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.

 

CIT - Changes Their Flight Path.

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
We here at ATS have all seen the picture Craig Ranke has posted in here and on his website. The one of the plane flying up and over the Pentagon through the explosion.

The claim was that the explosion would somehow mask the plane flying up and over the Pentagon. This alone is ludicrous for obvious reasons.



www.thepentacon.com...

Here is a quote from what appears to be a member of CIT at the JREF Forum:


CIT no longer believes the plane flew directly over the impact due to Roosevelt's testimony, as well as the description of a right bank.

link

So now, CIT is stating that the plane flew in front of the Pentagon and over the south parking lot? Or did it fly to the left of the impact point and do an amazing maneuver to get it in the south parking lot?



I'm curious where they are going with this change.



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Here is another graph CIT has posted here at ATS. This groups all the witnesses they have interviewed and their paths. (note that all of them end up terminating at the Pentagon impact point.

What is interesting is that since CIT no longer believes a flyover took place above the impact point. Where did the plane go to end up in the south parking lot? (unnoticed)




posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
I was reading other witnesses from CIT. There is one that I would assume is more damning to the CIT claim:

Levi Stephens

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In this post from Craig he states this:


He admits he did not see the plane hit any light poles despite the fact that they were right in front of him plus he does not describe the plane as being over the bridge that close either.

He claims he was on the phone with his sister with his back to the Pentagon at the time of the explosion which would explain why he missed the pull up and flyover.


What I don't understand is this:

If he had his back to the pentagon, how could he have seen an airplane at all?

If he was in the parking lot at the time of impact... why didn't he see the plane flying over head? His back was to the Pentagon!




posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


I'm curious where they are going with this change.



The CIT has realized that an "over the Annex-NoC-over the impact point-above Lane 1 in South Parking" flight path would be impossible if the "Decoy Jet" flew directly over the impact site.


We can expect more changes in the flight path and witness testimony as the grip is tightened around the neck of CIT's impossible theory.



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
CIT has never had a flight path.

We were not witnesses to the event.

We simply report what the witnesses tell us.

We also understand how no witness will ever be 100% accurate and it is unreasonable to expect them to be. We only rely on them for very general details that can be corroborated such as whether or not the plane was north or south of the citgo. That is a reasonable approach to eyewitness evidence.

The witnesses who were there unanimously place the plane north of the citgo.

This proves the plane did not hit the building.

This does not change regardless of what the exact flight path really was down to the foot (again witnesses are not computers) or what we hypothesize about it when considering new evidence that has been uncovered.

Probably the most significant piece of evidence we uncovered this year besides all of the Arlington Cemetery witnesses who corroborate NoC (north of citgo), ONA (over the navy annex), and the significant right bank of the plane was the discovery of the first known flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts Jr.

Because of his location and the fact that he saw the plane over the south parking lot it has led us to hypothesize that perhaps the plane did not pass exactly over the alleged impact point and was a bit further south.

Listen to his entire account in part 2 of the north side flyover.

When considering all this new extremely important very significant evidence that we uncovered during this productive year of 2008 we now estimate/hypothesize/suggest that perhaps the flight path was something closer to this:




Thanks to Pilots for 9/11 Truth they have already demonstrated with math and physics how something like this is aerodynamically possible for a conventional aircraft.

Of course it would be foolish to think that such a plane during such an operation would be a conventional aircraft anyway.

Regardless...as you can see from the illustration, it's not all that far from the alleged impact point anyway.

No doubt due to perspective it would still appear to be at the explosion for most witnesses.

We know that the deception would be effective either way because it WAS effective.

Most people were fooled into believing the plane hit the building when this is impossible because all of the witnesses in the most critical vantage points saw the plane north of the citgo.



But of course the murderers covered their tracks with a very elaborate 2nd plane cover story for the people like Roosevelt Roberts who may have seen it fly over or away from the building.

That is in fact exactly what Roosevelt Roberts thought he saw. A "2nd plane".

Get it now cameron?

2008 was a very productive year when it came to uncovering new independent verifiable evidence exposing the Pentagon attack operation.

We'll continue our efforts to uncover more evidence and fully expose this crime once and for all in 2009.

Happy New Year everyone!



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
CIT has never had a flight path.

We were not witnesses to the event.


Neither was anyone else on the planet, Craig.


We simply report what the witnesses tell us.


Then take down the misleading graphics on your website. Not a single witness saw a plane flying through an explosion and over the Pentagon.


We also understand how no witness will ever be 100% accurate and it is unreasonable to expect them to be. We only rely on them for very general details that can be corroborated such as whether or not the plane was north or south of the citgo. That is a reasonable approach to eyewitness evidence.


"Generally" speaking, you have not been able to show anything. you now have the plane flying to the south of the impact. Sorry, Craig not a soul on earth witnessed this. This would have been seen.

The person that does not get it ... is you and a handful of your faithful followers.




This does not change regardless of what the exact flight path really was down to the foot (again witnesses are not computers) or what we hypothesize about it when considering new evidence that has been uncovered.


I was not asking down to the foot. What I am stating is obvious. All your witnesses claim to have seen the plane fly into the Pentagon. (the ones that were able to) They would have noticed a plane flying to the south of the explosion.




Because of his location and the fact that he saw the plane over the south parking lot it has led us to hypothesize that perhaps the plane did not pass exactly over the alleged impact point and was a bit further south.


Your own witness Levi was in a prime location to witness your fantasy. He did not. He was in the south parking lot.





Thanks to Pilots for 9/11 Truth they have already demonstrated with math and physics how something like this is aerodynamically possible for a conventional aircraft.


They showed the plane pulling up and to the south of the impact point?


Of course it would be foolish to think that such a plane during such an operation would be a conventional aircraft anyway.


Yes Craig, it was a secret attack jet painted to look like an AA Jet.





[edit on 31-12-2008 by CameronFox]



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   


I thought I would add Levi on your overview photo here just to show how important his statement is regarding NOT seeing a flyover. Again, he is in a prime location to witness your story...yet as everyone else...he saw nothing.



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
So much for CIT's claim that the "explosion" was meant to disguise the "flyover."

Now, Craig has presented a scenario where there would have been hundreds more eyewitnesses than his first flyover claim would have produced.

Several threads on JREF give the final blow to CIT's claims.

That's it. Happy New Year.



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Why was PAIK disregarded?

Here is Paik gesturing where he saw the plane. (PFT Plane Graphics)





Yet PFT shows the plane doing something completely different:




posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Sorry cameron but sarcasm does not refute hard evidence.

Everyone saw the plane fly north of the citgo.

This proves the plane did not hit whether or not it passed directly over or a couple of hundred feet from the impact point.

The difference would be negligible to the witnesses during the few surprising seconds that this event went down.

The deception would still be just effective to most and the rest were handled with a 2nd plane cover story.

The evidence is conclusive.

The only way for you to effectively and honestly refute it is to provide 15 or more confirmed first hand eyewitness accounts of people who specifically place the plane south of the citgo.

So far you have none.

Better get crackin'!



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Great compilation images of Paik and the north side flight path!

It clearly shows how he definitively places the plane north of Columbia Pike headed straight for the Navy Annex exactly like he describes.

He he even said that he thought it hit the last building of the Navy Annex.

This perfectly corroborates all of the other witnesses proving the plane could not have caused the physical damage.

Good job!







posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Oh but your notation of Paik's location on the graphic is entirely incorrect.

Especially that huge red blob covering the VDOT on the other side of the street!



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Sorry cameron but sarcasm does not refute hard evidence.


I wasn't trying to refute anything by stating that there was an attack jet painted to look like an AA Jet. I was simply showing others how ridiculous of a claim it is.


Everyone saw the plane fly north of the citgo.


And then saw it impact the Pentagon. We can do this dance all night.


This proves the plane did not hit whether or not it passed directly over or a couple of hundred feet from the impact point.


No, what it proves is that many years after the event, your witnesses are mistaken.




The evidence is conclusive.


Correct!! Physical evidence along with eyewitness statements conclude that AA flight 77 struck the Pentagon.


The only way for you to effectively and honestly refute it is to provide 15 or more confirmed first hand eyewitness accounts of people who specifically place the plane south of the citgo.


Why would I waste my time and money to obtain information that I already know? You're the silly one that has spent countless hours and dollars attempting to prove something that simply did not happen.



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


It clearly shows how he definitively places the plane north of Columbia Pike headed straight for the Navy Annex exactly like he describes.



He is pointing down Columbia Pike. It's from YOUR video Craig. STRAIGT down columbia!!

Hold on tight Craig... your fantasy is dying...and dying fast.

Here is the direction where Paik is pointing... Please refer to CIT's video or above posts for verification: (excuse me if I didn't get the dot exact)



[edit on 31-12-2008 by CameronFox]



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


You are quite wrong and desperately spinning what he said.

Watch the interview again.

This is a screen shot from the part where he was being extremely specific about the placement of the body of the plane and his assessment of the heading:


He is quite clear about this BUT I made sure he also illustrated it for you because I knew that intellectually dishonest people would STILL try to lie and spin what he said:


You are simply dismissing what he said AND drew for you and drawing something completely different (that ALSO contradicts the required south of Columbia Pike official flight path)!

The levels of pure denial in the face of definitive evidence you are exhibiting is utterly amazing.

To be clear....although Ed Paik definitively places the plane north of Columbia Pike and over the Navy Annex....we do not unreasonably expect him to be 100% accurate regarding exact heading.

That would be illogical because witnesses are not computers.

But the fact that his general ONA claim is corroborated by Terry Morin and so many others is hard proof that the plane was not south of Columbia Pike on the official flight path, was on course for NoC, and therefore could not have hit the building.

We only expect witnesses to be accurate regarding general details that can be corroborated.

To expect them to be 100% accurate about all micro-specific details such as exact heading or exact placement down to the foot would be unreasonable.



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
So let me get this straight
According to the CIT/PFTT
1) Civilian contractors planted explosives at the pentagon
2) Civilian contractors wheeled in frozen cadavers to plant at the scnee
3) MEN IN BLACK worked in a HEAVILY TRAVELED area and removed and planted the light poles WITHOUT A SINGLE PERSON SEEING THEM
(imagine driving in a area that you travel regularly and all of a sudden there are several downed light poles!)
4) SECRET SERVICE AGENTS planted plane parts
(gee did they do a huddle and then run out onto the field as if playing football?)
5) DNA was planted
(could you imagine the time and effort to plant the DNA for the 64 people that were aboard flight 77? How many people would it take assuming it were even possible? How do you present this assignment to somebody? "Ok Jim here is what we need you to do....there is gong to be a bunch of explosions at the Pentagon. We need you to sneak in and sort of non nonchalantly plant these delicate DNA samples. Just sort of spread them where you think there would really be people....and while you are at it can you check the temperature of the frozen cadavers? We wouldn't want anything to ruin this exercise after all!")

Did I miss anything?



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


You are quite wrong and desperately spinning what he said.

Watch the interview again.


I have and perhaps you should try. Funny, after I watched it again, I picked up on the leading you did.:

Paik said "over the road" and you said: "maybe over the road." and he corrected you and said over the road. (discussing the wings)





He is quite clear about this BUT I made sure he also illustrated it for you because I knew that intellectually dishonest people would STILL try to lie and spin what he said:


I am not lying. I am going by your interview:



Right around the 3:50 mark. Watch both directions he is pointing in.


You are simply dismissing what he said AND drew for you and drawing something completely different (that ALSO contradicts the required south of Columbia Pike official flight path)!


I am not. What was his line of sight from where he was standing?



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
What you are saying makes perfect sense to me, Craig. In fact it advances the story of what really happened at the Pentagon.

Reasonable people know that you are doing a CSI style reconstruction based on witness testimony. It's not going to be perfect, given the situation, but it makes more sense than what the government has come up with, fake videos and all.

We are in for a long fight dude. Personally, I think 9/11 will be just a footnote to all the mayhem that is coming down the pike at us now, much like the Reichstag Fire is to WW2.



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


Actually no.

We've never made any of those claims.

Yes we have said it is likely that some allegedly civilian contractors who were working on the renovation that was wrapping up on 9/10 and 9/11 may have been assets or operatives.

Certainly this is quite possible but we have never stated that we know the exact career, position, or name of the individuals who were involved with the planning and execution of the event.

But the north side evidence proves the plane didn't the building.

No argument from incredulity with sarcastic language and inaccurate references to what we claim can refute the hard evidence we present that proves a military deception.

Next time you choose to compile a list of what we claim I suggest you quote us and source it.

Thanks.




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join