Is it possible for the Pentagon attack jet to fly north of the citgo and still hit the Pentagon?

Hypothetically? Of course.

But not on 9/11 due to the physical damage.

A north of citgo approach is 100% irreconcilable with ALL of the physical damage and therefore proves the plane did not hit the building.

We've got an over zealous new guy around here trying to flex some crazy theories as a means to obfuscate this important evidence but the facts are clear.....

NoC proves a flyover.

Unless of course you're willing to suggest the plane was somehow "disappeared" by exotic technology of some sort but we don't believe this at all.

Primarily because we have the first critical flyover witness, Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr as presented in The North Side Flyover but also because the overwhelming amount of evidence there is for a very deliberate 2nd plane cover story.

But the fact is.....if you accept the accounts of 13 north side witnesses as valid and accept the notion that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station; science, physics, evidence, and common sense requires you to accept a flyover.



It's obvious to anyone right away that a north side plane can't hit the light poles but it also can not create the damage to the generator trailer which also REQUIRES a south side approach:






but so does the directional damage to the building leading all the way to the anomalous, strange round alleged "exit" hole in the C-ring:





Most people here will likely be aware of this already since it was made perfectly clear in The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version almost 2 years ago but this thread is for the benefit of the less researched newbies who feel the need to challenge this assertion.

There is a reason that the NoC evidence is so important and that CIT has such a rabid bunch of government loyalist detractors who spend night and day obsessing over every word we say.

It's because they KNOW the plane could not and did not hit that building and NoC proves it.

Let this thread serve as a reminder and provide an opportunity for anyone who might disagree with this to state their case with independent verifiable evidence demonstrating exactly how all observed physical damage could have been created by the plane on the north side as unanimously reported by the witnesses.







[edit on 20-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Thank you for posing this question because I believe that it goes right to the heart of some flaws in the theory you have proposed. Please keep in mind that my disagreement is with your theory, not with you personally.

Before debating this topic, there is some information that I feel needs to be agreed upon or we will go round and round in circles and accomplish nothing.

Does the 84th RADES data agree with the FAA data? Do either of those data sets disagree with the FDR of Flight 77, as it has be submitted? Granted, FDR's do not record real-world positional information, however it is possible to reconcile this flight time information with radar plots.

Once we either agree or disagree on that we may move to the next stage of the discussion.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by cogburn]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Hypothetically? Of course.

But not on 9/11 due to the physical damage.

A north of citgo approach is 100% irreconcilable with ALL of the physical damage and therefore proves the plane did not hit the building.

Which tells your theory does not fit the evidence.

NoC proves a flyover.

No, it doesn't. You have provided no positive verifiable evidence of any flyover. You have not presented any eyewitnesses, media reports, or physical evidence.

This is why I started a thread so people could go help you out.

Unless of course you're willing to suggest the plane was somehow "disappeared" by exotic technology of some sort but we don't believe this at all.

That's exactly what CIT's "theory" requires us to believe. CIT is asking us to believe that a jet approached the Pentagon, low and fast and very loud, and that it then vanished into thin air.

This is just another reason why the CIT theory makes no sense at all.

Primarily because we have the first critical flyover witness, Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr

Roosevelt Roberts, of course, did not see a flyover. He saw a fast moving jet in the direction of AA77, Lane 1 of the South Parking lot. Your claim has been debunked easily right here. Imagine that you have to rely on a confused person as your sole witness.

As we all know, if Rooosevelt Roberts saw this....



.....then it is quite clear that dozens of others would have seen it also all around the Pentagon.

That is why CIT and P4T need to present those eyewitnesses but cannot find any verified accounts of any flyover whatsover.

But the fact is.....if you accept the accounts of 13 north side witnesses as valid...

Yes, they all either saw the jet hit the Pentagon or believed it did.

A sample of CIT's eyewitnesses:

www.thepentacon.com...

Keith Wheelhouse:

"That's because Keith Wheelhouse will eventually confirm it as a C-130."

vin narayaman:

"I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second *jet* hovering in the skies".

So Vin saw AA77 hit the Pentagon too. A fast moving jet, loud and low, doesn't ever appear to be "hovering." So, we can dismiss that as the jet flying over and away from the Pentagon. It fits the description of the E4B circling at high altitude.

joel sucherman:

"USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning.

It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away.

"My first thought was hes not going to make it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction," Sucherman said. "It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle--almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course."

...

"Off to the west, Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, were toast."

So, Joel Sucherman saw AA77 hit the Pentagon, then saw another plane "off to the west." So he did not witness a jet fly over and away from the Pentagon and definitely saw AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief

"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building."

And then you have the Arlington National Cemetary workers who didn't see any flyover either.

"Although all of these witnesses believe the aircraft impacted the building,..."
Starting at 38:23


"Furthermore, these witnesses describe how they were running away from the scene for their lives and were not paying attention to what the plane did after it passed them."
Starting at 38:52

9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON - Official Release - Pilots For 9/11 Truth

Google Video Link

When will you produce verified eyewitnesses who actually saw any jet fly over and away from the Pentagon, Craig?



[edit on 20-11-2008 by jthomas]

reply to post by cogburn


Sorry but I fail to see how your question is relevant to the topic.

The topic is strictly in regards to the observable and reported physical damage in relation to the north side approach.

No government provided data released years after the event is relevant to this problem in any way, shape, or form.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Hypothetically? Of course.
But not on 9/11 due to the physical damage.

There you go! You answered your own question. The plane didn't fly north of the service station because the physical damage to the building, as well as the light poles, make moot any claim that the aircraft was on a northerly flight path.

Besides, if it were on a northerly flight path and it didn't hit the building, you'd have witnesses that would be able to tell you where the aircraft went....right?

You don't have any - Roberts is not a credible witness, and the newbie you and your bud Stevie-Boy Warren are pimping now, Roseborough, is most certainly not a "flyover" witness.

Nice job. You solved your own conundrum.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Not sure if I am derailing the thread here, but I'll take the risk since an intriguing thought came to me as I was reading your initial post. It came in the form of a question:

Why did the plane fly north of the Citgo station, when the pre-planning obviously called for it to fly south of the Citgo station?

I'm looking for a non-trivial answer here. I'm thinking that this might be a very significant question. It's one of the places where the seams in the officially accepted version of events are showing. Maybe it is worth a careful look.

The trivial answer is that the people who were flying the plane, by whatever means, didn't think it necessary to follow the script that closely. (CIT didn't figure in their planning at that point.)

I wonder if there is a non-trivial answer to this question, an important answer.

Ok so both jthomas and Pinch agree.

If you accept the 13 independently corroborated accounts of the plane on the north side approach as accurate you MUST accept a flyover.

Looking forward to your response to the topic cogburn.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Why did the plane fly north of the Citgo station, when the pre-planning obviously called for it to fly south of the Citgo station?

So it could more readily be explained to people like Roosevelt Roberts who saw it flying away as a "2nd plane".

The 2nd plane cover story was absolutely critical to the operation and as you can tell from jthomas' long-winded off topic response it is predictably and quite regularly used by pseudo-skeptics in defense of the official lie.



[edit on 20-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

In the images above you included a flight path as it was dictated by the government.

Your theory is in opposition to that flight path.

I would like to establish what, exactly, the data is that your theory is attempting to refute.

If you don't want to include that I don't see how we can have a discussion... unless you would like me to take each witness in turn and explain why the testimony is incomplete, misleading, or not otherwise scientifically validated?


[edit on 20-11-2008 by cogburn]

The call Craig made, recorded , and posted regarding Dewitt Roseborough did nothing to support his flyover theory. Nor did it hurt it.

I suspect, that if he (Roseborough)stated clearly that he did not see a plane fly over the parking lot. (where CIT and others assume it did) he would not be a "person of interest" but a "perp" like the rest of the witnesses from the Pentagon.

Just my 2 cents.

Oh, one more penny. Craig no disrespect, but did you obtain permission to record that phone call?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


That makes perfect sense. Thanks.

Has there been any progress made in attempting to find out where this plane went, where it landed?

reply to post by cogburn


You need to read the OP and pay better attention to the words.

The question is in relation to the "observed physical damage".

No self respecting official story skeptic would base anything at all on the government controlled and provided data released many years after the event.

This topic is specifically addressing the possibility of the plane causing the physical damage after flying north of the gas station.

So far it's unanimous from all CIT skeptics and supporters that this is impossible.

You seem to be the only one claiming otherwise so we are all counting on you to prove it with evidence.

I suggest you simply concede we are correct and let this thread die since anyone with common sense and the slightest ability to think rationally and look at this situation honestly will agree with me and everyone else.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by cogburn

 

You need to read the OP and pay better attention to the words.

The question is in relation to the "observed physical damage".

No self respecting official story skeptic would base anything at all on the government controlled and provided data released many years after the event.

This topic is specifically addressing the possibility of the plane causing the physical damage after flying north of the gas station.

So far it's unanimous from all CIT skeptics and supporters that this is impossible.

You seem to be the only one claiming otherwise so we are all counting on you to prove it with evidence.

I suggest you simply concede we are correct and let this thread die since anyone with common sense and the slightest ability to think rationally and look at this situation honestly will agree with me and everyone else.

Well if that is the theory then I would challenge it on the face of the north-side fly-over testimony, regardless of any previous statements I've made elsewhere.

Even in my theory that is one of the weak points; you have to accept the north-side theory as probable fact for my theory to work. You could have challenged my theory on that point but chose not to.

However for the purposes of this thread I'd be more than happy to do so. Would that be acceptable?


[edit on 20-11-2008 by cogburn]

reply to post by cogburn


To be honest I have no idea what your reply meant or how it is relevant to the conversation.

What don't you understand here?

This thread is not about a theory.

It is regarding the absolute scientific fact that it is impossible for a plane north of the gas station to cause the known physical damage.

You are the only person I know of who has ever openly contested this fact.

Please prove your point with evidence or concede that everyone else is correct and that you are wrong.

It is impossible for a plane to fly north of the gas station and cause the physical damage.

Well if that is the way you choose to view things then before I begin I have something else that I need that I can't find in your information.

I see several plots in your information that indicate a path of the plane in 2 dimensions. A car moves in 2 dimensions, a plane moves in 3. I see no plots of the eye witness testimony in 3 dimensions and this information is absolutely vital to answering the question as you have posed it.

Where have you compiled this information in the same manner you compiled the X.Y coordinates for the other plots?

reply to post by cogburn


You are avoiding the topic.

It's real simple.

It is not about any witness or even any specific flight path.

Feel free and consider it hypothetical for the sake of discussion.

The point is that it is impossible for a plane to fly ANYWHERE north of the gas station and still cause the physical damage as observed.

Do you now concede this fact as being true?

If not please provide evidence to prove your case but please realize you are the first to ever stand by such a silly claim since the evidence was first released going on 2 years ago.

To determine the exact damage pattern I will also need the angles of the pitch yaw and roll of the aircraft as provided by the witnesses.

Sorry I forgot that part.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by cogburn

 

You are avoiding the topic.

It's real simple.

It is not about any witness or even any specific flight path.

Feel free and consider it hypothetical for the sake of discussion.

The point is that it is impossible for a plane to fly ANYWHERE north of the gas station and still cause the physical damage as observed.

Do you now concede this fact as being true?

If not please provide evidence to prove your case but please realize you are the first to ever stand by such a silly claim since the evidence was first released going on 2 years ago.

Without knowing the claimed angle or altitude of the aircraft as witnessed I cannot determine how the damage occurred.

You are setting up your argument so that it cannot be answered.

Hey Craig! Just wondering if you calculated the time from the first down light pole to the impact according to the FDR data? Is it at all possible to steer from NoC to the first street lamp?? Not steering with purpose but panic steering, trying to control the plane to target.

Also according to the FDR he accelerated during the last moments??? Could this acceleration caused oversteering as the plane veered or lurched off course??

Also wondering if you ever considered the possibility of both a plane impact and pre-placed explosives which would be the same M.O., a duplicate of the WTC attacks??

You may have gone over these questions before so I apologize if I missed the info! Thanks!

posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Is it possible for the Pentagon attack jet to fly north of the citgo and still hit the Pentagon?

No, it is not possible. Because of the angle of penetration of an impact from the Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo flight path, an entirely new and different damage path would have been created into the Pentagon interior. Also after the pull up at Hwy 27 witnessed by Robert Turcios, it would have been impossible for the aircraft to impact the 1st floor in level flight in the short remaining 700 foot distance. The aircraft could probably have impacted the 3rd or 4th floor in level flight; but that damage did not happen did it?

If the aircraft had managed to somehow dive down to the 1st floor in the 700 foot remaining distance to the wall after the pullup, there would have been extensive damage to the 1st floor foundation from the steep diving aircraft. But there was no recognizable damage to the foundation at all.

Also the aircraft along the Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo flight path would have entirely missed the 5 downed light poles and the broken windshield taxi; a critical portion of the Flight 77 script. It would also have missed the staged generator. Some of the targeted personnel would have been to the left of the new damage path, and other methods would have been necessary to eliminate them.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Why did the plane fly north of the Citgo station, when the pre-planning obviously called for it to fly south of the Citgo station?

No, the preplanning did not intend for the aircraft to fly the official south route. That was the simulated aircraft flight path. If an aircraft had flown that flight path, then it would have been too risky that real eyewitnesses might notice it was much too high to hit the light poles or even hit the 1st floor. The same real eyewitnesses might also notice that the light poles were already on the ground when the aircraft was too high to strike them. Much better to have prepared media witnesses with scripts who could present the simulation to the public.

They dared not use a real aircraft to complete the destruction to the Pentagon because it might crash on approach or accidentally pull up over the Pentagon and miss. Even if it hit, it might not penetrate the steel reinforced outer wall. Explosives would still be needed to guarantee the correct destruction levels and eliminate the targeted personnel; so use explosives only and take no unnecessary risks. Much better to simulate an aircraft crashing into the Pentagon.

What if the remote pilot miscalculated and pulled up too much off the lawn, and the aircraft stalled right above the roof, and crashed into the upper floor offices on the far side and killed Dummy Rumsfeld snoozing at his desk. What a loss to our nation that would have been. Hundreds and hundreds of non-targeted Pentagon personnel would have died unnecessarily too, including many senior officiers. That might have caused a military revolt against the cowardly CIC hiding out in Florida behind a bunch of schoolchildren. Much better to simulate an aircraft crashing into the Pentagon.

If ace Cessa reject Hani Hanjour was at the controls; what if he had chickened out and headed for sanctuary in Mecca? Kinda late to simulate another hijacking, wouldn't you think? Much better to fake an aircraft crashing into the Pentagon.




[edit on 11/20/08 by SPreston]