New full feature presentation from CIT now realeased!

reply to post by beachnut


O'Brien does not say he "took off north" and headed southwest he says he "TRAVELED north AND west" which took him by the "south side of The Mall".

He does not say it took him by the south side of Reagan.

That is a HUGE difference because according to the RADES data he would have not been heading towards the Mall and he would have seen the plane approach from his RIGHT not his LEFT like he describes.

It's all quite clear but you simply refuse to listen to what he is saying.

Oh and by the way.......are you sure you trust the RADES data so much? Did you know it shows the plane on the north side of the citgo?

Originally posted by Unit541

Originally posted by jthomasAs we all know, one does not need any video or photos to know that AA 77 hit the Pentagon. Why you think we would is a measure of your ignorance.

Way to speak for everyone. I need a video of AA 77 hitting the Pentagon. Why you wouldn't, is a measure of your ignorance.

1) Imagine a moment this happened in an area with no cameras to whine about (not accusing YOU of whining). How would we determine what happened? Physical evidence? 100 foot wide hole, 300 feet deep, massive fuel explosion with forward kinetic force, plane parts inside, passengers and crew IDd by dna, what else? FDR? Admittedly alterable... radar? Maybe less so, but only so trustworthy. Eyewitnesses? Gimme a break. CIT has to argue some inexplicable geometric-pyrotechnic operation to trick even their WN north path witnesses that it impacted low instead of flying over. We'd have a strong and coherent case. Sorry, it is so. However...

2) This is not an area with no video. There are several view thtat have not been released. The Pgon has at least three external cameras that would have seen it but no acknowledgment. VDOT cameras saw what happened but 'weren't recording.' (Then why do they exist?). Views were allegedly removed from the Citgo video. There is quite likely some purposeful secrecy at work here for whatever end.

3) We don't have nothing. IMO the gate cams are consistent with the official story fine (if we take the white stuff as the plane it's the right size, shape, color, and location), if at one fps, but I'm not gonna argue about that here. Doubletree video shows nothing, but the Citgo video has that obvious flash, a possible glow from the impact plume, and this:

a cluster of shadows that appears on the roadway SOUTH of the station for one frame. The dots are consistent size-wise with fuselage and right engine of a 757 optically 'severed'f from the rest by angle, median, etc... It indicates no exact height or location, but a nexus of the two. If we take the 'official path,' it's about 115 feet AGL at that moment, whichis a tad high to hit all light poles and level, but in the range of reason and based on inexact (but close) math.
My analysis of this shadow Go ahead and check the reasoning. I't's no coincidence. It happens 2.167 sec. before first light effects, given distance to impact point yields the official speed of 530 mph. It's either a video of the shadow of the plane that impacted, or its well-faked to that end.

Your need to see video of the plane while remaining ignorant of the video of the plane thatis available is a measure of your own ignorance. Not in a mean way, jut in the sense of being in ignorance, ie you just don't know, or didn't. I do like your icon and hope you're one of the good guys. Peace.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT



Craig, you'll recall we've had about this same discussion about the C-130. It's quite obvious what you did is took O'Brien's adjectives, read them a certain way, constructed your path and then - oops. The radar data comes out and shows another path that could also fit his words. So you had to scramble to solidify your reading as the ONLY one and proving the radar data a fraud. Nice try.

Nothing in OBrien's account contradicts the radar. Sorry, it is so. That's why me and Beachy reached the same conclusion independently.

my partial review of the new movie
There are a lot of little points to go over and why I think you had to shift this or that to accommodate whatever and get the theory in this video ironed out. But for now I have just one question. Earlier I did up this flight path based on your reading of OBrien and Chaconas, from what I gathered.

i133.photobucket.com...
Not too far off from this except mine includes your previous witnesses too.

Now the upper part, where the C-130 passed '77' you said my interpretation was 'dead wrong.' It was this:

4 miles. 10:00. Literally read off your graphic. So it's a bit west of there and your video has this:

That's not much to their 'left,' now is it? It's about 4 miles but not 10:00, more like 11. At that line at 10:00 it'd be way way ahead - about 8 miles at least - and slightly to the left. Not 'to our left.'

Therefore my graphic is more faithful to what he says, and it also matches what he'd see if the radar were true, jut a bit further to the southwest, after crossing the river exactly where you boat guy saw the unidentifiable plane cross, which is where the radar does schow the C-130 just about 2 minutes before the explosion up north...

Hmmm... in fact, your C-130 placement relative to the mall is AS FAR NORTH as you could possibly put him while still being at all south of the mall. Scooting Steve O north takes him away from Steve C's view. That's why this is so important. It cannot be the C-130 he saw. No way. Separate the Steves.

Oh and the radar data is fraudulent. My oh my...


[edit on 27-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by beachnutThe p4t have the complete raw data, it shows all the flight of Flight for 24 hours. That alone verifies the FDR is from Flight 77.

Beachy, i know you're an old timer so i'll go a bit easy on ya. Who do you think would know better about how much raw data is decoded and readable... you or me?

You guys have it all, why are you denying you have access to all the data from 77's FDR which shows previous flight correctly as flown by the 77 airframe?

Only the last flight has been decoded. You stated "All the data matched what flight 77 did for the last 24 hours of flight" (paraphrased). That is a lie because we havent decoded all the data to be able to match anything. You keep repeating that lie. Also, you may be interested in this new article. We sure are...
pilotsfor911truth.org...

So you guys can not decode the raw data you have to show the fights are from 77, or you guys are not going to tell everyone the data shows it was 77's previous flights?

See above.

Beachy, you say you are an "FDR Expert" and have been employed by the US Govt in such a capacity. Why cant you decode it?

But this video is very quote mining good for making up stories but you have to have bad data from the RADAR guys and someone faked the FDR?

Coherent sentences Beachy... coherent please...

How many bad guys does this add!

If 19 arabs can pull off 9/11, how many would it take of those who knew the system inside and out?

So this video implies the terrorist get a free pass; UBL can relax now, he wanted to kill Americans as he said in the 90s, but we just give up and kill ourselves;

UBL has yet to be yet to be charged as a suspect for 9/11 due to no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11. Im sure he is doing just fine with his newly colored beard.

Great, but what do you think about the advertised video and the impossible turn by the plane?

Our thoughts of the video is atop our home page, we added it yesterday. Today, we just picked up a CEO of an Aviation Corporation. Keep an eye out for the announcement. He also has command time in the aircraft that were dispatched as UA93 and UA175, like Capt Wittenberg.

Regards,
Rob

typo

[edit on 27-2-2008 by johndoex]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by jthomas

 

I am not "investigating" AA77. Craig Ranke is. Get your facts straight there, sonny.

But Daddy, you said there were a thousand witnesses who collected airplane parts from the Pentagon. Are you making this up?

That's established evidence, sonny. Ranke refuses to present their statements.

What about Officer Brooks? He said people were running out of the building saying, "what plane, where is the plane?"

That's right, sonny. Many people didn't know a 757 had hit. Most of the wreckage was inside the building.

I'm confused Daddy, why are you and Officer Brooks saying two different things?

I know you are very confused, sonny. I am here to help you with your problem. You can start here:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

(Try to stay away from videos games until you do your homework.)

Originally posted by jthomas:
I know you are very confused, sonny. I am here to help you with your problem. You can start here:
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Well, thankyou, thankyou, Daddy. A link at last! Something substantive from jthomas! If you had simply put the link in the first time you posted, we could have skipped the fooling around. Not everyone in these forums is archiving the posts of jthomas, you know. We all don't know where you've been before. Link to your sources, Daddy, it's your responsibility as an aspiring adult.

reply to post by Caustic Logic


You are floundering which is evident by your virtually incoherent post and clear need to distract from the topic with your convoluted "shadow" analysis.



Your ridiculous flight path graphic was and is wrong. It's just as wrong as Koeppel's map. "Kind of right" doesn't cut it. It is wrong.

You could have easily initially understood that O'Brien says he FIRST saw the plane "just after we had gone by the mall westbound"."

Whether or not our first graphic depicting the plane is EXACTLY 10:00 hardly matters particularly since O'Brien also said this:

"We were at about 3,500 feet at the time that I first noticed this commercial airliner in our 12 o'clock position in about a 45-degree bank, which is unusual for a large aircraft to be descending and turning at a 45-degree bank turn like that, so that really got our attention."

So to argue whether it was exactly 10:00 position or somewhere between 10 and 12 is beyond splitting hairs and completely irrelevant anyway.

The important and most relevant point is that he says it was "just after we had gone by the mall westbound" after having traveled "north and west" from Andrews.

He doesn't mince words and it is 100% clear that this is NOT southwest OR westsouthwest to the south side of Reagan like the RADES data shows.

Furthermore you aren't really going to be so stupid as to still suggest that Chaconas saw the C-130 are you???


Obviously Chaconas could tell the difference between a jet and a military plane but what PROVES he could NOT have been talking about the C-130 is the BANK or TURN that he describes.

He would have seen NONE of that according to the RADES data as the plane would have traveled perfectly straight and out of his view.

You are scrambling and reaching hard and you know.

Chaconas is proof of a military deception on 9/11 and there is no possible way you can spin it unless you accuse HIM as being a deep cover disinfo operative just like you accuse the citgo witnesses or anything else you can't explain that doesn't fit the official narrative.

Dear "Daddy" and "Sonny",

I'm going to presume that you two are just ribbing each other. But since this is a forum that is watched closely, I feel it only fair to tell you that if this gets out of hand I'll ding you both for being involved. (And no, I'm not wading back through this morass to see who started it.)

Yours Truly,
NGC2736

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by jthomas:
I know you are very confused, sonny. I am here to help you with your problem. You can start here:
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Well, thankyou, thankyou, Daddy. A link at last! Something substantive from jthomas! If you had simply put the link in the first time you posted,...

If you had paid attention to my posts, you would have seen I already had posted that link.

Get back to us when you understand the facts about AA77 and the Pentagon. Then you can quiz Craig Ranke and ask him why he refuses to consider the evidence.


[edit on 27-2-2008 by jthomas]

[edit on 27-2-2008 by jthomas]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Excuse me, I watched your video and I thought it was interesting, but I think this jthomas has a point. And you seem to be pulling a "la la la la la la, I can't hear you" dodge and threatening to report him over a valid question. You look like you're intentionally avoiding answering it. A real researcher who is interested in getting to the truth would not shy away from it.

Please answer his question.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

Excuse me, I watched your video and I thought it was interesting, but I think this jthomas has a point. And you seem to be pulling a "la la la la la la, I can't hear you" dodge and threatening to report him over a valid question. You look like you're intentionally avoiding answering it. A real researcher who is interested in getting to the truth would not shy away from it.

Please answer his question.

I've answered his question many times in other threads as well as this one but he refuses to accept my answer while continuously following me around and badgering me everywhere I post in this forum.

His question has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the topic anyway but in the interest of quelling any wanton claims of avoidance I will answer it AGAIN.

1. There has been zero proof presented that any of the very few scraps that were found came from flight 77 or AA tail #N644AA. In other words, they have not been positively identified.

2. We focus on actual witnesses to the plane/event in a comprehensive investigative effort to reveal the true flight path. Witnesses to the recovery/scraps are not relevant to this at all. Nothing they say can tell us where the scraps came from because they are not witnesses to the event.

Naturally we have no reason to avoid any first responders as we even have strong support from one who is a decorated hero who saved many lives on that day. Here is a letter he sent us:

(he is still enlisted so we respect his privacy and keep him anonymous)

If someone was present on that day and had a story to tell we'd have no problem listening.

We have spoken with at least 4 firefighters who were there and we have a phone interview with a retired fire chief who was all throughout the building on 9/11 , was on 7 plane crashes in his career, and does not for a second believe that a plane hit.

But since the first responders are not relevant to the true flight path of the plane in any way whatsoever and can do nothing to help shed further light on the CLEAR and fatal anomalies in this regard it would be completely futile for us to seek out and interview the alleged "1,000's" of people as jthomas puts it who may have seen some scraps.

Fair enough?

reply to post by jthomas

If you had paid attention to my posts, you would have seen I already had posted that link.

jthomas, usually I don't spend a lot of time on people that I think are being egregiously rude and obnoxious, but you are a special case. You did NOT post that link until your SIXTEENTH post in the thread. If you had any consideration for the people in this thread you would have posted the link immediately in your first post.

If you really had posted the link earlier in the thread at some point as you say in the quote above, you should have re-linked to it instead of sending people on a wild goose chase to check your statement. Are you a liar jthomas or simply a guy who makes the occasional mistake?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm also going to look into the witness statements you referenced, but believe me, behaving like you do doesn't help you with me.



[edit on 27-2-2008 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit


The witness list he referenced is extremely deceptive, woefully inaccurate, and proven incorrect on many levels. Mark Roberts refused to correct proven errors or debate us on the subject.

The notion that there are "104" previously published eyewitness statements from people who actually say that they "saw the plane hit the pentagon" is simply incorrect.

In fact that list includes people like Lee Evey, Tom Hovis, and others who were not witnesses to the event at all and were merely relaying what they were told.

Plus, just because somebody saw the plane and saw or heard the explosion in the distance does NOT mean they "saw the plane enter the building".

This is the entire point and why our research is so important.

We are the first to attempt to speak with the witnesses direct to confirm their account and their location and to analyze their true real life point of view in order to determine what they would be physically able to see.

A more accurate witness list classification that involved this type of scientific scrutiny and confirmation is available here.

Simply accepting a list of static out of context quotes provided for by the clearly NOT independent media and compiled by someone like the extremely vitriolic, immature, king "debunker"/jref leader Mark Roberts is not a proper way to research information.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

Excuse me, I watched your video and I thought it was interesting, but I think this jthomas has a point. And you seem to be pulling a "la la la la la la, I can't hear you" dodge and threatening to report him over a valid question. You look like you're intentionally avoiding answering it. A real researcher who is interested in getting to the truth would not shy away from it.

Please answer his question.

I've answered his question many times in other threads as well as this one but he refuses to accept my answer while continuously following me around and badgering me everywhere I post in this forum.

In actual fact, you refused to ever answer the question, Craig. You and I know that.

His question has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the topic anyway but in the interest of quelling any wanton claims of avoidance I will answer it AGAIN.

The topic concerns AA77 and The Pentagon. It is the topic you chose. ALL evidence of what happened there on that day is admissible in the discussion. One may not choose to ignore inconvenient evidence and cherry-pick as you have consistently done.

1. There has been zero proof presented that any of the very few scraps that were found came from flight 77 or AA tail #N644AA. In other words, they have not been positively identified.

How would you possibly know, Craig, when you refuse to interview those who saw and/or recovered the wreckage? You cannot make your claim without dealing with all of the evidence which, to date, you clearly refuse to do.

2. We focus on actual witnesses to the plane/event in a comprehensive investigative effort to reveal the true flight path. Witnesses to the recovery/scraps are not relevant to this at all. Nothing they say can tell us where the scraps came from because they are not witnesses to the event.

ALL evidence and ALL witnesses are admissible. Again, Craig, you cannot claim AA77 did not hit the Pentagon and claim special dispensation from having to refute the contrary evidence. The physical evidence and the eyewitness evidence clearly demonstrates that AA77 hit the Pentagon. You cannot claim otherwise without refuting that evidence.

Naturally we have no reason to avoid any first responders as we even have strong support from one who is a decorated hero who saved many lives on that day. Here is a letter he sent us:

(he is still enlisted so we respect his privacy and keep him anonymous)

If someone was present on that day and had a story to tell we'd have no problem listening.

You do not get to limit the evidence to "first responders" nor to just "that day." The rescue and recovery effort was for a considerable number of days by numerous different groups of people. You are obligated to deal with all of the evidence.

I have provided you comprehensive links to the evidence and testimony clearly demonstrating that AA77 hit the Pentagon. You have repeatedly ignored it. Here is the link, once again:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

We have spoken with at least 4 firefighters who were there and we have a phone interview with a retired fire chief who was all throughout the building on 9/11 , was on 7 plane crashes in his career, and does not for a second believe that a plane hit.

You will find the eyewitnesses to the crash and the wreckage in the link above. You need to refute those links. You do not get to cherry pick and claim you have examined ALL of the evidence, Craig.

But since the first responders are not relevant to the true flight path of the plane in any way whatsoever and can do nothing to help shed further light on the CLEAR and fatal anomalies in this regard it would be completely futile for us to seek out and interview the alleged "1,000's" of people as jthomas puts it who may have seen some scraps.

Again, when you have refused to interview the 1,000+ people who either saw and/or recovered the wreckage from inside the Pentagon you cannot claim to either know WHAT they recovered or HOW much they recovered. Clearly, you are making unfounded claims, Craig.

The flight path of AA 77 is irrelevant when the eyewitnesses and wreckage clearly demonstrate that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

In sum, this is where you are at, Craig:

1. You failed to interview those who recovered the wreckage from inside the Pentagon. So you cannot claim to KNOW that the wreckage was NOT from AA77.

2. If your claim that AA77 flew over the Pentagon, you are forced to explain:

a) What caused the massive damage at the Pentagon.

b) Why no witness to the crash and the wreckage contested the account that it crashed into the Pentagon in the six years since the event.

c) What happened to AA77 if it overflew the Pentagon.

d) Why you have failed to produce one single witness or account of AA77 having flown BEYOND the Pentagon.

There are many more questions that arise from your premise and from the implications of claiming AA77 did not hit the Pentagon.

In addition, your persistence in demanding that we only deal with evidence you choose, rather than with ALL of the evidence immediately tells us that you are not a legitimate "investigator" of any sort.

I have presented you the link to mountains of evidence of what happened at the Pentagon. I repeat it again here:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

If you want to persist in claiming AA77 did not hit the Pentagon on 09/11/2001, then you will have to refute all of that evidence and provide additional evidence of what happened to AA77.

What will you do, Craig? Come clean or continue on the path of ignoring all the evidence against your claims?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

I used to play baseball when I was a kid and have faced a couple of pitchers who were the real deal. You don't have a whole lot of time to size up the situation when looking at a 90 mph. plus fast ball.

Yes you do know it came from the pitcher's mound, but I would be surprised at anyone close to ground zero at the Pentagon who could tell me a whole lot about an approaching 530 mph. airplane, while endeavouring to get out of the way of it at the same time.

Your caveat is noted.

reply to post by jthomas



Nothing in Gravy's inaccurate blog refutes ANY of the evidence we present proving a military deception.

The alleged fact that "1,000's" saw a few airplane scraps included.

Feel free to provide any evidence refuting our claims because so far you have completely failed.

It is not my responsibility to prove or report on everything that happened during this operation.

All I need to do is prove a fatal contradiction to the official story and this we have done more than once.

Did you watch our new presentation?

What do you think about the testimony of Steve Chaconas?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
... since the first responders are not relevant to the true flight path of the plane in any way whatsoever and can do nothing to help shed further light on the CLEAR and fatal anomalies in this regard it would be completely futile for us to seek out and interview the alleged "1,000's" of people as jthomas puts it who may have seen some scraps.

Fair enough?

Yes, fair enough.

That is a valid point in regards to this issue. jthomas still has a point though, should you ever chose to cover the actual impact.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

The witness list he referenced is extremely deceptive, woefully inaccurate, and proven incorrect on many levels. Mark Roberts refused to correct proven errors or debate us on the subject.

The notion that there are "104" previously published eyewitness statements from people who actually say that they "saw the plane hit the pentagon" is simply incorrect.

In fact that list includes people like Lee Evey, Tom Hovis, and others who were not witnesses to the event at all and were merely relaying what they were told.

Plus, just because somebody saw the plane and saw or heard the explosion in the distance does NOT mean they "saw the plane enter the building".

This is the entire point and why our research is so important.

We are the first to attempt to speak with the witnesses direct to confirm their account and their location and to analyze their true real life point of view in order to determine what they would be physically able to see.

A more accurate witness list classification that involved this type of scientific scrutiny and confirmation is available here.

Simply accepting a list of static out of context quotes provided for by the clearly NOT independent media and compiled by someone like the extremely vitriolic, immature, king "debunker"/jref leader Mark Roberts is not a proper way to research information.

Sorry, Graig, I repeat that you do not have the luxury of cherry picking evidence. You must refute the eyewitness testimony to support your claim.

Clearly, you haven't even begun to refute any of the evidence demonstrating that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

You have a LOT of work to do, Craig.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by jthomas

 

If you had paid attention to my posts, you would have seen I already had posted that link.

jthomas, usually I don't spend a lot of time on people that I think are being egregiously rude and obnoxious, but you are a special case. You did NOT post that link until your SIXTEENTH post in the thread.

Sigh. You didn't limit your ad hominem to this thread. You made a blanket statement:

Well, thankyou, thankyou, Daddy. A link at last! Something substantive from jthomas!

Indeed, I have posted that link before in other threads.

reply to post by jthomas


It seems that nobody is dodging anything more than you. I asked, point blank for your opinion on whether or not the official story leaves any unanswered questions. Please, put your bickering with Ranke aside for just a moment, and look at this objectively, as I NEVER stated that a 757 did not hit the pentagon.

Now, I will support your claims that there is evidence that indicates a 757 did indeed impact the Pentagon on that morning. However, the evidence does not prove this, but merely indicates as much. Wasn't that long ago that most of the population of this planet swore up and down that the earth was flat. The body of your argument assumes that witness testimony is reliable and accurate 100% of the time. The fact of the matter is the 'evidence' doesn't quite add up to the official story. The pictures of wreckage available to the public were all taken several days after. Instead of asking everyone why they think they need the video, you should be asking why we can't have it. "if there's nothing to hide..." you know the rest...

All efforts put into your posts are simply attempts to discredit anyone who has questions, you fail to try to "sell" your point of view at all. Instead you become demeaning and insulting, outright attacking anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view. I'm sorry, but "because I said so" does not make your case.

The point is, we've all seen the same data as you. You accept it at face value, while others don't. The fact that jthomas subscribes to one belief, does not in itself make that the correct belief. You're simply ranting on, barking at people to stop questioning what their told (quite the opposite of 'denying ignorance'). The FACT is that the official account leaves questions unanswered, and several aspects allude to the withholding of information. The video for example. If a 757 flew into the pentagon, which certainly could be the case, it would be clearly indicated on the video. So, this begs the question, why not release the video? The simple lack of a video of the event, isn't nearly as damning as an existing video not being released in full.