The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Maybe John Lear was correct and it was a hologram,hence no one saw it fly away...they simply turned it off....just playing devils advocate here.. We already have holographic technology right now...who is to say how far the military have taken it?

Originally posted by emsed1

Well please forgive me saying that your continued refusal to answer clear and simple questions leads me to believe that you are only here to sell your $25 DVD.

My belief is that your post is pure sensationalism, contains no proof and is simply a ploy to direct the thousands of ATS subscribers to your web site where they can purchase 'the truth'.

Your links keep pointing back to your own website and I am frankly surprised that there are so many ATS members willing to give you a pass on evidence or proof and simply just star and flag you so that more people visit your site.

So that I am not complaining without a suggestion, I would recommend that you bring your research to the ATS Debate Forum and present it for scrutiny.

Again this is only my opinion, but I am disappointed that you would try and sell a $25 video to make a buck while dishonoring the memories of friends and family that died on Flight 77 as it crashed into the Pentagon.

Thanks

Craig,

I have to admit that his request is a good one. If you stand by your evidence then bring it to the debate forum. Present it and show them that this is not bunk.



*Edit: Okay, backed up one page and read your response. I like your reply as well. Somehow, you guys need to debate this and present each argument. If what you have presented here is true I can't see you losing. Then again, I don't think he/she is trying to win or lose. Just trying to get you to back up your evidence and arguments.

Looking forward to this.

[edit on 7-8-2008 by dariousg]

Again to the debunkers: Can you provide verifiable witnesses to the plane impacting the Pentagon, hitting the light poles, on the south of Citgo flight path? Can you provide verifiable witnesses of the flight path of AA77 and/or the C130 on the official flight paths?
Thanks.

I didn't bother to sift through 11 pages of replies, so if this question and answer has been posted please indulge me and answer it one more time.

Are you implying that a C-130 shot a missle at the pentagon and that is why people saw the C-130 flying away from the pentagon after the explosion?

Let's review the facts as they stand so there is no confusion about where CIT stands.

1. CIT has no eyewitness interviews or statements from any of the over 1,000 eyewitnesses who saw, handled, or sorted the wreckage from inside the Pentagon. CIT is unable to describe the wreckage and has presented no evidence wreckage was planted. It has no idea whether those eyewitnesses agree or disagree with each other nor whether they agree or disagree with CIT's claims. CIT has absolutely no ability to deal with this crucial evidence.

2. Despite Craig's claim that they had an eyewitness from the far side of the Pentagon who saw AA77 flyover the Pentagon and not hit it, it turns out that the eyewitness, one Roosevelt Roberts, was at the loading docks on the south side of the Pentagon and not on the far side.

3. NO eyewitness reports have ever been produced from any of what would have to be hundreds of eyewitnesses from the far side of the Pentagon who would have necessarily been startled by a noisy, high-speed, low-flying Boeing 757 no matter where AA77 would have turned after flying over the Pentagon. If Roosevelt Roberts actually saw AA77 fly over the Pentagon, that would only reinforce the fact that there would be many eyewitness accounts of a fast-moving, very loud, twin-engine passenger jet flying away from the Pentagon.

By claiming that a witness at the loading docks saw a high speed flyover at 100 feet, CIT is confirming that there must be hundreds of OTHER eyewitnesses who were in position to see this loud and scary flyover under the flight path. No matter WHAT flight path CIT could claim of a plane flying away from the Pentagon, he is dealing with a population base of thousands of people who would have been in a position to witness this supposed flyover.

Yet there are NO eyewitness reports. NONE at all.

These are irrefutable facts and crucial evidence that both Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis avoid dealing with. It renders any claims by CIT as useless until and unless CIT does a full and proper investigation. No manner of further evasion of these facts will change that. Period.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
Okay Craig, since you are going to accuse me of being a liar and being deceptive, I'll clear this up one last time.

Ghost Rider said, "The C130 is a great way to explain away the plane if there were more accounts of it overflying."

I replied with, "Not according to CIT. There's no possible way for witnesses to confuse a twin-engine jetliner with a four engine, propeller driven C-130."

Then you said, "Please refrain from telling people what I think. I have never said such a thing nor do I believe it."

Then I went to the LCF and found this quote made by YOU:

The one thing that detractors are trying to claim is that the plane Steve Chaconas saw was the C-130 but this is impossible for a few reasons.

1. Although the RADES flight path for the C-130 shows the plane crossing over the river in the same area where Chaconas saw the plane, this flight path is nowhere near where the pilot of the C-130 says he flew.

2. Steve is on the river every day as a charter boat captain and is quite familiar with the planes that fly over his head every few minutes. He is quite aware of the difference between military and commercial airliners as he explained in the interview. He specifically stated that the plane he saw looked like a "commercial jet".

3. Steve was very descriptive about a significant "bank" or turn that he saw the plane make as it looped around to the Pentagon. The flight path of the C-130 as depicted in the RADES data has the bank way too far out for Steve to have noticed at all.Link

You said it.

Stop calling me a liar.

So you can not provide verifiable eye witness testimony from people who saw the plane impact the Pentagon, impact and down the light poles and on the official flight path? You can not provide verifiable eye witness testimony from people that saw the C130 on the official flightpath?
What does any of your debunking have to do with the evidence provided?

reply to post by PplVSNWO


I don't think anyone ever answered the question about how the light poles got bent.

Can we all at least agree that the light poles were bent?

How did they get bent?

That has nothing to do with the OP. The witnesses put the plane in a position that would not have hit the light poles. So, the burden is on you to produce verifiable eyewitnesses to the light poles getting hit.

Does anyone have an interview from anyone who saw the plane flying away? C'mon people.. it's very simple. It's common sense. A Boeing 757 is 155 feet long, and has a 124 foot wing span. It is 44 feet high. How could NO ONE see this flying away from the Pentagon? It would be large, obvious, and loud (as a climbing jet would be). Even if it did not climb right away, and flew off straight for awhile, others would have reported a jumbo passanger jet flying at an exceptionally low altitude.

If this jet did not hit the Pentagon, I'd not only except someone to see it, I'd expect DOZENS to see it flying away. There is no doubt that people DID see a large jumbo-type passenger jet, there are dozens that saw it.

Until you can explain your mysterious disappearing jumbo jet, I can't buy this. Jets don't just disappear because it's convenient to your story.

Originally posted by talisman
If we assume that the "debunkers" are correct, that the flight path is impossible etc. Your still left with the question. How do you answer 13 witnesses that place the Plane on the North Side?

Something is not right, and I agree with Craig, they can't all be wrong because they are in different places pretty well agreeing for the most part on the general direction.

I mean, you don't have to believe the flyover, that is their deduction based on the facts. But when you look at it, there is something wrong with the Official story and it makes sense that we haven't seen any video of this plane, neither from the Pentagon or anywhere else.


There's something unusual here.



[edit on 7-8-2008 by talisman]

The CIT and FACTS are about as far from one anther as you can get.
My favorite is how in the same breath Craig accuses the government of being involved in planting DNA and CIVILIAN CONTRACTORS of planting explosives!!!
ALL WITHOUT A FRIGGIN SHRED OF EVIDENCE.
CIT IS PURE FICTION.
I do enjoy how Craig USES ATS simply to pimp his movie.

For all of the people trying to debunk this...

Get off your ass and go interview the people CIT interviewd, and go interview the so called "I saw a plane hit" witnessess you're bragging so much about.

Or, until then, get off your ass and order Congress to create a new...free from government intervention, government involvement, conflicts of interest...investigation into the attacks.

www.techeblog.com...

this is the video I refered to earlier, this is why there was so little wreckage of any of these planes. It is very quick and should immediately make a couple troofers wake up that some kooks are playing with their emotions.

when things hit hard stuff like the GROUND going that FAST there is not much left

realize that MOST other airline crashes that occur, the pilot it trying their very best to NOT crash so trying to compare wreckage from other airline crashes to these crashes does not make sense since nobody had ever done anything like this before.

IMHO, this whole '911 inside job' thing is just a psychologoical disorder caused by people not being able to grasp that there are places in the world that do not like us. instead they turn this anger on the easiest target, the president. I mean how could someone want to do this to ME? they don't dislike ME, they dislike our GOVERNMENT! sorry to tell you, they dislike YOU TOO!

reply to post by TheBobert


I like how your post does not address the evidence in this thread one bit. You are just attempting to attack the messenger. Did you even watch the whole thing? Why would craig post the evidence here for everyone to see for free if he was trying to gain something monetarily out of it? Where are all of your verified witness interviews?

You seem very passionate.
Would you be willing to take the CIT evidence to a court?
It is NOT OUR FRIGGIN job to do CIT's "investigation".

reply to post by PplVSNWO

I A M N O T T H E O N E W H O I S M A K I N G E X T R O R D I N A R Y C L A I M S!
I T I S N O T M Y J O B T O D O C I T ' S I N V E S T I G A T I O N !

reply to post by TheBobert


Then stop critisizing their work if you are not willing to verify it yourself. Find us a court that is willing to look at the evidence objectively and allow a criminal case to made. I bet you can't find one.

EDIT: CIT is not making extraordinary claims. They are presenting 1st hand eyewitness testimony. Why are you having such a problem accepting this?

[edit on 7-8-2008 by PplVSNWO]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

He saw the plane banking on the north side like everyone else.

That means it could not have hit the building.

Making deceptive false comments regarding evidence your have not even reviewed is not a very scientific approach.

I watched your interview with Sean Boger and surprise surprise... he states, again, that he watched the airplane hit the building and then ducked.

How can you possibly interpret that as a flyover?

Please don't answer by saying that if the plane was on the north side of the Citgo, that it possibly couldn't have hit the Pentagon.

Why are you lying about what Sean Boger stated?

reply to post by PplVSNWO


LOL claiming that flight 77 flew over the Pentagon without A SINGLE WITNESS TO THIS is not extraordinary?
Claiming that DNA was planted WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE is not extraordinary?
Claiming that civilian contractors PLANTED EXPLOSIVES at the Pentagon WITHOUT A SHRED of evidence is not extra ordinary?
BTS stop babbling about me finding a court that is not my responsibility, I didnt do their investigation.
They are the ones claiming to have the evidence of mass murder yet do nothing with it except post on the internet.
Would you be willing to take their evidence to a court?

[edit on 7-8-2008 by TheBobert]

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Again to the debunkers: Can you provide verifiable witnesses to the plane impacting the Pentagon, hitting the light poles, on the south of Citgo flight path? Can you provide verifiable witnesses of the flight path of AA77 and/or the C130 on the official flight paths?
Thanks.

Well, I suppose you are going to just write this off as another unreliable witness, and it's been brought up ad nauseum, but Sean Boger, the ATC chief at the Pentagon says:

"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. It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

I never claimed the plane bent the light poles, but I think we agree they were bent. Can you answer the question as to how they are bent?

Can you guys please get back to the topic and start answering questions instead of insulting people?