The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Uh, no, the damage path contradicts this crap that CIT has made up from witnesses 6-7 years after the fact.

Crap CIT made up? CIT didn't see the plane on the north side of the Citgo. And Lagasse placed the plane on the north side of the Citgo in 2003. The new ANC witnesses were interviewed in the CMH months after 9/11, and Roosevelt Roberts was interviewed months after 9/11 in the LoC interviews.

Why are you trying to mislead people?

I'm amazed that so many are deceived by these frauds since the flight paths are not possible.

Reheat, I have seen your behavior. You sound like you have anger management issues or you are coordinated subterfuge. Frauds???

Doesn't it make you wonder why they can't come up with a plausible flight path with some numbers to convince skeptics who claim it isn't possible? They don't because they can't.

CIT doesn't need to come up with numbers because CIT are not aeronautically knowledgeable and it is immaterial to the fact that the witnesses who were in a position to tell, ALL saw the plane on the north side of the Citgo. Your numbers are ridiculously arbitrary and slanted without even trying to consider the new witnesses or the fact that they are humans and not computers.

Why haven't you released your name and credentials, and secondly why haven't you had it peer reviewed by professionals who use their real names/credentials and WHO have seen all the interviews.

Why are you still saying this BEFORE and EVEN after the the ANC interviews were released? Do you your "calculations" include the new witnesses?

The witnesses plainly described where they think they saw the aircraft. It doesn't have to be exact at all. They did not need to know the speed, in fact all that's needed is an approximate position.

But according to you down is up and up is down. You are using witnesses who saw it on the north side to prove they didn't see it on the north side. How is that for doublethink guys?

Doesn't it make you wonder how CIT got these people to appear on camera? All of them that were in a position to see the building say that the aircraft impacted, yet the flight path they described in incompatible with the building damage. The ANC people even got the light poles in the wrong position, yet there was no follow up or mention of this during the interview.

They obviously appeared on camera because they had no idea of the implications of what they saw. Why would Craig take the time to educate these people on camera and risk compromising the interview and the following interviews he would have obtained at the same location? You can't have both, Reheat. They can't "see", "think" or "believe" the plane hit light poles or the building if it approached on the north side. You know this, yet you use this bizarre logic and doublespeak to psychologically manipulate the readers.

There are more holes in the CIT garbage than a train load of Swiss cheese and it has been proven either IMPOSSIBLE or highly improbabe on numerous counts.

This CIT crap is the laughing stock of the rational world. In fact, the few who believe it are only a handful of ignorant agenda driven troofers. Here's one of the reasons why:

www.911myths.com...

Yet here you are. You are seen everywhere. In fact, it is a well known fact that you claimed to be a female college student so you could lurk on the PFT forums and avoid debate. It is clear you are obsessed with making this not true, anonymously, from behind your screen, tryin g to convince EVERYONE , possibly even yourself, that this isn't true.

Again, everyone, who said Reheat is right? Reheat? Where are his peer reviews? Where is he when it comes to confronting these witnesses about their erroneous (from 13 different perspectives lol) claims? We have to provide "math" to prove him wrong, yet we are not the experts. Doesn't make sense.



[edit on 7-8-2008 by EvanSent]

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
EvanSent, thanks for posting those links. That is exactly what I was getting at, just didn't know where it was. Many of the published witnesses, were in fact, not eye witnesses at all. They were either not in a position to see the impact/flyover or in some cases not even at the location and were later told that the plane impacted the Pentagon.
No matter how many calculations that Reheat does to "prove" CIT's flight paths wrong, it still doesn't prove the official story and flight path right. You have to ignore these 13 independently verified corroborating 1st hand eye witness accounts to accept the official flight path.

So I challenge you again to post verifiable eye witness testimony of the plane on the official flight path, taking out the light poles, or impacting the Pentagon. Provide eye witness testimony placing the C130 on the RADES path.

Right, PplVSNWO. People don't understand that some of these 13 witnesses are published witnesses, the same ones from the VERY LIST they've been spamming without analyzing all these years. These people are key witnesses in a key position, and they are alot harder to say they are plants in the news who simply "claimed" they were there, in the vicinity, or on the highway.

Ed Paik, worked at that shop on a daily basis.
Sgt Brooks and Lagasse frequented that gas station as part of their daily PO duties.
The ANC workers, well they hang out at that maintenance area.
Roosevelt Roberts works at the Pentagon and had a reason to be there.

But we are supposed to take the word of some USA Today editor who claims they were sitting on a highway along with 7 of their high level co-associates in the exact position to witness the impact of a very controversial plane on a very controversial flight path?

I also failed to add that planes are flying over and by the Pentagon ALL day, 24/7. In multiple directions. Military and commercial.

Roosevelt is a perfect example of someone who thought it was another plane and probably thought it was a plane related to landings or departures at Reagan.

Like this...

Responding crews knew something
was up because they observed tripods and
stepladders typically used by camera operators
abandoned on the hill. As Engine 16
and Truck 3 pulled up, a uniformed officer
waved them off, telling them, “Get the f---
outta here! ******There’s a plane coming in!”
Fortunately, no plane crashed into the
White House. One reason for this false alarm
may have been a split-second decision by an
air-traffic controller. When the hijacked
plane turned into the Pentagon, it was on a
collision course with an airliner leaving Reagan
National Airport as scheduled. Without
the data from Flight 77’s transponder and
not knowing the intention of the hijacked
plane, the controller ordered the departing
aircraft to take a hard right, into the protected
airspace above the White House.

info.jems.com...

hmmm, that was after national groundstop, so there should have been NO planes departing. This could only be the flyover and this is exactly how it would be explained away or confused away.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
No matter how many calculations that Reheat does to "prove" CIT's flight paths wrong, it still doesn't prove the official story and flight path right. You have to ignore these 13 independently verified corroborating 1st hand eye witness accounts to accept the official flight path.

I find it fascinating that CIT believers miss the point entirely. Let's have a lesson in reality:

It does not matter what flightpath CIT claims.

It does not matter what Roosevelt saw or thought he saw.

NO claim of a flyover is possible until and unless CIT produces eyewitness testimony from the many hundreds of people who were in a position BEYOND the Pentagon to see a low flying, fast moving, loud twin-engine jet as it moved away from the Pentagon.

Do you CIT believers ended to hide under a rock and NOT address that salient fact?

Why do you think Ranke is AVOIDING anything to do with a necessary condition of a flyover scenario?

Why do you think his speculated flight path does not extend beyond the Pentagon?

Why do you think Craig refuses in this very thread to deal with a flight path after the supposed "flyover?"

Why do you think he relies exclusively on witnesses who were on the side where the explosion occurred but absolutely, categorically refuses to deal with the necessary implications of a flyover: hundreds of eyewitnesses in a geographic area of thousands of people.

Are you all going to sit there and continue to pretend it doesn't matter? Who will be the first of you CIT believers to step up to the plate and deal with the necessary IMPLICATIONS of a flyover? CIT will NOT do it. It cannot afford to because it cannot find a single witness anywhere who would have easily seen such an unusual event.

So, get out your maps, and plot where YOU think a 757 would go.

Originally posted by fleabit
While I personally appreciate the amount of effort put into trying to prove a point (I wish some of the UFO cases were handled like this), I am baffled how you could ignore something as blaring as where the jet went after the supposed fly over. If you were a hundred or two hundred feet away from a jumbo jet, you'd notice it. You'd hear it. Everyone was looking that way, since there was an explosion. I cannot believe for a second that one person only, saw a 150 foot by 125 foot by 40 foot jet flying away. Dozens would have witnessed this. A jumbo jet does not maneuvar like a smaller plane. It doesn't simply flit off into the sky. It would be difficult enough to pull up to keep from crashing, at the speed it was going. Ever flown a jet simulator? Without flaps and wheels and a much slower speed, it would have been quite a feat to pull up and out. And if it had, it would have been very loud indeed.

I have not heard one good explanation about how no one noticed a jumbo jet flying away. One witness a reliable case doesn't make folks.

Tpical MO of Craig/CIT.
Make an extrordinary claim have ZERO, ZILTCH, NOTHING to back it up.
Craig's latest BS is that civilian cotractors planted explosives at the Pentagon.
Keep pissing CIT those graves of the victims of Flight 77/Pentagon are getting mighty full.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Reheat,

See that tower to the right of Edward Paik??

Of course, I'm aware of the VDOT tower. Edward Paik thought the aircraft actually hit it, but he wasn't sure.

Originally posted by Leo StraussI looked at your Wiki page. Are you saying such turns are impossible?? I realize the maneuvers would not be approved for normal flying conditions but are they possible for a suicide mission?? Does the frame of the aircraft
have any chance of surviving these manuevers??

That is pretty close to the flight paths in my article. Take your choice of which one as it really doesn't matter. Did you noticed that the aircraft stalled trying to make all of the turns from speeds ranging from 250 KIAS to 450 KIAS? Even if a transport aircraft could withstand the G forces noted (anything above about 7 G's will cause the wings to collapse) it still could not make the turns. It would have either crashed from a stall or would have passed well wide of the intended target.

As the article states Transport Category aircraft are operationally restricted to 2.5 G's. They can pull more and still fly up to about ~ 7; any more than that the wings will fail.

Modern fighters can pull up to ~ 12 G's and remain intact, but not Transport Category aircraft. In case you're wondering, it is not feasible to increase the G limit of a transport type aircraft EXCEPT one designed from the ground up and it would be VERY, VERY expensive if it is even possible.

Variable geometry wings (which are not on any Transport Category aircraft) only change the stall speed. The bank and G forces will remain the same as in my chart.

Vectored thrust (which is not used on Transport Category aircraft, even today) would help slightly, but not enough to allow a Transport Category aircraft to make those turns.

You should readily see that even an F-22, the most recent and capable US air-to-air fighter, would have trouble making those turns. In fact, I'd guess that an F-22 could not make the turns greater than % 50 of the time with the world's greatest fighter pilot at the controls.

If you understand this, you now realize how stoopid and ridiculous this whole NoC proposal really is......

Again, the skeptics here continually concentrate their efforts on the "Fly Over" and the "Impossible Flight Path".

Well again, this does not explain the eyewitnesses who have pretty well all agreed that the plane flew on the North Side.
As for the Impossible flight path, I would also like to see some real Peer Review of this. If anything it doesn't explain this, but only adds to the mystery as to what went on that day.

[edit on 7-8-2008 by talisman]

I find it fascinating that CIT believers miss the point entirely. Let's have a lesson in reality:

You sound condascending and lose debate points when you act like that. Assuming your opponent is not grounded in reality is your first mistake.

It does not matter what flightpath CIT claims.

You are right. Because the witnesses all saw the plane on the north side of the Citgo. It is not CIT's claim, but what the witnesses saw.

It does not matter what Roosevelt saw or thought he saw.

Oh it doesn't? So all those times you all asked CIT for just one flyover witness, you all were just getting ready to move the goal posts again? This is a far cry from what you guys wanted before.

NO claim of a flyover is possible until and unless CIT produces eyewitness testimony from the many hundreds of people who were in a position BEYOND the Pentagon to see a low flying, fast moving, loud twin-engine jet as it moved away from the Pentagon.

These silly demands are getting out of hand now. This is not your investigation, and you are certainly not the jury CIT is trying to convince. You continually make grandiose demands that fall short of impossible if not incredibly daunting and almost entirely fruitless. CIT doesn't need to produce anymore than they have, witnesses and supporting data to a north of Citgo flight path, pull up, and flyover.

Do you CIT believers ended to hide under a rock and NOT address that salient fact?

Do you think adding the word 'salient' makes your silly demands seem valid or even sane?

Why do you think Ranke is AVOIDING anything to do with a necessary condition of a flyover scenario?

Why do you lie and use words like "avoid" and "refuses" and slant all of your posts in order to mislead the reader? your demands grow more preposterous the more evidence CIT collects. You are what they call a goal post mover, Jthomas and a very volatile and deceptive one at that.

Why do you think his speculated flight path does not extend beyond the Pentagon?

Um, because they didn't get to interview Roosevelt on camera and

Why do you think jthomas won't interview any of the witnesses who saw the plane on the north side of the Citgo? Why do think he won't try and interview any south side witnesses on location, on camera? Why do you think jthomas is a nameless, faceless individual who refuses to contact eyewitnesses, yet dedicates his time and effort to setting up strawman lies to attribute them to CIT?

Why do you think Craig refuses in this very thread to deal with a flight path after the supposed "flyover?"

How do you suppose he goes about that? Slide the picture & marker under Roosevelt's door after he closed it?

Why do you think he relies exclusively on witnesses who were on the side where the explosion occurred but absolutely, categorically refuses to deal with the necessary implications of a flyover: hundreds of eyewitnesses in a geographic area of thousands of people.

Stop lying jthomas, CIT never refused anything. Craig relies on witnesses on the impact side and he is wrong for that. Up is down and down is up folks. Goal posts...moved.

Are you all going to sit there and continue to pretend it doesn't matter? Who will be the first of you CIT believers to step up to the plate and deal with the necessary IMPLICATIONS of a flyover? CIT will NOT do it. It cannot afford to because it cannot find a single witness anywhere who would have easily seen such an unusual event.

So, get out your maps, and plot where YOU think a 757 would go.

Yes, jthomas said a whole of nothing, yet framed it as if Craig was guilty of intentionally avoiding evidence. While he provides no clues as to how CIT is supposed to find the "hundreds of eyewitnesses in a geographic area of thousands of people."

He's clueless

Originally posted by Reheat
If you understand this, you now realize how stoopid and ridiculous this whole NoC proposal really is......

When are you going to let the witnesses know Reheat?

Are you going to contact Sgt Lgasse?

I am very concerned about all these witnesses lying/being mistaken about this EXACT SAME ERROR, I hope you can contact them and shed some light.

We need to get this rectified.

Jthomas, SAP, Boone?

Are one of you going to forward Reheats paper and phone # so we can get this straightened out?

I think that is the key thing here and we need to hold Reheat and co's feet to the fire on it.

You need to contact all these witnesses and explain how they didn't see the plane on the north side of the Citgo which is how you determined that they didn't see the plane on the north side of the Citgo.

Reheat, I am not aeronautically knowledgeable so I really have no idea how accurate or HONEST your paper is.

Can you please provide me with your credentials, and the names/credentials of the pilots experts who reviewed the witness accounts and peer reviewed your paper?

[edit on 7-8-2008 by EvanSent]

What I love about the 'terrist' brigade is how despite all the eyewitness testimony they still try and deny the truth. No amount of 'spin' can change what the eyewitnesses saw.

Originally posted by EvanSent

Crap CIT made up? CIT didn't see the plane on the north side of the Citgo. And Lagasse placed the plane on the north side of the Citgo in 2003. The new ANC witnesses were interviewed in the CMH months after 9/11, and Roosevelt Roberts was interviewed months after 9/11 in the LoC interviews.

Why are you trying to mislead people?

I'm not misleading anyone, I am informing them of the FACTS of aerodynamics. It's CIT who is misleading people.

Originally posted by EvanSent
Reheat, I have seen your behavior. You sound like you have anger management issues or you are coordinated subterfuge. Frauds???

I am not angry at all, I do get exasperated with hard heads who refuse to learn and accept fraudulent behavior.

Originally posted by EvanSent
CIT doesn't need to come up with numbers because CIT are not aeronautically knowledgeable and it is immaterial to the fact that the witnesses who were in a position to tell, ..... Your numbers are ridiculously arbitrary and slanted without even trying to consider the new witnesses or the fact that they are humans and not computers.

They are in cahoots with pffft who claim to be a pilot group. Now, why can't they do the aerodynamic math?

The new witnesses change nothing as it is already addressed.

Originally posted by EvanSent
Why haven't you released your name and credentials, and secondly why haven't you had it peer reviewed by professionals who use their real names/credentials and WHO have seen all the interviews.

What do my name and credentials have to do with aerodynamic math? Answer = NOTHING Strawman!

The article has been peer review by all of the people capable at JREF. Care to go there and find out?

Originally posted by EvanSent
Why are you still saying this BEFORE and EVEN after the the ANC interviews were released? Do you your "calculations" include the new witnesses?

Because it changes NOTHING.

Originally posted by EvanSent
But according to you down is up and up is down. You are using witnesses who saw it on the north side to prove they didn't see it on the north side. How is that for doublethink guys?

You need to work on this part, it doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by EvanSent
They obviously appeared on camera because they had no idea of the implications of what they saw. Why would Craig take the time to educate these people on camera and risk compromising the interview and the following interviews he would have obtained at the same location? .... You know this, yet you use this bizarre logic and doublespeak to psychologically manipulate the readers.

Yes, math is very manipulative to someone who doesn't understand. CIT attempts to psychologically manipulate people with BS that defies aerodynamics? That's CIT in a nutshell.....

Originally posted by EvanSent
Yet here you are. You are seen everywhere. In fact, it is a well known fact that you claimed to be a female college student so you could lurk on the PFT forums and avoid debate. It is clear you are obsessed with making this not true, anonymously, from behind your screen, tryin g to convince EVERYONE , possibly even yourself, that this isn't true.

Fact? Do you know me? Do you have privy to my IP address and who uses my computers? It's a STRAWMAN anyway, so never mind.

Originally posted by EvanSent
Where are his peer reviews? ....We have to provide "math" to prove him wrong, yet we are not the expert.

It's not in a scientific journal, so peer review does not need to be posted. The material has been reviewed by NUMEROUS people who can do the math. Since you use the pronoun "we" do you have a mouse in your pocket who can do the math or is your object to continue to argue from ignorance?

Originally posted by EvanSent

Originally posted by Reheat
If you understand this, you now realize how stoopid and ridiculous this whole NoC proposal really is......

When are you going to let the witnesses know Reheat?

As if you didn't know, the witnesses are not my problem. I didn't interview them and post their mistaken beliefs on the Internet.

When are you going to tell the victims families that their loved ones didn't die in the Pentagon?

Why does CIT need to provide math for a flight path in order to prove the official flight path fraudulent? Answer: they don't. The independently verified witnesses corroborated testimonies place the aircraft on the north side of the Citgo. For the official story to be true, it must be on the south side.
No amount of math is going to place the plane on the south side if the witnesses specifically saw it on the north side.

Originally posted by EvanSent
I think that is the key thing here and we need to hold Reheat and co's feet to the fire on it.

You need to contact all these witnesses and explain how they didn't see the plane on the north side of the Citgo which is how you determined that they didn't see the plane on the north side of the Citgo.

Well, that's your opinion. I think it is far more important for CIT or anyone who buys their garbage to go to the victims families and explain to them what happened to those loved ones they thought died in the Pentagon and whose DNA was identified. At the same time those same idiots should explain to the families the source of some of the personal belongings of those that the families thought died there.

Originally posted by EvanSent
Reheat, I am not aeronautically knowledgeable so I really have no idea how accurate or HONEST your paper is.

So, why are you posting in reply to me. Does it make you feel good?

Originally posted by EvanSent
Can you please provide me with your credentials, and the names/credentials of the pilots experts who reviewed the witness accounts and peer reviewed your paper?

Part of my credentials are posted with the article. No, I won't identify myself. I am under no obligation to provide you with Jack Chit. Math doesn't need credentials, it's either right or it's wrong. That article has been posted for almost two months now and no one has objected to the math.

Do you still have that mouse in your pocket?

reply to post by PplVSNWO
I have discussed the topic with them before on this board in December of last year.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is the standard departure procedure that the C-130 most likely flew.


Here is the flight paths of Flight 77 and Gopher 06 according to the RADES data.

911files.info has a copy of the air traffic control transcripts showing that the controllers asked the C-130 to make a right hand turn to follow flight 77 and that fatally contradicts the CIT fantasy loop.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Why does CIT need to provide math for a flight path in order to prove the official flight path fraudulent?

Right, they don't need to prove the generally accepted flight path wrong, but they sure a hell need to prove that theirs is possible. Pssst - it isn't.

Originally posted by EvanSent
No amount of math is going to place the plane on the south side if the witnesses specifically saw it on the north side.

The math does not place the aircraft on the South side. But, it sure as heck PROVES it did not fly on the North side as some of the witnesses say.

BTW, you have NO CLUE about the hierarchy of admissible credible evidence. If it's so convincing why am I not reading about it in a Media Outlet anywhere in the world written by someone who wants to win a Pulitzer Prize?

Why isn't the evidence in a Court Room instead of being discussed in silly Internet Forums?

[edit on 7-8-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 7-8-2008 by Reheat]

reply to post by EvanSent
I didn't leave it out, it's in the external quote in my first post on page 13. I provided a link to the web page so that anyone could read it if they wanted to.

And he did not say that it flew over the tidal basin. Here is what he said, " But right over the tidal basin". Please read the full article and you will see why it didn't fly over the tidal basin.

reply to post by EvanSent


Got to youtube they have plenty of people on there that actually saw the plane hit the pentagon. Here is one eyewitness but you can search for many more. www.youtube.com... There are quite a few who saw the plane actually hit. But of course you will all think they are planted their from the government. This topic is played, I hope craig accepts the debate in the debate forum, however I am guessing he wont.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Great thread. What we have to remember is that many of the newest CIT eyewitnesses were interviewed almost 7 years ago by the Center for Military History and the Library of Congress. Now they have been reinterviewed by CIT and verified and allowed them to explain their recollections to a greater degree. They all place the aircraft over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo; the death nell to the official flight path.

The alleged witnesses to the south of the Naval Annex official Flight 77 flight path through the 5 light poles and low inches off the lawn were poorly interviewed by the alleged mainstream media almost 7 years ago and their identities were questionable and they were never verified as legitimate witnesses nor were they re-interviewed.

After being forced to release some of the interviews by FOIA, the Bush Regime had their names redacted by the Center for Military History and tracking them down for verification became a difficult task. The Bush Regime has much to hide from the American people and from the remainder of the justice seeking world.

Well done Citizen Investigation Team. We Americans are proud of you.

reply to post by Reheat


Since you are so obsessed with the math, have you ever done the math to prove the official flight path is possible? Others have.
z3.invisionfree.com...
z3.invisionfree.com...
Mirage has even touched on it here on ATS:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 7-8-2008 by PplVSNWO]