The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Originally posted by tide88
UH, yea so. They didnt see it. What is your point.

Gee i thought you had some intelligence.

You completly missed or avioded the point that THEY WERE TOLD LATER IT WAS A 757.

So who told them and how many other witnesses were told later it was a 757?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by tide88 Also you might want to get that Ultima guy to stop posting in your favor. Getting slow adults to believe in your theory just cheapens the work you have actually done.

By the way, i am not posting on anyones side. I am doing my own research and investigating thank you.

Please be adult enough to answer the following question,

How many FOIA request and e-mails have you sent to find the truth?

Why must you constantly use "please be an adult, grow up, immature, in every one of you statements. Man, it really makes you look stupid. What does being a adult have anything to do with answering you rediculous questions? A 10 year old could answer that question if you asked them. What does filing a FOIA act have to do with anything. I never claimed I filed one, nor did I ever claim I was an expert on 911. I have used other documents that other people have received through the FOIA. Just because I havent filed one myself has no bearing on the subject at hand. Your lack of comprehension astounds me. BTW I have sent two emails to file a complaint about you to the NSA. Telling them about my fear that a supposed employee of theirs is posting information that he has access to classified documents. You probably wont be contacted, since I doubt you actually hold a position there. However, I was able to give them your full name and DOB. Because I am concerned with the National Securty of the USA.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by tide88
UH, yea so. They didnt see it. What is your point.

Gee i thought you had some intelligence.

You completly missed or avioded the point that THEY WERE TOLD LATER IT WAS A 757.

So who told them and how many other witnesses were told later it was a 757?

LOL. You cant be serious. THis makes perfect sense. So you are assuming some governement agency told them what hit the pentagon. Wow, you are dumber then I thought. They knew something hit the pentagon and were probably listening to the news or radio. So I am assuming that they either heard it on the news, or heard it from someone first hand. This doesnt prove anything. Hell I didnt know what kind of plane hit the pentagon. I just heard it was AA77. A government agent didnt call me and tell me it was a 757. Also I love out of over 100 witnesses on the page you provided, you can only post one that goes with your story. What about the witnesses that saw that it was an AA plane. Or the flight attendent that was there at the scene who identified the exact plane, AA77, and saw its tail inside the pentagon. I find it funny how you only pick out the witness that suits your needs. You need to read all the witnesses statements and then come to a conclusion. I need to stop debating with you. I think you are actually making me stupid with your rediculous arguments and you incredible lack of evidence that you believe is actual evidence.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by tide88 Also you might want to get that Ultima guy to stop posting in your favor. Getting slow adults to believe in your theory just cheapens the work you have actually done.

By the way, i am not posting on anyones side. I am doing my own research and investigating thank you.

Please be adult enough to answer the following question,

How many FOIA request and e-mails have you sent to find the truth?

Also you are sending those request to try to prove some wacky theory. Which in 7 years you have yet to come close to proving anything. I know what happened, why would I send for a FOIA request.

Originally posted by tide88
Why must you constantly use "please be an adult, grow up, immature, in every one of you statements.

Becaue a lot of believers were very immature when i first started on this forum and they would attack and insult me. So as the saying goes, if the shoe fits ......

What does filing a FOIA act have to do with anything.

Well i wanted to know if you are serous about finding the truth or just going along with what you have been told.

You probably wont be contacted, since I doubt you actually hold a position there. However, I was able to give them your full name and DOB. Because I am concerned with the National Securty of the USA.

Well you are wrong yet again, i have been contacted by phone by the FOIA office and should be recieving the documents soon.

I am not afraid of you giving anyone my name and information, you are not the first immature person to do it and i am still here.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Do you have trouble reading? I said I doubt the complaint office would contact you. I said nothing about the FOIA office contacting you. There are plenty of documents all over the internet that are available to me so that I can come to my own conclusions. It is not as if I watched the news that day and whatever they said I blindly believed. I have done my own research and have looked at both sides of the spectrum. I have come to my own conclusions of what happened that day. One is that AA77 hit the pentagon. Just so you and I am on the same page, I do have some concerns of what happened that day. One of them is, if someone knew what was going to happen. I do not think Bush or Cheney knew anything. Def. not Bush. However I do think there are people high up in the CIA or FBI that might of known that an attack might have been coming and did nothing about it. Whether they did it for an agenda to go to war ,or they ignored the warnings because they thought it was impossible, I do not know. And no matter how many FOIA requests there are, we will never know. Because if there was a document that proved this, it would be destroyed. Another thing that I consider a possibility is the flight 93 was shot down. I am not completely convinced it wasnt. I would put the chances of it shot down at around 25%. However, again we will never know because if there was a document that proved it was shot down, they would have destroyed it by now. Also I can understand why they would want to cover something like shooting down a civilian airline up. And I do not completely blame them for doing it. However by shooting flight 93 down does not prove that there was an overall conspriracy that day. If anything, it proves that the official story is indeed true.

Originally posted by tide88 One of them is, if someone knew what was going to happen. I do not think Bush or Cheney knew anything. Def. not Bush.

Well we have lots of evidence that the government (Bush and Cheny) had lots of prior warnings of the attacks.

The Presidents Dialy Brief just months before even warned of hijackings.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Well we have lots of evidence that the government (Bush and Cheny) had lots of prior warnings of the attacks.

There was evidence that hurricane Katrina was going to hit New Orleans..Lot of good that did..I'm sure they get lots of warnings but knowing when and where is another story..

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Yes, and I am sure they got hundreds of warning weekly. Nobody thought what the terrorist did would be possible, so I can imagine they probably thought the same. If you would have told me 100 different terror scenarios, one being planes being flown into buildings, I probably would have blown it off too. And to think Bush could have planned that in only 9 months in rediculous. Maybe Clinton was behind it.

Craig:

Why are the interviews of your witnesses more valid than the ones that said they saw, without a question of a doubt, a 757 hit the Pentagon?

More witnesses said they witnessed the plane flying into the building, than witnesses you interviewed that said they saw the plane flying a different direction than the official story. You know what... it doesn't matter what your witnesses saw, if the passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon. I don't care if it went through a 2 block wormhole to get there, the end result is the same.

The only list I've seen is a sad piece of biased research, where MORE than half of the witnesses WERE NOT INTERVIEWED. Just because you 'think' the ones you HAVE intereviewed are all dubious or mistaken, does NOT discount the rest on that list.

Again: Your witnesses are pointless if the jet in question, did in fact, crash into the Pentagon. Yes, some are not sure. Some were told later what it was. Many however, said they saw exactly what it was, and saw it fly into the Pentagon. Until you can explain away their sighting, your theory doesn't mean much.

No one has explained yet, what "they didn't see what they thought they saw" means. Py-ops? OK.. what do you mean? Exactly and to the point please. What did they think they saw, and why are they mistaken.

Until someone can explain this, this means nothing. It matters not what your witnesses think they saw, if the plane you SAY flew over the Pentagon, in fact, crashed into it.

Originally posted by fleabit


Why are the interviews of your witnesses more valid than the ones that said they saw, without a question of a doubt, a 757 hit the Pentagon?

Not sure what you mean here since even the north side witnesses were deceived into believing the plane hit.

A couple of points you are overlooking....

1. Only first-hand eyewitness accounts are evidence. Media quotes out of context are nothing but hearsay.

2. If the media quotes or hearsay that you are referring to do not address what side of the station the plane flew, they do not refute the north side approach.

None of the independent witnesses that we spoke with directly refute the north side approach.

All of them support it.

It's not our fault.

It has nothing to do with CIT.

It's simply where all of the witnesses place the plane.

Sorry that we had to report it but until more than 13 independent witnesses directly claim the opposite this evidence can not be refuted.

The fact is that the north side witness count keeps growing because this is clearly where the plane flew.




[edit on 27-8-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


If all the witnesses confirmed the NoC flyover, why didnt you include them in your interviews. According to the link I provided you contacted some witnesses who claim to have seen the plane hit. You have these witnesses as contacted/confirmed. Why are these witnesses and the other witnesses you identified as liars and accounts are dubious not included. For you to say they all agree with the NoC is BS. What about Eric Bart. Although he thinks it was a plane bomb he agrees with the witness testamony. Look at his page here official flight path is the real flight path and light poll evidence also witnesses. So you are telling us because you personally video taped 12 witness that say the plane flew NoC we should disregard all the physical and other witness testamony. Anyone with half a brain would immediatly know that your witnesses are unreliable and are more then likely confused or mistaken at what they saw. What is more likely. 12 witnesses are mistaken, or 100+ are. And the physical evidence backs up what the 100+ saw.

reply to post by tide88


Back up your claims.

Name names and quote us.

If we had more interviews of people to publish we would.

But we don't.

There aren't any witnesses who directly refute the north side approach.

People believing in an impact do not refute the north side approach particularly since the witnesses who prove the north side approach were all deceived into believing in the impact as well.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

1. Only first-hand eyewitness accounts are evidence. Media quotes out of context are nothing but hearsay

That is a rediculous statement. Great, all those other witness testamonies are hearsay. If you are pleading your case to ATS users, I agree. Take flight 93 for example. I could interview a witness who claims it was shot down. I could video them telling me this. Then I could come to ATS and other forums and start a thread that says "Flight 93 shot down" Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed. If anyone disagreed with me I could say "all other evidence is null and void. All witness testamony is hearsay." That does not mean it is true. Many others claim to have seen it crash. I cant discount what other people saw just because I didnt interview them. If you really had any evidence that was believable, I seriously hope you would do something more then post it on conspiracy forums. I think the reason you post it here and on other like forums is because 80% of the people here are willing to believe anything. It is funny how people calls us sheep for believing the official story. Every time a conspiracy theory about 911 is posted here 80-90% of the members blindly believe it as fact. Who are the sheep? Craig, you have a whole flock blindly following you.

reply to post by tide88


Your hypothetical scenario has nothing to do with the situation.

Evidence is evidence and hearsay is hearsay.

The fact is that we provide evidence and you argue against it based on nothing but pure faith in what you are told.

Why do you dismiss evidence based on faith?



[edit on 27-8-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by tide88

 

Back up your claims.

Name names and quote us.

If we had more interviews of people to publish we would.

But we don't.

There aren't any witnesses who directly refute the north side approach.

People believing in an impact do not refute the north side approach particularly since the witnesses who prove the north side approach were all deceived into believing in the impact as well.

okay here we go:

Here is one classification by you:

Only saw plane (possibly from far away location), could not see pentagon, light poles or impact, either deduced or are lying OR do not directly mention or CONFIRM seeing an impact
Capt Steve McCoy (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT at 395 and Glebe Rd)
Andrea Kaiser (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT at 395 and Glebe Rd)
Michael James -POV confirmed (Columbia Pike curve, trees blocked view)
Isabel James -POV confirmed (Columbia Pike curve, trees blocked view)
Michael Tinyk (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT US Patent and Trademark office in Crystal City)
Phillip Sheuerman (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT, on 395, only saw plane for brief moment, did not see impact)
Thomas J. Trapasso (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT1400 S. Barton, dubious conflicting witness and can't see Pentagon from location)
Terry Morin, Former USMC aviator (CONTACTED by CIT, would not return phone calls, EDIT 8/08: INTERVIEWED by CIT)(up at Navy Annex)
Dawn Vignola (TALKED TO by CIT, claimed the plane was white seemed unsure of final position)

2d Classification:
Claims they "Saw" impact of "plane"/large airliner-were in a position to possibly confirm one:

3. Mike Walter (had dinner with CIT)
13. Frank Probst (CONTACTED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
20. Mark Petitt (VERY dubious account)
23. Mitch Mitchell, Ret. Army Col., CBS news correspondent (account is problematic)

3rd:
Claims plane an American Airlines:
Vin Narayanan (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
John O'Keefe (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Joel Sucherman (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Frank Probst (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Michael Tinyk (dark orange and blue) (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT)

4th:
Saw a "silver plane":
Madelyn Zackem (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Lt. Col O'Brien(CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by PFT/CIT)

5th:Claims Saw it clip light pole:
Lloyd England (CONTACTED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)

You should have video of all these interviews. Not just cherry pick the ones that agree with your story. And there are many more that you could not contact or refused to speak with you. Now if I was one of the witnesses and actually saw the plane hit, actually could id. it as AA77, and saw it clip the lightpost, I would probably not return your calls either. After all, the only attention you are getting from this theory is from conspiracy boards. The one sort of main stream paper that did a story on it makes you guys look like a bunch of kooks. And if I knew what happened, I wouldnt give you the time of day either. Now if you started getting national press, I bet you would see a bunch of witnesses come out in droves and shoot down your theory.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


I dismiss evidence because the physical evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the official flight path. Why are you dismissing the physical evidence. If there are 130 witnesses it is quite normal that 10% would be incorrect at what they saw. How are we supposed to know you didnt cherry pick your witnesses. You are telling me only 12 people that day saw where that plane came from? I am not even coming close to buying that. And one person saw the plane fly over the pentagon. Come on. I dont believe you can even believe that. 911 files

[edit on 27-8-2008 by tide88]

Craig, it doesn't matter if the plane flew upside-down and leprachauns were dancing on the wings, if it ended up flying into the Pentagon, all the same.

Are you suggesting that media accounts of eyewitness testimony are null, but your personal interviews are viable? See, this is what I am talking about, massive bias skews an investigation. Your beliefs (sadly, much like politics) color all your logic.

I have heard multiple eyewitness accounts of the plane hitting the Pentagon. I remember a few from the DAY IT HAPPENED. I watched it on television, live. There was no doubt from those who were sure what they saw. And why shouldn't they be? It's an AA 757. It's large, it's silver, it's loud as hell at a few hundred feet.

Aside from the fact that people (and I'm talking about those sure of what they saw) saw it fly into the building, I'll never believe that people just magically lost track of it. Again.. picture a jet at the airport. You've probably seen many, I've seen hundreds in person. There is approximately a 0% chance I would lose sight of one one I saw (and heard) it. Now, if an explosion occurred VERY close to a plane taking off, what is the chance I would completely lose sight of that plane? Probably around 0%, still. I'm a human, not a gazelle or a mouse. I can reason. On the fly, and very quickly. I can reason things in mere seconds. I cannot fathom, once I am watching it, losing sight of a 757. I don't care what exploded.

So again, many holes, not many satisfying answers. I appreciate your efforts, really I do, I just think your investigation is biased and incomplete, and has serious holes which are being ignored.

That is, while your report might seem complete to you, and provide what is in your opinion, irrefutable proof of an end result, I think you are jumping to conclusions and ignoring anything that might counter your claims. I have NOT heard solid data or proof about such things as reports of forensics (matching dental with almost all victims), personal effects, witnesses actually watching it hit the Pentagon, wreckage on the lawn (who "planted" it, and when, and how, without being noticed), etc.

Ultima is really out there with his explanations, I hope you don't share his fantasy opinions. I.E. I hope he isn't your wingman, or you are in trouble.

Originally posted by tide88


Here is one classification by you:

Only saw plane (possibly from far away location), could not see pentagon, light poles or impact, either deduced or are lying OR do not directly mention or CONFIRM seeing an impact
Capt Steve McCoy (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT at 395 and Glebe Rd)

Just because we contacted someone does not mean they agreed to an interview.

We taked to him on the phone, we confirmed his location. He did not agree to an on camera interview or give us permission to publish our phone call.

He could not see the Pentagon or the CITGO at all from his location on the highway and does not refute the north side evidence.

Andrea Kaiser (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT at 395 and Glebe Rd)

Same as above. They were in the same fire truck.

Michael James -POV confirmed (Columbia Pike curve, trees blocked view)
Isabel James -POV confirmed (Columbia Pike curve, trees blocked view)

We didn't talk with them personally, she was interviewed by the news on location on 9/11 where she established their location so we went and confirmed their POV (point of view).

It was blocked by trees just as she said.

Michael Tinyk (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT US Patent and Trademark office in Crystal City)

Did not agree to an interview.

He could not see the Pentagon at ALL from his location in crystal city.

I went to the office building and took a picture from a window of the same floor.

Phillip Sheuerman (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT, on 395, only saw plane for brief moment, did not see impact)

Did not agree to an interview but really didn't care since he could not see the Pentagon, distinguish a flight path, and his memory of the plane was very hazy.

Thomas J. Trapasso (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT1400 S. Barton, dubious conflicting witness and can't see Pentagon from location)

He agreed to TRY and give us an interview but simply refused to answer his phone when the time came.

Terry Morin, Former USMC aviator (CONTACTED by CIT, would not return phone calls, EDIT 8/08: INTERVIEWED by CIT)(up at Navy Annex)

I went to his house on our last trip. Although he talked to me for about an hour he refused to give me permission to publish it because he said it was against his company policy.

His account supports the north side approach as he puts the plane directly over the Navy Annex even in his previously published interview.

Dawn Vignola (TALKED TO by CIT, claimed the plane was white seemed unsure of final position)

Let us in her apartment to get POV shots but refused to give us an interview.

3. Mike Walter (had dinner with CIT)

Refused to give us an interview and subsequently lied about our interaction with him.

13. Frank Probst (CONTACTED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)

Refused to give us an interview.

20. Mark Petitt (VERY dubious account)

Never got a hold of or spoke with him.

23. Mitch Mitchell, Ret. Army Col., CBS news correspondent (account is problematic)

Never got a hold of or spoke with him.

Vin Narayanan (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)

Interviewed on phone and is included in our presentation "The 2nd Plane Cover Story".

John O'Keefe (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)

Refused to give us permission to publish our phone interview.

Joel Sucherman (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)

Video taped interview in 2 of our presentations, "The USA Today Parade", and "The 2nd Plane Cover Story".

Frank Probst (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)

Interviewed over the phone. Refused to give us permission to publish.

Michael Tinyk (dark orange and blue) (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT)

You already listed this guy. Are you even paying attention?

Madelyn Zackem (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)

Refused to give us permission to record or publish unless we could get approval from Public Relations but then refused to show up after we had permission from Public Relations.

Lt. Col O'Brien(CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by PFT/CIT)

All quotes from email interview were published.

He would not answer follow up questions after the RADES data was released.

5th:Claims Saw it clip light pole:
Lloyd England (CONTACTED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)

Interview in our presentation "The First Known Accomplice?"

I am getting the feeling you haven't even bothered to watch our presentations!

You realize how silly you look right?

You should have video of all these interviews. Not just cherry pick the ones that agree with your story.

Nothing was "cherry picked".

These people do not refute the north side approach.

Any other questions?



[edit on 27-8-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

So "refused to give you an interview" in your mind, means "did not see the plane crash into the Pentagon." Ok.. got it. Also, refused to allow you to publish I am guessing means they definately refuted your story, but who knows.

So your much smaller base of witnesses are ALL sober, legitimate sources, and ALL those who reported seeing the plane fly into the Pentagon are lying, dubious, wrong, or because they "refused" to speak with you, are also wrong. Yea.. ok.. got it.

I love how someone who didn't answer the phone is someone who "refused to answer the phone." A very clear picture of the bias your research is based on.