Anyone can go back and check what I wrote.

But for those who find it too difficult...


It hit the poles? Oh, no... "official" story has the plane was too high.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
Don't think I didn't notice what you just did there, Craig.

You are now the one manipulating my quotes. There were no quotations marks around my statement before. Why have you added them?


Craig? Being disingenuous? Manipulating quotes? Say it ain't SO!



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join