It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Did the Pentagon attack jet hit the VDOT antenna?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 10:13 AM
The answer is no.

Let's begin this thread by reminding everyone how the final descent from the top of the VDOT (Virginia Dept of Transportation) tower to light pole 1 proves the official flight path impossible in relation to the low and level approach shown in the security video and all physical damage.

This presentation from Pilots for 9/11 Truth proves this definitively with hard math as discussed in detail in this thread.

It would take minimum 10g's of force which is well beyond impossible for a 757 to sustain.


But that doesn't stop some people from arguing that the plane actually flew here anyway! Because amazingly, the official flight path REQUIRES the plane to be directly over the VDOT antenna despite the fact that the required descent from here due to the topography is impossible for a 757 at the official speed of 535 mph.

On our first trip to Arlington in 2006, brothers Shinki and Edward Paik who were at the auto shop across the street from the VDOT told us they saw workers on the antenna the next day and therefore simply thought the plane must have somehow damaged it.

But we confirmed with the VDOT direct that the plane did NOT damage the tower BUT that the FBI took control of their facility on 9/12 and was adding communications.

So there were workers on it the next day which is exactly what Shinki and Edward said led them to believe it was damaged even though they did not witness the plane hit it. In fact Shinki did not witness the plane at all. Only Edward did but Shinki was the one who initially told us the plane hit it so no doubt his deduction influenced his brother who was the one who saw the plane.

Here are images of the antenna on 9/11 immediately after the attack in comparison to a shot of it taken in 2006 making it perfectly clear how there was no damage:

Clearly there is no discernible difference at all.

So the photographic evidence, the eyewitness evidence, and even direct confirmation from the VDOT themselves (who even provided an alternate explanation for why there were workers on the antenna the next day) PROVES that it was not hit by the plane.

Even though we made all this information public way back when we returned from our very first trip to Arlington in 2006, a particular former "truther" and obsessed CIT detractor is trying to resurrect the notion that the plane hit the VDOT antenna because the official flight path is right over the top of it and of course this would contradict the north side approach.

But again....

EVEN IF the plane was on top of the VDOT antenna math and physics prove it is physically impossible to descend to light pole #1 at the reported speed of 784 feet per second and still pull up to be low and level with the lawn as shown in the security video.

Shinki and Edward simply THOUGHT the tower was damaged because there were workers on it the following day but both admit to not seeing it happen.

They merely deduced it and NOBODY has been reported actually claiming they witnessed the plane hit it.

Because they all place the plane on the north side.

Edward definitively places the plane on the north side of Columbia Pike directly over him proving it did not hit the tower.

Now here is the original interview with Edward from 2006 when he first told us that he thought the plane hit it but admitted that he did not see it happen:

This interview was recorded by Dylan Avery in a different location from where Edward saw the plane. So at the time, due to this fact and Edward's broken English, we didn't know for sure exactly where he was placing it which is mostly the reason why I made sure to interview him again on location on my 2nd trip. That way he could describe EXACTLY where he saw the plane by pointing without the language barrier. But now after getting that confirmation from him and taking another look at this first interview....if you pay attention to where he notates the location of the Sheraton is in relation to his description of the flight path, it is 100% clear that he was describing the plane headed towards the north side of Columbia Pike over the Navy Annex in the first interview as well.

First interview not on location....

Coming from here:

Going this way:

2nd interview on location.....

Coming from here:

Going this way:

North side of Columbia Pike and over the Navy Annex just like Terry Morin. NOT over the antenna.

No matter how much the obsessed CIT critics keep trying to spin the information to deceive you they can't put a dent in the north side evidence.

However if they want to suggest the plane was REALLY at the top of that VDOT antenna and made that final descent to light pole 1.......we say let them!

[edit on 6-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The answer is no.

First off....does it matter?

The answer is no.

Second what? What does this signify? It did or it didn't. Who cares? Its not like you are going to add that little tidbit of "evidence" to your grand jury indictment, now is it? Actually, this post looks nothing more than just another reason to post links to PffT and your own blog.

In fact, you will never *have* a grand jury indictment because you don't haev the strength of your convictions. If you did you wouldn't still be here on ATS or playing sock puppet on JREF, talking your "best" game (which isn't anything at all) but not doing squat. At least April Gallop has the cojones to actually file a lawsuit - as ridiculous and hopeless as it is - she puts the CIT Sleuths to shame.

I bet 2011 will come and go and we *still* won't see CIT do anything with the 12 or 14 or 18 or 20 CORROBORATED WITNESSES and STUNNING EVIDENCE they conjured up.

posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 12:39 PM
Turns out the professor listed as a "consultant" to this "paper" at one time and may still support that a missile struck the Pentagon.
This is interesting because on many occasions Craig has denounced such theories yet here the PFTT seems SO DESPERATE for a consultant that they embrace a no planer?

posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 05:13 PM
In blatant disregard to the forum rules CameronFox has chosen to reply to this thread in a thread he created regarding a completely different topic that has already been fully addressed and debunked.

His reply is here.

First Cameron muses:

Craig also no longer shows the graphic of Paik... and Spreston has denied him even ever pointing down Columbia Pike... here is another clear shot of him.

Keep in mind while he was doing this he states:

"Coming from there to this way"

This is one of the most ridiculously dishonest attempts at nitpicking to spin the evidence that I have ever seen.

I have created 2 screenshot gif images of Ed Paik and both show him pointing out the flight path in the same direction exactly like he also illustrated on 3 separate images.

Both gifs were taken from the same interview.

The only difference is in the first one he was more casually indicating the general direction and in the 2nd one he was very specifically trying to point out the exact location of the fuselage of the plane.

This will be quite clear to anyone who watches the interview and the only reason I made the 2nd one is because people like CameronFox have worked so incredibly hard to spin the first one as if Edward didn't clarify even more specifically later in the same interview.

First image:

2nd more detailed description:

Obviously the difference is negligible and he clearly is pointing to a heading north of Columbia Pike FAR from the antenna/official flight path both times.

This is the point so to have to sit here and answer these ridiculous unfounded charges from CameronFox is laborious, tiresome, and frankly a big waste of time for the intellectuals who read this forum.

I am sorry about that but I make sure to address these types of deceptions from our detractors to keep everything on the record.

Cameron continued with his off topic rant:

Another interesting point is Paiks POV.

He can not see the Annex from his vantage point. Why does CIT fail to ever show a picture of this?

Because that is not the direction the plane came from so it is irrelevant. Plus you can see all of that just fine in the video from the interview.

We never claimed he could see the Navy Annex right up the street from him and this is also clear from the video recording.

But Edward saw the plane approach with nothing blocking his view at all so he was in an EXCELLENT place to judge the heading of the plane. Certainly much better than Terry Morin who admitted to being between the wings of the Navy Annex.

Seeing the approach is what allows a witness a chance to gather their bearings and report a more accurate heading and location. ESPECIALLY if it flew right over the top of them as Edward reports.

This was Edward's clear view of the approach of the plane:

And here is his exact location with yet another flight path image he drew further proving he has the plane completely north of Columbia Pike:

He specifically says he thought it was going to hit the roof of his building and he also specifically says he thought it would hit the Navy Annex after it passed over him!

How could he possibly have been more clear and why would anyone doubt him when we have minimum 12 other confirmed witnesses who independently corroborate him?

There is really no debate here but some people are willing to do or say anything at all to cast doubt on this extremely important evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:52 AM
Starred and Flagged

Again great work as usual Craig. I really hope this black box flight path data is used in a court of law; in conjunction with the dozens of Northside witnesses, one day to convict the REAL perps of 9/11.


Nice how this thread as well as many other important threads are falling to the second page.

I look at the 30 or so threads currently on the first page, and 9 of them the last poster is Anonomous(sp?), and all of the threads we started back in 07, early 08. Theres also another 4 or so that are on the front page that were bumbped by known Official Story guys.

Anyhow that accounts for almost 50% of the threads on the front page. I'm sure it's been worse at times as it fluxuates.

This is sad, I believe there's a concentrated planned effort going on, that has been going on the past week, to bump old outdated, basically now meaningless threads, in order 6to keep current truth threads off the front page.

Sad the lengths some people, or some person is going.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by Nola213]

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Nola213
I really hope this black box flight path data is used in a court of law; in conjunction with the dozens of Northside witnesses, one day to convict the REAL perps of 9/11.

Don't hold your breath. Craig & company are only interested in debating their evidence on message boards, not in actual justice.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:23 AM
interesting point. . . . .

when the whole story is known = if ever
I hope we will teach these elitest bastards a lesson...
they have all the time in the world to dream these scenario's up only to kill people as sacrafices ... we should extend the same curtosey... we should start a secret order to put these secret societies on notice.... I think I will ask Jesse Ventura to start up this new world order secret society extermination force....

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:05 PM

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by Nola213
I really hope this black box flight path data is used in a court of law; in conjunction with the dozens of Northside witnesses, one day to convict the REAL perps of 9/11.

Don't hold your breath. Craig & company are only interested in debating their evidence on message boards, not in actual justice.

No , I'm not counting on just CIT to do this. They've worked thier arses off to get to this point.

I'm hoping thier efforts will turn the heads of some people with pull, maybe former Gov. Ventura?? who knows.

Buts its gonna take ALOT more people and alot of funding (I doubt CIT is a bunch of trust fund babies, and chose this to spend thier money on).

So no, it's gonna take the "wakeing of the sheep" first and foremost", this is where CIT, and PFT can help.

But no, I'm not just counting on 3 or so guys basically doing old school P.I. work to bring down 9/11 in a court of law.

*Edit* LOL BornPatriot, we both had Mr. Ventura pop into our heads. I didn't even see his name in your post, brilliant!

[edit on 30-1-2009 by Nola213]

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:39 PM

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Craig & company are only interested in debating their evidence on message boards, not in actual justice.

So says the anonymous person sitting behind his monitor and actually doing nothing but arguing on a message board. All while CIT is actually out interviewing, gathering evidence, taking photos, documenting.

Who are you to sit there and say that CIT is only interested in debating on a message board when you're doing it yourself, and moreso than them? They're out spending their own time and their own money doing actual investigating. It may not be as professional as you like, or you may not agree with their tactics, but they're out doing. What are you doing besides wasting space and energy on a message board?

I'm pretty sure the forum rules basically say to comment on the theories or ideas and not the person(s). Your post clearly is an attack on CIT and had nothing to do with the topic.

And this thread isn't a debate. CIT is presenting information for people to digest and comment on. Great presentation Craig.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by _BoneZ_]

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 03:32 AM

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by Nola213
I really hope this black box flight path data is used in a court of law; in conjunction with the dozens of Northside witnesses, one day to convict the REAL perps of 9/11.

Don't hold your breath. Craig & company are only interested in debating their evidence on message boards, not in actual justice.

.... and you are only interested in debating "Craig and Co" on message boards nsted of paying your way to Arlington to confront such wintesses filmed by "Craig and Co".

what does that make you?

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:34 AM
Please excuse the rather large external quote. I post it in it's entirety because it is the work of another, posted elsewhere and CIT refuses to answer these questions.

Until we know what CIT's theory actually is, why should we follow the rabbit down an impossibly deep hole of paranoia?

1. You acknowledge that, of your 13 star witnesses, only a very few (viz. Sean Boger) could actually see the impact point? Yes or no answer, please.

2. You acknowledge that, of the much larger pool of witnesses in total, much more than one were positioned to see the impact point? Yes or no answer, please.

3. You acknowledge that, since the maneuver or lack thereof close to the Pentagon is critical to your theory, the ability to see this point and thereby descry what happened there is of prime importance? Yes or no.

4. You acknowledge that Mr. Boger, as well as a plurality of other witnesses, claims that Flight 77 did in fact impact the Pentagon? Yes or no answer.

5. You acknowledge that the following list of features are essential ingredients of the (as far as I know, never clearly stated) Citizens's Investigationing Team's hypothesis:

* They wanted to fool the world into thinking American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, along a certain heading that took it through several light poles and low over the freeway just prior to impact
* To do this, They flew an aircraft over the Pentagon
* The aircraft traveled along a different heading entirely, on the opposite side of a visible landmark (viz. the Citgo station)
* The aircraft passed nowhere near the light poles in question
* The light poles were sabotaged anyway, in some completely different fashion than aircraft impact
* One light pole was staged to penetrate the windshield of a car, in traffic, again despite the actual aircraft not passing anywhere near overhead
* A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by
* The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual
* The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77
* A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft
* The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.

Yes or no answer, and if "no," please elaborate.

6. You acknowledge that no explanation has ever been tendered for why They would have carried out such a bizarre plan? Yes or no answer.

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:43 AM

Originally posted by RockHound757
.... and you are only interested in debating "Craig and Co" on message boards nsted of paying your way to Arlington to confront such wintesses filmed by "Craig and Co".

Straw Man argument. There is no need to go personally interview witnesses that have already been interviewed shortly after the incident by many sources.

Your straw man seeks to set up the false logic that unless we personally go out an re-interview witnesses, more than seven years after the fact, CIT's interpetation(s) of said witness statements are all we have to work with.

Which brings up another logic-fallacy the so-called truth movement relies on: ignoring the huge amount of evidence available in the public domain. CT'ers love to discuss the smallest minutia in a vacuum as though the minutia is all the body of evidence contains.

EDIT - for clarity

[edit on 31-1-2009 by SlightlyAbovePar]

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:54 AM
reply to post by _BoneZ_

CIT has claimed for years to have 'smoking-gun' evidence of the largest cover-up in history. A cover up which resulted in the murder of over 3,000 innocents.

Yet, with this 'irrefutable, independently confirmed, Center for Military Justice documented, smoking-gun evidence' they have done.............nothing to bring this information to the court system. Don't you find that a bit odd?

The one attempt at real media publicity (other than low-volume radio shows on 'Air America') resulted in OC Weekly publishing a very uncomplimentary narrative on CIT. Read it here.

It's an honest question that begs an answer: if they really had any evidence, of anything, wouldn't someone pick the ball up and run with it? The answer is, of course they would. However, CIT explains their one horrific encounter with the media as a 'hit piece' and declares everyone who doesn't buy-in to the theory (although we don't really know what, exactly, their theory is) as 'in on it'.

top topics


log in