The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Originally posted by Tiamanicus

Originally posted by samael93
I do not see why anyone is arguing over this. There is so much evidence that flight 77 flew into the pentagon. The surveilance footage, the photos of the wreckage and bodies at the crash scene, the witness testimonies. The mountain of evidence is so huge that Craig is going to be climbing over it until he dies a natural death.

Cool, this is just what I had been looking for. Perhaps now you can share that information with all of us. I have been looking everywhere for it. Maybe whoever gave you a star for what had better be sarcasm can do it for you.

I will wait here.

I think all the debunkers should wait quietly too unless they have this evidence.

This is a very strange game you play, Tiamanicus. Or should I call you samael93?

Would you like to explain to others here why you have created two accounts to argue against yourself in these forums?

reply to post by discombobulator



LOL, ok. That would make sense.

Originally posted by Tiamanicus
reply to post by discombobulator

 

LOL, ok. That would make sense.

Makes sense to me.

* You both registered on August 30.
* The first post from each of these accounts is in the same thread and within 14 minutes of each other.
* Both accounts appear to post only in the same threads
* You forgot that you were logged on as samael93 when you responded to a message directed towards Tiamanicus. You even referred to the person who asked the initial question (Tiamanicus) as "I"
* Both accounts list the opposing account as your enemy

Tiamanicus and samael93 are clearly the same person.

[edit on 1-9-2008 by discombobulator]

Hey Tiamanicus/samael93,

How would you respond to the accusation that Pruflas75 is also one of your socks?

[edit on 1-9-2008 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by jthomas

 

CIT does not have a flight path because we were not witnesses to the event.

There are many eyewitnesses to a twin-engine passenger jet hitting the Pentagon

We report witness flight paths.

NONE of whom witnessed a flyover.

The image you are referencing above is simply a representation based on the average of all the witnesses we spoke with put together.

Your 13 eyewitnesses never claimed to see a flyover. You inferred it. In fact, most of them believe the jet crashed into the Pentagon.

Here is a composite image with all of their personally illustrated paths:

But none of them are "CIT's" flight path and even the averaged one should not be attributed to us as it is based off the witnesses.

You have no flight path nor eyewitnesses of a jet flying away from the Pentagon on the other side of the Pentagon.

The reason we aren't going to draw an estimate of exactly where the plane flew after the Pentagon is because we don't have enough data for that.

You don't have any data that a flyover took place. NONE of your eyewitnesses claimed to have seen a flyover. You inferred it. You have presented absolutely no evidence of a flyover. You know that. We know that.

Admittedly Roosevelt Roberts is the first critical flyover witness and his flight path description was a bit confusing. We regret that he backed out of the scheduled interview where he was going to illustrate it and clarify.

IF Roosevelt Roberts were to have seen a flyover, then there must be scores of eyewitnesses on the freeways, bridges, and areas around the other side of a Pentagon that would have witnessed a flyover too. NO reports of any such thing happening have ever surfaced. And you have absolutely REFUSED to do anything to look for eyewitnesses and try to support your claims.

But that does not change the fact that the north side approach has been validated beyond a reasonable doubt which proves a flyover.

You only inferred a flyover. Your eyewitnesses never reported a flyover. You have no way of claiming a flyover without confirmatory evidence. Also, as you well know, there are far more eyewitnesses from different locations who witnessed the impact.

And it also does not change the fact that the flyover is the only viable explanation for Roosevelt's account of a "commercial airliner" banking around after the explosion "just over the light poles".

The only viable explanation of you having no evidence of a flyover; no willingness to deal with the over 1,000 people who saw and/or recovered the wreckage; no willingness to do anything required of an investigation, and all the other nonsense games you play is because you know full well that there is no evidence of a flyover.

That's why my post above is right on. And YOU know it. The only question on the table is when you and Aldo are going to admit it.

Originally posted by almighty bob

Originally posted by jthomasDoes everyone see how Craig Ranke contradicted himself?

I don't see any contradiction.I see the interpolation of a flight path created from the evidence of witness statements.

None of the witnesses said they saw a jet begin a "flyover", did they? In fact, they believed the jet hit the Pentagon.

CIT acknowledge that they cannot give an 100% accurate flight path, and it would be unreasonable to expect them to be able to do so.

We are not talking about the flight paths TO the Pentagon, are we? IF a flyover took place, there would necessarily be scores of eyewitnesses in the Washington, DC area on the OTHER side of the Pentagon who saw the jet fly away from the Pentagon. Do you understand?

However, from my bystander position, there has been far more (seemingly) impartial and credible testimony to the possibility of the flight having gone north of Citgo than there has been to support the official story.

First, there is no "official story" and never has been. That canard still persists after all this time. There is only the evidence from hundreds of different sources and eyewitnesses, all disconnected, leading to a conclusion. That evidence neither came from the government nor was controlled by the government and is independently verifiable. So don't fall for the canard of some mystical "official story."

Second, whatever a handful of eyewitnesses may have said, the statements do not and cannot stand alone and apart from all of the other evidence. CIT cannot go around inferring that because 13 eyewitnesses claim to have seen a north side approach to0 the Pentagon, that MUST mean a flyover - then do absolutely no investigation to confirm that inference. CIT does not to have special privileges to exclude evidence nor to NOT deal with the implications of its claims.

The flyover however is still too underdocumented for me to form a swayed opinion either way although I accept that the scenario is quite plausible.

People who think critically and logically question all the evidence and claims. Scientists who are serious and honest ALWAYS try to prove their own theories and hypotheses WRONG. They do not exclude evidence.

Don't fall for CIT.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by jthomas
We don't need the government to know what the evidence was. The evidence was independent of the government and neither originated with the government nor was it possible for the government to control it.

You're a funny guy.

There's not much more i can say besides that . . . i have trouble typing when i'm laughing uncontrollably.

[edit on 8/31/2008 by JPhish]

Laughing in the mirror, no doubt.

I'm laughing at your thought that the many eyewitnesses to AA77's crash and the over 1,000 people who saw, recovered, and/or sorted through the wreckage from inside the Pentagon could join all the others on being part of your fanciful government conspiracy without a single leak in seven years.

Now, THAT'S hilarious.

Originally posted by discombobulator
Hey Tiamanicus/samael93,

How would you respond to the accusation that Pruflas75 is also one of your socks?

[edit on 1-9-2008 by discombobulator]

Discombobulator:

You are very perceptive. You can also look at the similarities in his names:

Tiamanicus: is the "Demon Prince of Deception"

Samael: is in Christian demonology who is a figure who is accuser, seducer and destroyer, and has been regarded as both good and evil.

Pruflas: is a Great Prince and Duke of Hell

(sorry for the off topic post Mods)

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Discombobulator:

You are very perceptive. You can also look at the similarities in his names:

Tiamanicus: is the "Demon Prince of Deception"

Samael: is in Christian demonology who is a figure who is accuser, seducer and destroyer, and has been regarded as both good and evil.

Pruflas: is a Great Prince and Duke of Hell

(sorry for the off topic post Mods)

Yes, I noticed that Pruflas and Tiamanicus are demon names as well, but I had associated them with fantasy games such as Warhammer and World of Warcraft. I didn't look into this any further as I was already firmly convinced that they were the same person.

Thanks for pointing it out though!

I have to admit, someone else tipped me off. But it was easy to start picking up all the clues once it had been mentioned to me.

[edit on 1-9-2008 by discombobulator]

Craig,

I couldn't help but notice that during your 8 minute interview with Wanda Ramey you did not ask her a single question regarding her actually witnessing the plane hitting the Pentagon. Then when she actually does talk about it you immediately change the topic to the colour of the plane.

When she told you multiple times that she could not recall the exact path of the plane you continually pushed her to answer the question whilst leading her with information about what Lagasse and Brooks saw.

"We read that of course you actually witnessed the plane that.. uhhhh... is that correct?"

You couldn't bring yourself to say the words "hit the Pentagon", could you? That would be leading your witness to confirm something that you don't want to hear.

Yeah, you guys are really interested in the truth when you conduct your interviews.

Edit: For those who are unaware of Wanda Ramey's account taken soon after the event.

At the time of the explosion, Rosati couldn't see the cause but Wanda Ramey, a DPS master patrol officer, had a clear view. Ramey stood at the mall plaza booth when she saw a plane flying real low.

"I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post and it made the plane slant. Then the engine revved up and crashed into the west side of the building," she said. "It happened so fast. One second I saw the plane and next it was gone."

Recalling those moments again. Ramey said it appeared the building sucked the plane up inside.

"A few seconds later, I heard a loud boom and I saw a huge fireball and lots of smoke," she said.

findarticles.com...


[edit on 2-9-2008 by discombobulator]

It's utterly ridiculous, and I'm staggered anyone would go to the lengths they have to come to a conclusion, with virtually no proof. You cannot say you have 100% proof (which is what you are saying Craig) of a flyover, because you have WITNESSES who said they saw the plane flying a different route, when there were MORE witnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

No one saw the plane fly over and away. Yet, it was a 757. Sorta hard to miss don't you think? You honestly expect us to believe that EVERYONE.. and I mean every single person who saw the plane, ALL lost track of it because of an explosion?

Your definative "proof" is eyewitness testimony.. of people who did NOT see where the plane went?!

And yet people actually SEEING it fly into the Pentagon is NOT proof?

You honestly expect everyone to just buy this theory? Your eyewitnesses who did NOT see something happen (see the plane fly over) proves it DID... and yet... eyewitnesses who saw it fly into the building does NOT prove it hit the Pentagon?

Your logic puzzles me deeply.

reply to post by fleabit


Ok well to break it down to neanderthalic terms for you.....


Imagine a filled auditorium for a magic show.

The entire room is sitting there in anticipation waiting to figure out the illusion that they already know will be a trick of the eye.

Most are successfully deceived.

The few that noticed the trick become irrelevant.

Get it now?

Remember....

We have a flyover witness.

And we have evidence of a cover up of what people really first reported.
(the confiscated and permanently sequestered 911 calls)


We have strong evidence for a deliberate cover story.

Added together with 13 flyover witnesses and a clearly fraudulent FDR and what the heck more else could you possibly need?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Remember....

We have a flyover witness.

And we have evidence of a cover up of what people really first reported.
(the confiscated and permanently sequestered 911 calls)


We have strong evidence for a deliberate cover story.

Added together with 13 flyover witnesses and a clearly fraudulent FDR and what the heck more else could you possibly need?

STOP LYING.

You have ZERO flyover witnesses.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by fleabit

 

Ok well to break it down to neanderthalic terms for you.....

Imagine a filled auditorium for a magic show.

... where anyone standing to the side or behind the illusionist can see exactly how the illusion is performed.

The Penn & Teller video which you ironically use to try and prove your point (they absolutely despise people like you) easily demonstrated this.

There are witness accounts from all around the Pentagon, including those such as Wanda Ramey and Sean Boger who viewed the incident from the side and specifically say that they watched the plane impact with, fully enter the Pentagon and then expode, as well as all of those who were on I395 and various other highways and road on the south and east side of the Pentagon and none of them witnessed the plane pull up and fly over the Pentagon.

Noone.

You have ZERO flyover witnesses, and despite your obvious intentions to the contrary, all you have done is introduce your readers to yet more witnesses that claim they saw the plane impact with the Pentagon.

Craig,

And what a load of crap your Second Plane Cover Story is.

The amount of distortions and blatant lies CIT manufacture from Joel Sucherman's account is incredible.

You claim that Joel Sucherman said the plane was 3 to 5 seconds behind AA77, and that this is deliberate disinformation to confuse people who may have seen the plane miss the Pentagon and fly away. According to you, they would hear Sucherman's account and then think "oh, ok, that's what I saw."

Anyone with a brain that listens to Joel Sucherman's account will quickly identify that he actually said that 3 to 5 seconds after impact he looked off to the west and saw a second plane off in the distance.

How on Earth would anyone be confused into thinking that a plane in the distance off to the west is the same plane that they just watched fly into the Pentagon only second earlier?

Edit: And how does your Second Plane Cover Story video stand up now that you've got a whole bunch of ANC witnesses that also claim to have seen this second plane? Are they Second Plane Cover Story liars as well?

[edit on 3-9-2008 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Remember....

We have a flyover witness.

If there actually was a flyover, you would have scores of eyewitnesses from the other side of the Pentagon. You can't avoid the implications of a flyover claim, but you try every evasion in the book to avoid that fact.

And we have evidence of a cover up of what people really first reported.
(the confiscated and permanently sequestered 911 calls)

Whether 911 calls were confiscated or not is irrelevant:

1) You possess no knowledge of what they contain if you have no access to them.

2) Not all eyewitnesses would have called 911. Some would call the media.

3) The media never reported any story of a flyover. Actual eyewitnesses would have been all over the media and the Internet - especially you conspiracy-minded yahoos - claiming a media cover-up.

In sum, Craig, when you propose a theory, you have to deal with all of the implications that theory entails. When we point them out, you can't just pretend they don't exist - you have to deal with them.

You have NO eyewitnesses to a flyover and you have NO flight path. Your latest flop with the RADES data in another thread just shows how you can't make your scenario work in any way at all.

It's over for CIT, Bubba Craig. Whether you show enough integrity to admit it or not, CIT has flopped. It has nothing but claims, assertions, and bloviations.

September 11 is a week from tomorrow. That would be an appropriate time to appear on the Pentagon steps and admit to all Americans what you know to be true: CIT has no evidence at all to support its claims.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by fleabit

 

Ok well to break it down to neanderthalic terms for you.....


Imagine a filled auditorium for a magic show.

The entire room is sitting there in anticipation waiting to figure out the illusion that they already know will be a trick of the eye.

Most are successfully deceived.

The few that noticed the trick become irrelevant.

Get it now?

The problem with this is that after looking at the explosion for a few seconds they would also be looking to the sky to see if another plane was about to come crashing into the pentagon or a building near by. They would clearly see a 757 flying away from the pentagon. After all, 2 planes hit almost in the same vicinity just a little while earlier. So it is safe to say that all those people who saw the explosion would be looking to see if any other planes were close by. You did watch that amature video I posted about 4-5 pages ago right. You know the one where the guy is video taping the fire and people jumping out of the first tower that got hit. You do see what he does 5 seconds after the second tower gets hit? He combs the sky to see if any other planes are about to crash near him. Also your comparison with a sleight of hand trick and an explosion with a 757 flyaway is rediculous. To think an explosion would cause people to not see a 757 flying away is insane.

Originally posted by discombobulator
Craig,

I couldn't help but notice that during your 8 minute interview with Wanda Ramey you did not ask her a single question regarding her actually witnessing the plane hitting the Pentagon. Then when she actually does talk about it you immediately change the topic to the colour of the plane.

When she told you multiple times that she could not recall the exact path of the plane you continually pushed her to answer the question whilst leading her with information about what Lagasse and Brooks saw.

"We read that of course you actually witnessed the plane that.. uhhhh... is that correct?"

You couldn't bring yourself to say the words "hit the Pentagon", could you? That would be leading your witness to confirm something that you don't want to hear.

Yeah, you guys are really interested in the truth when you conduct your interviews.

Edit: For those who are unaware of Wanda Ramey's account taken soon after the event.

At the time of the explosion, Rosati couldn't see the cause but Wanda Ramey, a DPS master patrol officer, had a clear view. Ramey stood at the mall plaza booth when she saw a plane flying real low.

"I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post and it made the plane slant. Then the engine revved up and crashed into the west side of the building," she said. "It happened so fast. One second I saw the plane and next it was gone."

Recalling those moments again. Ramey said it appeared the building sucked the plane up inside.

"A few seconds later, I heard a loud boom and I saw a huge fireball and lots of smoke," she said.

findarticles.com...


[edit on 2-9-2008 by discombobulator]

Excellent post!
It will be interesting to see Craig's response.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I saw your post and just haven't got around to replying.

Uh huh.

So you would have seen the post about the civillian contractors as well then, huh?

Oh yeah.

Bobert accused me of accusing all "400" of the people who analyzed the DNA in the lab as being "in on it".

You have not provided a quote of this because I never said it.

In fact I think that NONE of them had to be involved.

Although some may have been.

We will never know.

However certainly some of the renovation contractors are implicated by the evidence.

But I have never claimed to know who or how many.

This again we will never know.

Damn Craig I was really hoping that you had me on ignore.
You having me on ignore is like receiving the purple heart.