CIT skeptics finally admit north side approach is possible after all!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I did not pick and choose!

As far as I know all the images came from the same source. This is the first time I have heard this Renece aspect of the story in regards to the source of the pictures.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Sourcing it to conspiracy websites is not sufficient.
Now you are resorting to sourcing a conspiracy BLOG!

I was just stating where I got the photo from to comply with ATS rules, not that I support the evidence on that blog. I simply did a search for the photos I was looking for on the net. I don't spend much time discussing 911 anymore, so I don't have an archive of pictures to chose from like I used to.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You CAN NOT tell what part of a plane this is from, or what type of a plane, or whether or not it is FOR SURE a plane part at all.

Actually I can.
See this pattern:


That pattern is on the forward inside wall of the cargo door frame, right above the cargo bin light switch panel.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Well that is an easy one. Parts are changed out all the time on aircraft, and they are not always logged.

Prove it.
I have had pilots tell me that positive identification of parts is definitive and standard procedure.

Other then the fact that as an airline supervisor I had to work closely with the maintenance department there is no way to prove it to you. I can give you examples though I suppose. Additionally a friend of mine worked for a company who ran a machine shop that made after market parts for the airline industry.
Remember this crash:

the reason for the engine failure, which caused the hydrolics failure was due to a bad part manufactured by a Third Party Company, not from Douglas.

Investigation attributed the cause of the fracture of the fan disk to a failure of United Airlines maintenance processes to detect an existing fatigue crack. Post-crash analysis of the crack surfaces showed the presence of the penetrating fluorescent dye used to detect cracks during maintenance, indicating that the crack was present and should have been detected at a prior inspection. The detection failure arose from poor attention to human factors in United Airlines' specification of maintenance processes.

The crack in the fan disk was traced back to the Alcoa foundry from which the engine part was sourced. It turned out that there was a defect in elimination of gaseous anomalies during the purifying of the titanium disk ingot. An excess amount of nitrogen was in the material, causing a 'hard alpha inclusion' which cracked during forging and then fell out during final machining, forming a cavity with microscopic cracks at the edges.

To be honest with you, pilots most likely don't know half of what goes on in the maintenance department, they tend to hang out in flight ops between trips.

The FAA does not do the same depth of investigation with something like 911 as they would for something like United 232, because in United 232 the root cause of the accident had to be determined to find out if there were bad parts on the market or improper maintenance procedures. With AA77, the aircraft were airworthy thus they don't have to investigate in depth as they already know the root cause. See again your comparing apples with oranges based on crashes that you have seen in the past.

Originally posted by jprophet420
So there's 'all this' wreckage thats 'obviously' from flight 77 but the serial numbers don't match?

Simply amazing.

Well be careful there....

The factual statement would be that there is no positive identification via serial number etc.

The evidence has been sequestered and covered up.

There is zero disclosure.

They could very well come up with some parts that belong to tail #N644AA.

But it would be over 7 years after the event and the chain of custody would logically be in serious question at this point.

But NONE of the currently known parts from images have been positively identified as of yet and MOST of the images are unsourced/unclaimed/unofficial.

Originally posted by defcon5

As far as I know all the images came from the same source. This is the first time I have heard this Renece aspect of the story in regards to the source of the pictures.

Ok well if you can not provide a legitimate source for the photos then you are admitting that this is not legitimate evidence.

Furthermore whether or not you THINK you can identify the part, you can NOT identify whether or not it came from tail #N644AA which is all that matters.

The rest of your post was irrelevant to the evidence and the topic so it will be ignored.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by justamomma


I refer to the witnesses who were in the most critical area who were in a position to tell whether or not the plane was on a heading north or south of the gas station.

I've asked this before in the previous thread and I still feel it is a relevent question.
Here is what I wrote:

I think another thing to add to your list of questions is where are the witness statements from people in the other side of the Pentagon, if a plane did fly over at the same time as the impact why hasn't anyone there spoken up? think of it this way, you're in your office minding your own business when all of a sudden there would be an almighty explosion nearby. Within that split second of hearing the explosion you would realise that you are not in immediate danger. So, what is the first thing you do? You would look out the window to see if you can see what made the explosion. Obviously if an aircraft flew over at the same time you would spot it pretty easily.

Now with one of your images I will ask again...

Where are the witnesses from the area in the red square? These are the people who can prove or deny this theory.



[edit on 28-9-2008 by Chadwickus]

[edit on 28-9-2008 by Chadwickus]

reply to post by Chadwickus

(after you fix your image code)

Please forensically analyze their point of view of the approach and potential flyover/flyaway/flyby flight paths and report back with images and recorded first-hand testimony.

All of us at ATS anticipate the evidence you can provide in this regard.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

(after you fix your image code)

Please forensically analyze their point of view of the approach and potential flyover/flyaway/flyby flight paths and report back with images and recorded first-hand testimony.

All of us at ATS anticipate the evidence you can provide in this regard.

I can't provide any evidence, I am asking the question. Did YOU interview anyone from inside the Pentagon who were on the other side of the building? Are you deliberately withholding these statements because they will disprove the fly over theory? Remember I am not necessarily dismissing the the North approach, merely the 'flyover' part. One would think if you had witnesses on the other side you would have most definitely used them. Is that not true?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Let's assume this is a legitimate image (even though you still have not provided photographer credit or an official source) since you can actually see that it's in the A - E drive by the strange anomalous C-ring hole.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Ok well if you can not provide a legitimate source for the photos then you are admitting that this is not legitimate evidence

The same way that you can prove there were already airplane parts in the Pentagon before the attack.

First off these are the same photos that I have seen from 911 for years now, I simply had to find copies on the net. You yourself stated that we should assume this was a legitimate picture, now your turning tail because I can identify the part...

Personally I have worked on these planes, and I have no problem with what I see in the photos. They look about right to me considering that this crash was more violent then other crashes which we have seen in the past.

Anyway, I am done with this as you will not accept anything unless it proves your theory. Its been an decent discussion up to this point, so I'll leave it at that.
Have a good night.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Every part from flight 77. When will you refute it with evidence? You can't so you say show me, you are shown, then you say prove it. Please present proof the engine is not from 77. Or the parts on the lawn. Because all of that is backed up with your thirteen witnesses who saw 77 approach and all agree 77 impacted the Pentagon. Even your witnesses know 77 parts are all over.

77 parts confirmed by your witnesses. Ask them where the parts came from, they all say 77.

Why is the DNA not right?
Why is the FDR not correct? Please specify why.
Why do all your witnesses support 77 impacting the Pentagon?

You present impossible paths. Not one verified by real evidence.

The thread OP is false.

Oh, BTW...

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The rest of your post was irrelevant to the evidence and the topic so it will be ignored.

How is answering your question about how parts come from third part vender's, or how parts from accidents are only tracked if they have to identify a possible bad part or trend, irrelevant? It smells more to me like you just don't like the answer.

Originally posted by ChadwickusRemember I am not necessarily dismissing the the North approach, merely the 'flyover' part.

but if it approached from the north of the citgo then how do you explain lloyd's scene and if it impacted the building from the north of the citgo why would lloyd's scene be necessary?

[edit on 29-9-2008 by Domenick DiMaggio]

Originally posted by Chadwickus

I can't provide any evidence, I am asking the question. Did YOU interview anyone from inside the Pentagon who were on the other side of the building? Are you deliberately withholding these statements because they will disprove the fly over theory? Remember I am not necessarily dismissing the the North approach, merely the 'flyover' part. One would think if you had witnesses on the other side you would have most definitely used them. Is that not true?

The fact is the north side approach evidence is ENOUGH to prove it and absence of any other evidence is not evidence.....BUT:


Yes we did talk with someone on the other side who saw the plane banking away immediately AFTER the explosion.

His name is Roosevelt Roberts and he is a Pentagon police officer.

If you note the direction of the approaching bank in question you will see how the craft was headed to the SOUTH parking lot and not the north parking lot as indicated in the red box that you arbitrarily illustrated.

But yeah.

I recommend you view evidence before commenting on it.

Roosevelt Roberts is the "headline" feature of our latest presentation:

The North Side Flyover

I guess you have been oblivious to the massive thread I have on it.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Just want to point out that it does not take 13 "South" witnesses to discredit 13 "North" witnesses. If that were so, trials would be quick and certain; you'd just add up the number of exhibits and witnesses and the larger # wins. The "trier of fact" assesses credibility, and one credible witness can win over 25 in-credible ones. I've tried many cases with one credible police winess over many defense witneses and exhibits and obtained verdicts in my favor.

reply to post by defcon5


Document Archivist,

Please provide legitimate sources for your archived documents.

If you have none they will be dismissed.

Thank you.

Craig

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITHis name is Roosevelt Roberts and he is a Pentagon police officer.

If you note the direction of the approaching bank in question you will see how the craft was headed to the SOUTH parking lot and not the north parking lot as indicated in the red box that you arbitrarily illustrated.

sucherman, vin narayeman[sp], & wheelhouse all 3 report a plane flying away from the pentagon immediately afterwards as well despite the fact that not a single witness minus wheelhouse reports 2 planes approaching.

so if these 3 guys all see a plane flying away from the pentagon seconds after the explosion it might appear that there is more than 1 flyover witness. was there any direction given by any of these guys for the plane they saw immediately after the event?

Craig, I just watched a video where you point blank admit that the officers' you use embellished their testimonies. I know you have been called out on this and that you obviously don't care how wishy washy you appear, but you do have an agenda and anyone with any common sense will see that the agenda is not in favor of the well being of america, but more in favor of getting your name out there and lining your pockets, no doubt.

If you claim that you can't use other ppl's testimony bc it was embellished (or bc they point blank lied, or were brainwashed ~ whatever ridiculous reason you use to ignore them) and you admit that his was embellished, then I think it is high time for some consistency on your part by not using this sgt's "embellished" testimony as proof for your theory anymore.

A liar is a liar, no?

I'm still in the process of fact finding in order to do a more detailed analysis of CIT's claims, but I thought I needed to address this post.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
This question is continuously posed out of desperation to switch the subject when you know you have lost the argument.

Not at all Craig. The reason this question is posed is because at some point it becomes obvious to anyone opposing you just how much you will deny in order to consider your theory "proven".

Now, if this is the case, the only legitimate course of action you have as far as we are concerned is to take this to a criminal authority. This is why we ask you, because you seem to consider this proven beyond any possible doubt.

It would require grand juries, congressional hearings etc to compile ALL the evidence exposing 9/11 as a military black operation.

Certainly we'd be happy to participate in any way possible but in the mean time we will continue to gather evidence and to put pressure on the media and authorities to take action but we are not deluding ourselves into thinking we can sue George Bush.

Could you show the pressure that you have actually put on authorities to take action? I know little of the US legal system but I would imagine if your evidence is as convincing as you believe it to be, there would be many solicitors wishing to make a name for themselves in what would be the largest and most explosive court case in modern history.

How many solicitors have you consulted about this, and what are their responses?

This thread got derailed about 2 pages back.

1. The physical evidence (FDR, flight path damage, wreckage, DNA, etc.)

Fabricated, not supported by witnesses OR the FAA!!

2. 84th RADES data (Radar Records)

Fabricated? Who knows. Prove to me they aren't...

3. Reagan National Radar records

Where? WHat was the source (i.e. who released them)?

4. Andrews AFB Radar Records

Military.

5. ATC Communications Recordings

Shown to be wrong. There is a thread kicking around here about it. Transmissions occur on incorrect frequencies.

6. Tribby Video

???

7. Looney Photographs

Who said, and to which ones do you refer?

8. Aerodynamic Analysis of required flight paths

BS all the way. It IS possible, just not at 400 kts.

9. All CIT witnesses (save one) indicated AA77 struck the Pentagon.

Do they? I didn't think they did (I could be wrong).

9. Common Sense

Lacking in this thread for one!

WHY DOES THE FAA STORY DIFFER FROM THE NTSB STORY?

reply to post by justamomma


Embellishment is not equal to lying or deliberate deception.

Embellishment/deduction is a typical eyewitness tendency from honest people.

This is why the scientific process of corroboration is so important to investigators when determining which eyewitness claims are accurate.

Investigators don't simply throw out the entire testimony if an eyewitness has been shown to be embellishing regarding minor or less relevant details.

Our goal was to find exactly where the plane flew.

The fact is that NOBODY we talked to embellished the north side approach and we know this due to the extreme high levels of corroboration.

The notion that other details may have been embellished by some of the witnesses does not change the legitimacy of the north side approach or mean that we should completely dismiss their accounts.

That would be foolish.

reply to post by exponent


We'll reveal more about this when we're ready.

In the mean time your opinion is not important to us.

Until you can disprove the witnesses that actually saw the plane hit the Pentagon, your 'research' means naught. I won't even discount that some folks may have seen the plane flying in a path other than the 'official' one. At the end of the day, if the plane impacted with the building, it just doesn't matter.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Once you are able to prove that ALL the witnesses were mistaken, wrong or lying (which is ironic that you say they ALL are, yet NONE of your witnesses are mistaken, lying or exaggerating), then you have a bevy of other evidence to sift through and prove wrong. Vaguely dismissing forensic evidence because it wasn't notarized and tagged by preapproved non-biased authorties on the day this occured isn't professional nor does it prove a thing. You MUST address the claim of bodies, wreckage, personal effects, etc. All I've heard on any of these fronts so far, are very nebulas comments about how none of it is 'official.' That's a cop out.

But again, you can't even get past the witnesses who said they saw the plane collide with the Pentagon. So far I've been pointed to a biased list of witnesses, of which less than HALF have been spoken with, as 'proof' that they were wrong. That, and again, very vague comments about how they 'didn't see what they thought they saw,' with ludicrous comments about how a fireball would completely bamboozle all the witnesses. Who apparently would be oblivious to a huge silver passenger jet on a clear day, pulling up (making tremendous noise as it does so), to make a flyover to the far side of the Pentagon, where no witnesses saw it fly off, with the theory that people are again, so stupid as to think a plane flying that low, in that location, is 'normal' airport traffic.

All the purported 'facts' are guesswork, testimony from 13 witnesses well after the fact, with the assumption that none of them are mistaken, interviewed with obvious bias, and dismissal of anything that doesn't jive with your opinions. Until you can pony up with some solid research on the rest of the event, your research is pointless. It's like you are fixated on your 13 witnesses (again, interviewed with a bias take), ignoring all the other data, or ignoring it if it doesn't mesh with your opinion.