The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

reply to post by Boone 870


Yes, your analysis is spot on. You are correct in every respect.

Speaking of the C-130 and CIT, in my initial gander at the new (to me) video of the C-130 in a turn west of the Pentagon, it appears to confirm the 84th RADES data. It is not a perfectly clear video, but that aircraft is quite obviously a C-130.

Distant view:

www.youtube.com...

Close up view:

www.youtube.com...

RADES Data (shown with blue stick pins):

www.youtube.com...

Based upon my experience of witnessing literally hundreds of explosions from 250 # bombs up to 3000 # bombs (no the Pentagon impact was not a bomb, but similar) Mr. Tribby's video appears to have begun closer to 30 seconds after impact than to 1 minute after impact. Note that the smoke and debris is still billowing when the video begins indicating closer to 30 seconds or less, rather than 1 minute following the initial explosion.

Next, when we can first see the C-130 @ 1:48 in the video the aircraft is well into it's turn. I don't know exactly where the camera was located, but it appears to be ~ South of the Pentagon at the beginning and ~ East near the end. The camera is obviously virtually due East at the time the C-130 appears. The C-130's body is near perpendicular to the camera when it first appears indicating it is well established in it's turn. Basing the turn on the RADES data it would have already turned at least 100-120 degrees when it first comes into view.

Doing a little timing math starting from where the RADES data shows the beginning of the turn we find that the C-130 began it's turn ~ 1:38 after the NTSB calculated impact time of 9:37:45. The video began ~:30 + 1:48 = 2:18 after the explosion when the C-130 comes into view. BUT, the C-130 is well established in it's turn, very near perpendicular to the camera when it comes into view. If we estimate the C-130 has turned ~110-120 degrees the timing is near perfectly correlated with the RADES Data. The timing of the 84th RADES data is therefore correct.

The turn radius observed also confirms the 84th RADES data. The RADES Data shows a turn of ~ 150 degrees total for the C-130. At 300 KIAS (typical speed for a C-130) the turn radius would be 13,867'. That's over 2 miles for those who can't convert feet to miles. The aircraft in that video DID NOT turn from the approach indicated by the CIT ANC witnesses, it was much further South. It was well south of that position when it first comes into view and it's already well established in the turn. This proves the ANC witnesses were wrong about the C-130's approach angle.

The 84th RADES Data for the C-130 is correct. It also agrees with Lt Col O'Brien's account. One conspiracy theory down the tubes more to go!

Just to preempt Alpo. Someone can pass the word to him that I don't care what he says about Wheelhouse, Sucherman, or Roosevelt. Spin away, but he'll have a hard time convincing anyone knowledgeable that the RADES Data is wrong.

[edit on 13-8-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 13-8-2008 by Reheat]

You know it's really funny you guys are so scared of CIT and the NofC witnesses. It is really very simple and easy for anyone to see. If you fellas would just relax and admit it's good work and strong evidence.

Well I guess if there is one thing I know, you guys will not just let it go.

It's like tag team wrasslin on WWF! Can't figure out why you guys care so much?? Is it really because you think Craig is implicating your military buddies?? Anyway carry on...

reply to post by Leo Strauss

You know it's really funny you guys are so scared of CIT and the NofC witnesses.

I ain't skeered!

It is really very simple and easy for anyone to see. If you fellas would just relax and admit it's good work and strong evidence.

Eyewitness testimony is the weakest form of evidence.

Well I guess if there is one thing I know, you guys will not just let it go.

No time soon.

It's like tag team wrasslin on WWF! Can't figure out why you guys care so much?? Is it really because you think Craig is implicating your military buddies?? Anyway carry on...

I only know 2 people in the military, one of them joined up three months ago and the other one is a national guardsmen. It is very unlikely that either of them was involved in the alleged "military deception."

Carry on...

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
You know it's really funny you guys are so scared of CIT and the NofC witnesses. It is really very simple and easy for anyone to see. If you fellas would just relax and admit it's good work and strong evidence.

Bwhahahaha! Your argument is very convincing. I might just change my mind based upon your thorough analysis. Bwhahahaha!

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Well I guess if there is one thing I know, you guys will not just let it go.

Sure, I will when CIT is off of the Internet.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
It's like tag team wrasslin on WWF! Can't figure out why you guys care so much?? Is it really because you think Craig is implicating your military buddies?? Anyway carry on...

Yes, that's part of it. It's also criminal to do nothing and allow these clowns to get away with accusing thousands of innocents while ignoring the true perpetrators of the carnage. One who has no principles, honor, or integrity probably will never understand.....

[edit on 13-8-2008 by Reheat]

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

Yes, that's part of it. It's also criminal to do nothing and allow these clowns to get away with accusing thousands of innocents while ignoring the true perpetrators of the carnage. One who has no principles, honor, or integrity probably will never understand.....

[edit on 13-8-2008 by Reheat]

C'mon reheat we are just a bunch of kooks. You don't need to take us so seriously. After all we don't have anything so no need to be concerned.

Just a bunch of whackos why are you trying so so hard??

I always think the truth will out because it will be obvious to any who care what is the truth. I won't need the amazin randi to tell me what the truth is. What about you reheat do you need a consensus to see what is plain as day???

[edit on 13-8-2008 by Leo Strauss]

Leo Strauss

You know it's really funny you guys are so scared of CIT and the NofC witnesses. It is really very simple and easy for anyone to see. If you fellas would just relax and admit it's good work and strong evidence.

Well I guess if there is one thing I know, you guys will not just let it go.

It's like tag team wrasslin on WWF! Can't figure out why you guys care so much?? Is it really because you think Craig is implicating your military buddies?? Anyway carry on...

Reheat

Yes, that's part of it. It's also criminal to do nothing and allow these clowns to get away with accusing thousands of innocents while ignoring the true perpetrators of the carnage. One who has no principles, honor, or integrity probably will never understand.....

Leo Strauss

C'mon reheat we are just a bunch of kooks. You don't need to take us so seriously. After all we don't have anything so no need to be concerned.

Just a bunch of whackos why are you trying so so hard??

I always think the truth will out because it will be obvious to any who care what the is the truth. I won't need the amazin randi to tell me what the truth is. What about you reheat do you need a consensus to see what is plain as day???

These guys who think CIT and other 9-11 Truthers have absolutely 'NOTHING', are fanatical at striking anywhere CIT pops up to shout down their 'NOTHING'. These 'government loyalists' seem to be the most fearful people on earth, paranoid to obsession that somebody with an open mind and simple common sense might be taken in by CIT's version of the truth.

These clowns spend tremendous energy and time attacking investigators who they claim are convincing nobody. They are much like the enviromentalists who picket everything to do with the oil empires and never seem to work. Who pays them? The oil empires? Do these guys work for a living? Who pays these pseudoskeptics? The 9-11 perps? Somebody else? Are they working for free stopping somebody who is accomplishing 'NOTHING'? That is pathetic.

[edit on 8/13/08 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston



My personal feeling on the matter is that we should just ignore whether or not someone is a "real" skeptic or not, just offer the arguments and people are smart enough to see what is going on.

I do know, a while back though a fellow who use to belong to this board was caught on JREF looking for help in de-bunking LapTop's analysis on the seismic disturbances with WTC 1&2 and 7. So obviously we have to deal with such antics.

So I feel the best way is to stay away from the personal stuff, cause if we do that, people loose what it is we are trying to say.

It will be interesting to see if Craig is going to have a debate when he gets back, and it would be interesting to see if any of the skeptics here would take him up on a Telephone debate?


[edit on 14-8-2008 by talisman]

I'm quite neutral on any subject until I get the facts. I've asked some very basic questions, and they are not answered. This is not a "very strong" case. And I've said that I applaud the effort they've put in. Putting in effort doesn't make it the correct hypothesis on what happened however.

I asked how wreckage of any sort got on the lawn. If a plane did not crash, then someone had to have planted it, in broad daylight, in front of witnesses. However, I was told "what wreckage?" Well, that would be all those bits of metal, some with AA colors on them, on the grass. A strong case is one where people can't acknowledge obvious facts? I don't think so.

I asked about the witnesses who actually saw the passenger jet fly into the Pentagon. I was pointed at a list that housed some 26 names, as proof that apparently, no one actually saw what happened to a large, 757 jet. However, that list is more than half incomplete. That's not a "strong case." It would get tossed out of any court of law. It's not complete, it's not even half done.

I have got NO answers about bodies found (quoted someone who saw bodies in the seats - haven't been answered about this one, was this guy lying?).

Nor about forensic evidence linking the remains to the passengers. Nor about the black box. Nor about who knocked over light poles, and no one noticed. You'd think there would be a witness to people planting wreckage, and knocking over light poles.

This is not a strong case. It's apparently a case that rests everything on the flightpath of a plane. Based on witnesses that didn't see it hit the Pentagon (or fly over it.. no one saw that).

I haven't been told how people watching a 757 flying at low altitude, just somehow lost sight of it. How is that possible? Are they saying that there was absolutely no one that could see it as it approached the Pentagon? I find that hard to believe. I find it equally hard to believe that if it flew over, no witnesses saw it. It's a large passenger jet. How is this possible? If I saw a jet flying at 50 feet from 200 feet away, I absolutely guarantee I would NOT lose sight of it. It's common sense.

So no, this is not a solid case. It's far from it. The theory has so many holes in it, I'm staggered that these folks can simply ignore things that are common sense. I don't care WHAT angle these few witnesses say they saw it coming in at, that does NOT discount all the other issues with the theory. It does't work that way. You can't say "Action A was witnessed by 5 people, so Action B witnessed by 50 didn't happen." It's irresponsible to make glaring accusations without proving your point.

To put it another way, what if this was a murder case. Which in essense, it is, since they are accusing our government of mass murder of innocents. Would their case win? Of course not. They would keep plastering up the same diagram over and over, and the other attorney would ask about these other 20 problems with the case, and they would say "But I have this DIAGRAM!!! They are obviously GUILTY!" No, it doesn't work like that. You can't dismiss things you can't explain. They don't become non-issues to the case, if you can't figure them out.

Why won't those defending the conpiracy theory answer questions about bodies, wreckage, witnesses who saw it hit, among other issues brought up? I'd guess because they have no clue. If this really was a strong case, they'd research all of it. And not just bake up some hackneyed theories about what they think happened. Facts are facts, not guessing.

reply to post by fleabit


flea

I personally am refering to the North of Citgo evidence presented in this latest video.

If you look back you will see in my original post that I do not believe convincing evidence was presented to support a flyover.

However strong EVIDENCE was presented supporting a North of Citgo flight path. Not conjecture, not strident argument but EVIDENCE independently corroborated in several instances which in and of itself demands a new investigation!




[edit on 14-8-2008 by Leo Strauss]

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
reply to post by fleabit

 

flea

I personally am refering to the North of Citgo evidence presented in this latest video.

If you look back you will see in my original post that I do not believe convincing evidence was presented to support a flyover.

However strong EVIDENCE was presented supporting a North of Citgo flight path. Not conjecture, not strident argument but EVIDENCE independently corroborated in several instances which in and of itself demands a new investigation!




[edit on 14-8-2008 by Leo Strauss]

I agree, that there is corroborated evidence that suggests a flight path North of Citgo. I feel this is an important piece of this puzzle, for this is what it truly is, a puzzle. How it fits into the picture is what I want to know.

What a few here don't understand about CIT is that their position on the second plane (ie: the C-130) was this:

Because there WAS NO 2nd plane and planted reports of one were meant to confuse people who really saw the plane fly over the building.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
www.thepentacon.com...

Any person that mentioned a C-130 in the vicinity at the time was immediately labelled suspect, including Keith Wheelhouse and Joel Sucherman. Both men have been demonised as suspected collaborators in a massive conspiracy.

The CIT position on the C-130 at the time was that anyone who mentioned it immediately gave cover to the flyover. By saying that there was a second plane in the vicinity other witnesses would immediately assume that they had seen it and not the flyover. A perfectly executed psychological operation.

CIT savaged Joel Sucherman's account to support this absurdity, by stating that he had witnessed the C-130 approximately 3 to 5 seconds behind the AA jet. In actual fact, Joel had said that approximately 3 to 5 seconds after impact he looked to the west and saw the C-130 in the distance.

Now we have the new witnesses and suddenly the C-130 is back in the picture, only the new eye witnesses prove that the RADES data is false because CIT know the true flight path!

CIT are all about getting corroboration of data and confirmation of statements. In fact, I am pretty certain that if I dig long enough I'll find Craig harping about only dealing in actual, 100%, confirmed evidence.

Well ask yourselves this. Why is Craig yet to have O'Brien confirm the "actual C-130 flight path" they have presented in this image:



All they have to do is present him with the image and get him to sign it. And we've already seen that they are quite resourceful. They'll find him if they want to.

But they won't, because then their allegation that the RADES data was faked would suffer a fatal blow.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by discombobulator]

For those that continue to reference CIT's Witness List Broken Down in a bizarre attempt to claim that there were no impact witnesses, please amuse yourselves a moment...

In the category Claims they "Saw" impact of "plane"/large airliner-were in a position to possibly confirm one: there are 34 individual names listed. The majority of these accounts are unopposed and as yet there is no credible explanation as to why these individuals did not see what they claim to have seen.

However, noticably absent from this list are William Lagasse and Chadwick Brooks, both of whom were confirmed by CIT to have made claims of witnessing an impact and were in a position to see one.

Furthermore, CIT were notified of this and other omissions at least as far back in January on the new Loose Change Forums, yet CIT have failed to revised the list.

Given that this can be easily demonstrated by someone with only the CIT produced Pentacon video and Witness List Broken Down resources available to them, the question you should be asking yourself is...

Who else is missing from the list?

... followed by...

Why do CIT refuse to revise it?

... followed by...

Why didn't I notice this before?

This thread on the Loose Change Forums demonstrates the mindset of how CIT came about putting the Witness List Broken Down togethor.

According to Aldo, William Lagasse and Chadwick Brooks don't belong in the Claims they "Saw" impact of "plane"/large airliner-were in a position to possibly confirm one: category simply because they also claim they saw the plane fly north of the Citgo station. To him it doesn't matter what they actually said or where they were.

But the category isn't called "Saw the plane NoC so can't have seen any impact", is it?

The fact of the matter is that both men were explicity questioned by Craig as to whether they had seen the impact and both men replied Yes. Craig himself demonstrated that both men also had an unobstructed view of the impact site.

Remember again that Aldo created this list.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by discombobulator]

[edit on 14-8-2008 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by fleabit
To put it another way, what if this was a murder case. Which in essense, it is, since they are accusing our government of mass murder of innocents. Would their case win? Of course not.

Of course it would, if it were allowed. As soon as those 85+ videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI just minutes after whatever really hit the Pentagon were subpoenaed, it would be an open-and-shut case.

But as we already know, any lawsuit or criminal charges would be thrown out before it got to that point, as former Bob Dole aide Stanley Hilton discovered when he tried to bring 9/11 conspiracy charges against the Bush regime:

It's interesting to note the ruling was based on the "Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity". "In other words, the suit was not dismissed because of lack of evidence, but rather because the judge reasoned that U.S. citizens do not have the right to hold a sitting President accountable for anything, even if the charges include premeditated mass murder and premeditated acts of high treason."

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
You know it's really funny you guys are so scared of CIT and the NofC witnesses. It is really very simple and easy for anyone to see.

Yep, fear is definitely in the air. CIT must really be on to something. Unless there's another reason several brand-new debunkers have been assigned 24/7 duty to try and discredit him.

"You can measure success by the quality of your enemies."

Not to mention an astonishing 159 flags, with partial credit going to the debunkers for keeping his thread bumped!




[edit on 14-8-2008 by GoldenFleece]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by fleabit
To put it another way, what if this was a murder case. Which in essense, it is, since they are accusing our government of mass murder of innocents. Would their case win? Of course not.

Of course it would, if it were allowed. As soon as those 85+ videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI just minutes after whatever really hit the Pentagon were subpoenaed, it would be an open-and-shut case.

Yet again, you demonstrate that you don't even know some of the most basic facts of this incident.

The FBI did not confiscate 85+ videos minutes after the incident.

I apologise in advance for referencing a large amount of material, but I feel that this is important to quash this ever continuing nonsense that the FBI confiscated 85+ videos from the area.

The following is a breakdown the 85 videos the FBI possessed, documenting where the videos came from. Have a look at this page to see the legal documents in full.

The list of 85 videos
Five videotapes were recovered from the post-attack Pentagon crime scene and submitted to the FBI Laboratory in Quantico.

13 videos were obtained by the Defense Protective Services (DPS) - Pentagon Police - on 9/25/2001 from individual filming Pentagon site from Boundary Channel Drive. These included footage from the WTC site in the days after the attcks.

One (1) Beta video tape - interviews in NYC
One (1) DVCAM tape labeled "Twin Towers, World Trade Center" - NYC/WTC
One (1) DVCAM tape - suburban setting, unknown individuals, dated 9/12-13
One (1) DVCAM tape - NYC/WTC, 9/21-22
One (1) DVCAM tape - NYC/WTC, 9/22-23
One (1) DVCAM tape - NYC 9/23
One (1) DVCAM tape - interviews in NYC; 10 seconds of Pentagon footage, but not crash site
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
8 videos were received on 10/11/2001 at Quantico. These videos were collected during consent search of residence in Avanel, New Jersey. Pending case on subject.

One (1) damaged Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
Videos received on 10/15/2001 at Quantico. These videos were collected from surveillance cameras at multiple Kinko's in South Florida.

One (1) TDK 1-160 VHS video tape
One (1) VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
Video received on 10/22/2001 at Quantico. This video was recovered from garbage at residenced in Neenah, Wisconsin by the Neenah Police Department. Investigation on suspect has been closed.

The list continues but exceeds the 4000 character limit. Please visit the link to examine the list in full.

Many of the videos had absolutely nothing to do with the Pentagon. Some were even blank!

You continue to attempt to deceive, GoldenFleece.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by discombobulator]

reply to post by discombobulator


After you've made a few hundred posts on this thread and been an ATS member for a couple of days, your character limit will rise.

Excuse my "deception" and thank you for correcting me. The 85 tapes weren't "confiscated" by the FBI, they were "recovered" or "possessed" as you say. It's nice to hear from the FBI that many of the tapes were blank, showed nothing or had absolutely nothing to do with the Pentagon. I guess we should all be happy that they finally released 5 frames.

But I didn't read anywhere in your 4000 character explanation why the FBI would go around confiscating, err, recovering 85 videotapes just minutes after 9/11 -- tapes that they planned to "possess" indefinitely?

Seems kinda odd running around collecting videotapes immediately after a "plane" that hit the Pentagon at three feet off the ground but didn't leave so much as a recognizable piece of wreckage or divot in the lawn, dontcha think?




[edit on 14-8-2008 by GoldenFleece]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by discombobulator

 

After you've made a few hundred posts on this thread and been an ATS member for a couple of days, your character limit will rise.

As opposed to yours, which continues to decline with every post you make.

Excuse my "deception" and thank you for correcting me. The 85 tapes weren't "confiscated" by the FBI, they were "recovered" or "possessed" as you say. It's nice to hear from the FBI that many of the tapes were blank, showed nothing or had absolutely nothing to do with the Pentagon. I guess we should all be happy that they finally released 5 frames.

They actually released footage from two separate time-lapse recorded cameras. They also released much more of it than the five frames you claim, proving again that you do not know what you are talking about.

But I didn't read anywhere in your 4000 character explanation why the FBI would go around confiscating, err, recovering 85 videotapes just minutes after 9/11 -- tapes that they planned to "possess" indefinitely?

Seems kinda odd running around collecting videotapes immediately after 9/11, dontcha think?

Not unless you consider that a crime had taken place in the area.

You know, like a bunch of guys hijacking an aircraft and slamming it into a building?

But once again you continue to present the false assertion that the
FBI recovered 85 videos minutes after the incident.

If you read the list you would know that the majority of the videos were recovered days and in some cases months after the event.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by discombobulator

 

Seems kinda odd running around collecting videotapes immediately after a "plane" that hit the Pentagon at three feet off the ground but didn't leave so much as a recognizable piece of wreckage or divot in the lawn, dontcha think?

Not when you consider that the plane is stated to have impacted with the Pentagon wall between the first and second floors.

Do you actually know anything at all about the Pentagon incident or are you merely trolling?

Your behaviour in this thread is appalling.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by discombobulator
You know, like a bunch of guys hijacking an aircraft and slamming it into a building?

OK, the FBI released that photo:

If you cannot respond to my posts in an intellectual and honest manner then do not bother replying to them further.

You have failed to respond to many questions I have asked of you and refused to support your blatantly false statements.

Furthermore you have indicated to me that you do not even have the slightest understanding of, or inclination to examine, the vast wealth of evidence that supports AA77 impacting with the Pentagon and destroys your ridiculous theory of a flyover, or a missile, or whatever it is that you believe... today.

I am finished with you.