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: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


And a lot of people (VERIFIED real living people unafraid to appear publicly and be questioned openly on videotape) saw the aircraft fly Over the Naval Annex which renders your precious 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY impossible and a fantasy tale to be believed by mesmerized sheeple.



I know someone who lived in an apartment building on Columbia Pke, 9th floor, who was on his balcony and saw the airplane go by.


Bring him in for questioning whacker. Maybe you have found yet another Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo eyewitness for the CIT team to question and videotape for the justice seeking American people.

Or videotape him yourself and ask enough questions to prove the south path beyond doubt. Show it here on ATS and convince us whacker. Go for the gold.

Of course you need to understand that liars are usually unwilling to appear publicly knowing how difficult it is to lie without trapping oneself in the lie; especially when we are dealing with the deliberate murder of 3000 people and a corrupt government which is obviously willing to murder people by the hundreds of thousands.

Along with BigSarge, and likely many other eyewitnesses coming forward in the future, as they realize it is now safe to speak up; we will have the hundreds of real living eyewitnesses for the actual flight path, that the government loyalists could not find for their fantasy south official Flight 77 flight path which never happened.

Maybe the lying Mainstream News Media just created your eyewitnesses out of thin air and then POOF they just disappeared when they were desperately needed most. Surely some of them should have voluntarily come forward on their own in the last few years if only to shut down CIT and the flourishing 9-11 Truth Movement. I wonder why the government loyalists were so afraid to look for them? Instincts?

You could be a hero whacker. Good job.



[edit on 6/28/09 by SPreston]




posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I'm not an aircraft design engineer whacker. I just know that the 757 belly tank is below the fuselage passenger area.

It is not above them. It is not up under the cockpit nor back in the tail.

The belly tank is inside that bulge below the passengers.

Big deal whacker. You are puffing at a molehill and ignoring the real evidence.




posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



I'm not an aircraft design engineer whacker.

Never implied you were.



I just know that the 757 belly tank is below the fuselage passenger area.


THAT is correct.


It is not above them. It is not up under the cockpit nor back in the tail.


Again, correct. Two out of three....


The belly tank is inside that bulge below the passengers.


Bzzzzzzzzz! Nope, sorry. But, you got the first two right, at least.

Looky here:


That's the schematic I was trying to bring in, thanks for helping!

The 'bulge' seen in exterior photos has nothing to do with the Center Fuel tank. Look at the diagram: See? The center "box" structure of the wing incorporates the fuel. In fact, it's not a 'tank' in the sense of the tank in your car, it is the actual wing structure itself. You can see how it actually extends out past the wing roots. There are baffles, one-way slosh valves, all sorts of goodies. BUT, point is it is entirely contained ABOVE where the MLG retract into their wells. Fore and aft, in the fuselage, are pressure bulkheads, and they attach to the portion above the center tank to maintain pressure integrity. The wheel wells are NOT pressurized.



Big deal whacker. You are puffing at a molehill and ignoring the real evidence.


NO! I just will not allow incorrect and inaccurate information that I see slip past to muddy this "story" of yours. This entire premise hangs on inexpert 'witnesses', and obsessed 'researchers' who don't allow anything contrary to their pre-conceived notions in. AND, use whatever flimsy 'evidence' they can muster in support.

I'll just ask y'all again: WHY would there need to be such a "deception", so elaborate, i.e., light poles 'planted', etc, when "they" didn't have to do it?

A handful of Interweb wannabe 'heroes' have puffed at a 'molehill', as you so colorfully put it. AND, this done using trumped-up and generally inaccurate or misunderstood accounts, with a dash of personal opinions and biases thrown in for good measure!



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


I'll just ask y'all again: WHY would there need to be such a "deception", so elaborate, i.e., light poles 'planted', etc, when "they" didn't have to do it?



Don't have the answer to that one nor have we claimed to.

But the evidence proves the plane was on the north side of the gas station and continued past the building.

You have provided zero evidence to refute this fact.

Zero.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
But the evidence proves the plane was on the north side of the gas station and continued past the building.

You have provided zero evidence to refute this fact.


WRONG! The evidence shows that it impacted the building, even your witnesses said so.


You have yet to learn the difference between delusional speculation and FACT.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Zero.


Yes, that what you end up with if your verbose spin is removed. Exactly Zero. Finally, you got something right......



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Still waiting on your response to this post.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


That post and all of the dozens just like it have been responded to dozens of times in the past. I don't intend to waste my Sunday playing your silly Internet game. Your crap is simply not worth it. It doesn't matter whether or not I respond to all of your garbage as this tripe is going nowhere except as wasted bandwidth on a few Internet Sites.

I ROLFMAO every time I see you refer to Roberts as your sole flyover witness. I'd pay extra $$ just to see that as formal testimony.

Your delusions have been proven wrong in multiple ways for a long, long time, but your ego keeps you spewing nonsense.

I will only be a short time until your newest fraud, "Operational Accountability", falls flat on it's face and the ever expanding vast conspiracy will continue to expand even more.

Eventually, you will need to be incorporated into the conspiracy and then it will be complete. That end will be where it should have been in the beginning.....YOUR CULT IS the conspiracy.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Thanks Craig!

Once again compelling evidence that has not been refuted in an excellent easy to understand presentation.

If it were only one or even two witnesses...but several eyewitnesses corroborating the fact the plane flew North of Citgo. This evidence is difficult to ignore yet some still manage.


I hope and pray others continue to come forward and it will be people like you that will give them the courage to do so! S&F!!



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
What I've said is not a oxymoron at all. It is the result of my knowledge of the mission of the NEACP E4-B and my knowledge of the Air Force operational structure and the people.

Your knowledge of the Air Force operational structure should include getting the designation of the planes correct. The "4" in E-4B comes before the "B", not after the "E". E-4B. I too have a good knowledge of the Air Force.

Further, do you not read your posts? You really do need help. You have way too much anger and hostility bottled up inside of you. I wouldn't want you to go "von Brunn" on others because you're so angry at those "troofers".

I'll put this scenario to you again: Had Operation Northwoods been carried out, would you not be sitting in that chair saying the same BS as you are now that the government would never do such things and blame it on another country/people to go to war with said country/people? You would be fooled into believing that Cuba really did do all those attacks and you wouldn't hear of "conspiracy theories" concerning that. 9/11 is no different. You were fooled and you refuse to acknowledge the evidence because you don't want to entertain the possibility.

Too bad for you. I only wonder what people like you will do once the truth really does come out that our government had a hand in orchestrating 9/11.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
I don't intend to waste my Sunday playing your silly Internet game.

You keep saying that over and over. That you don't intend to waste your time, yet you still keep coming back and coming back. Someone who really doesn't want to waste their time would be gone without a second thought, but here you keep coming back again and again.



Originally posted by Reheat
this tripe is going nowhere except as wasted bandwidth

Yet you continue to keep coming back while saying you're not going to waste more time here. And then you continue to waste bandwidth with your meaningless words without providing any evidence to back your claims up. That sounds like a troll/agent provocateur to me.

Until you can show some factual evidence to counter what's been presented, you should move along please. You're dirtying up this thread.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Your knowledge of the Air Force operational structure should include getting the designation of the planes correct. The "4" in E-4B comes before the "B", not after the "E". E-4B. I too have a good knowledge of the Air Force.


Well, pardon me! That's great now that you've had all day to look it up on the Internet.

[snip > off-topic nonsense]


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Too bad for you. I only wonder what people like you will do once the truth really does come out that our government had a hand in orchestrating 9/11.


I'm not worried, but you ought to be.....

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Reheat]



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Until you can show some factual evidence to counter what's been presented, you should move along please. You're dirtying up this thread.


I'll post if and/or when I damn well please with or without your approval.

Don't you wish all of the evidence that destroys your delusions didn't exist. All it takes is a little "denial delusion", which you have in abundance and it's not there.....poof!



[edit on 28-6-2009 by Reheat]



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Still here? Slow learner? Have you answered my questions yet? I have no U2U from you.

Reheat, if you are REALLY so bored that you want to argue with us all day, why don't you use some free time and take those grandchildren of yours out to the park? Kids love that stuff.

Weekwhacker & SPreston:

This issue with the fuel tank/buldge/whatever...how much impact does it's location affect the outcome of the plane's impact? I don't see how it could make much difference, but of course I'm not a plane expert either.

Craig:

Those pictures you took of BigSarge's location are brilliant. Are people still arguing that this guy could have seen the impact, despite those pictures you took?? Maybe some x-ray goggles were handed out to the Honor Guard that day? I don't get it.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
There is no contradiction at all. You are just desperately trying to devise one.

Reheat admits that he doesn't know what the plane was doing, but he guaranteess us that it wasn't doing anything nefarious. That's a contradiction, Reheat. You really can't see the flaws in your own logic. Your loss, not mine. It shows how weak your debating skills are, along with your critical thinking skills, to so openly contradict yourself like that, multiple times.


Originally posted by Reheat
They are the same words only now that I've corrected your misquote. May have been turning is not the same as turning as if I had to tell you that. I'm not at all surprised that you're unhappy with my explanation as it doesn't fit your delusion.

Agreed. Neither of us were there to witness it. Neither of us have had the chance to properly determine what BigSarge has claimed. So, when he stated that the plane may have been turning, then it may have been turning.


Originally posted by Reheat
He said he has been interviewed, just not by frauds who are only interested in his account if it's fits their delusions. I don't blame him a bit if he refuses as he is likely to be the object of a smear campaign on the Internet if he doesn't utter the right words.

So you because he said it, you believe him?

If BigSarge has been interviewed, can you please provide the recording/transcript?

I agree with you, I don't blame him for wanting to remain anonymous on the internet. While he is anonymous, he offers no credibility for a reliable story.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


Well, to answer this,


...the fuel tank/buldge/whatever...how much impact does it's location affect the outcome of the plane's impact?


My point was simply to show that some research is in error. Assumptions. NOT that it made a gnat's butt bit of difference...the fuel still 'blowed up real gud'...

No, I think it was an impression I got that was implied, not stated, that the cable spools should have been disturbed because of the 'bulge'.

As pointed out by poster, and as I suspected, it wasn't his diagram. BUT, using bad data doesn't bolster one's efforts to prove one's case.

This isn't about claiming 'shenanigans' on ATS posters -- it's that they are getting false impressions from false sources, sometimes.

Ed: Forgot to mention, some other more salient points of mine went ignored. Such as, the ground track that is proposed in order to 'destroy' the Official Story (OS). Anyone with flying experience can see that the arcs, as drawn/depicted, show too tight a turning radius to accomplish at the speeds involved. Even the eyewitness testimony bears that out...they did NOT see extreme bank angles.

[edit on 6/28/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

I was going to answer your question, but I guess I don't have to now!




Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
Those pictures you took of BigSarge's location are brilliant. Are people still arguing that this guy could have seen the impact, despite those pictures you took??

That's why I don't think he'll be back. The questions we posed to him are a little too tough to answer after what he's already said. But I guess we'll see.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
Those pictures you took of BigSarge's location are brilliant. Are people still arguing that this guy could have seen the impact, despite those pictures you took??


I guess I'll have to slog over there....my Casio battery won't take a charge, darn. Need a new one....and a clear day.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hey, that would make a pretty fair argument then, yeah? Craig took pics, you go take some from the same location and we can compare them.

Should be nice and hot tomorrow



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


Go compare Craig's Satellite view on Page 3 to this graphic interactive map from the ANC website:

www.arlingtoncemetery.org...

Section '70' is more extensive than Craig would seem to indicate. Would an Honor Guard be drilliing on the actual Cemetery lawn? On a slope? Or, would they choose a paved surface?

Questions, questions.......



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join