The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Originally posted by fleabit
Bob, you seem a bit more open to ideas and less prone to repeating the same thing over and over (ala Ultima here), so here is a few questions for you.

The reason i have to repeat things is because most of the time the beleivers keep ignoring it.

Pot, meet kettle. You keep saying "PRODUCE A REPORT!!" as if we are all in possession of reports of all the happenings that day. I suppose I could run around and mail folks and get "official" reports of all that was found that day.... but why? I guarantee if anyone produced "official" reports of anything you have an issue with, you would call them doctored or false. Correct? Or would you just accept them as is? I doubt it, since you won't accept eyewitness testimony.... unless it suits your version of the story, of course.

I've even said I don't discount the stories of those who said they saw a plane in a spot different from where they said it was. But it doesn't really matter, does it, if it ended up crashing into the Pentagon all the same.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Hi Craig,

Good to see you posting in this thread again.

Now, I know you often lament the fact that you've been unable to find any witnesses that place the plane on the official flight path and I couldn't help but notice that former DPS officer Wanda Ramey's account was "unconfirmed", according to CIT.

So I've decided to help you out by providing you with the information that will be key to tracking her down.

According to this article, she now lives in Waldorf and is the founder of company Bizzy Bounce.

Since you're so resourceful it shouldn't be too hard for you to track her down and tell us what she actually meant when she reportedly said the following:

Wanda Ramey, a DPS master patrol officer, had a clear view. Ramey stood at the mall plaza booth when she saw a plane flying real low.

"I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post and it made the plane slant. Then the engine revved up and crashed into the west side of the building," she said. "It happened so fast. One second I saw the plane and next it was gone."

Recalling those moments again. Ramey said it appeared the building sucked the plane up inside.

"A few seconds later, I heard a loud boom and I saw a huge fireball and lots of smoke," she said.

Can't wait for that interview!

ETA: Here is her website www.bizzybounce.com... Plenty of contact information there to get you started.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by discombobulator]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


It is very amusing and also very revealing that your blurred grainy photograph is proof of the identity of Azia ElHallan, yet the blurred grainy video of AA77 striking the Pentagon is FAKE.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well its true that police officers make better witnesses because they are trained to notice things.

So why are there more DPS Pentagon impact witnesses than there are DPS NOC witnesses?

Seems a bit strange if a flyover occured, don't you think?

[edit on 30-8-2008 by discombobulator]

reply to post by almighty bob


More speculation about this "myriad" of ways.
Anyone who suggests that passengers were murdered and their DNA planted needs to seek professional help.

reply to post by fleabit


Your post is exactly why IMHO CIT is sooo far out there that they have SHOT PAST Dr. Woods in terms of just plane nuttiness.

As Craig would have NOT ONLY were those 400 plus people involved BUT civilian contractors were the ones who planted the explosives that killed some of those people that those 400 people identified.

CIT equals frauds.

I never said that.

As usual pseudo-skeptic/CIT obsessoids have no problems blatantly lying about my claims.

This is why they never quote me and source it.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


LOL yes the CIT standard for judging someone a liar is rather scary.
Lets take Aldo for example who DIRECTLY speaks for the CIT who claimed that (see my sig) a women with a Jewish last name is not telling the truth..

[edit on 30-8-2008 by TheBobert]

Obviously you can't even read the quote.

He did not say she was Jewish nor did he say she is lying because she is Jewish.

Besides why would she wear a crucifix if she was Jewish?

The evidence proves her story false....primarily Ed Paik and Terry Morin but of course all the other 11 north side witnesses as well.

LOL you guys are funny.
So what was the point then of brining up the fact that she has a Jewish last name?
Frankly Craig it is none of your damn business why she has crucifix.
You are displaying such ignorance its funny.
Plenty of people convert.
Did you consider this?
Aldo comment just wreaks of racist undertones
And Aldo made the comment speaking for the CIT.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by TheBobert]

reply to post by tide88



Sure, they could be mistaken, but this is far beyond remembering the cut-colour of your wifes dress on your first ever date (has caused me much pain...). This is a major detail that would be not easily be skewed or distorted in memory. I would call this possible, but not plausible. I can clearly remember the events of first hearing about the attack from an American friend over Messenger, and then seeing it. And that was just seeing on TV. And then for thirteen people to have their memories go the same way to the same flight path, less plausible still. This was a far from average witness scenario.

And I absolutely agree. A dozen or so people is not an huge number. But it is far greater testimony given to the northside flight path than given to the official flight path (from an impartial observers perspective). Or at least, I have not seen such testimony.

Do I believe a plane hit The Pentagon? Hmm. I believe something hit The Pentagon. I am going to make an assumption here that you mean to ask 'do I believe that The Pentagon was hit by the same object seen by the 13 witnesses'.

To be honest, yes. This seems most likely. Without witness testimony to a flight leaving the scene it would be hypocrisy to put too much weight on the possibility, but I won't discount it altogether.

This does not make the witnesses irrelevent though. It still has strong witness evidence that the flight path was lied about. Fourteen witness testimonials to the official flight path, and bam! CIT is done with. Until then, there is still a very valid and unusual discrepancy leading to a more than real likelihood of foul play.

Some of what I'm about to respond to fleabits post will probably expand on this.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I never said that.

As usual pseudo-skeptic/CIT obsessoids have no problems blatantly lying about my claims.

This is why they never quote me and source it.

Craig you MOST CERTAINLY did say that civilian contractors planted explosives that the Pentagon!
You said it on the Dam report radio show.
I may have the name of the radio show wrong but you know exactly what radio show I am referring to.

Originally posted by fleabit
If you were planning this event, would you really count on an explosion to "draw attention away" from a plane?

For observers at the impact side, possible. Unlikely, but possible. For observers on the far side of The Pentagon, very unlikely.

Given the evidence (and see my response to tide88) I would say that the flight did go north of Citgo but was the same flight that impacted. I have seen nothing to really back up the theory of a plane leaving the scene.

Originally posted by fleabit
Why are there light poles 'knocked down' at all? Why would be the point?...How did the wreckage get on the grass? Who put it there? When? How did no one notice?

Another very interesting thing. Done to enhance the illusion would be my guess. Lots of Hollywood-esque ways it could have been rigged. beforehand. This is something that happens on the impact side so focus will be drawn elsewhere.

Originally posted by fleabit
Are you willing to concede that things perhaps were not done in an "official capacity" on that day? .

I think very little that occured that day was done in any "official" capacity.

Originally posted by fleabit
How do you explain away the eyewitness testimony for those who saw it fly directly into the building?

It would seem that something flew into the building. There is nothing to show a plane flying away. That doesn't change the witnesses viewing the northside flight path.

Originally posted by fleabit
Why wouldn't you just fly the thing into the Pentagon? Why fly it off and then kill the people and dismantle the plane? The logic of this escapes me.

I have no expertise in any of the related fields so all I can give you is unsubstantiated conjecture.
I would just have the craft flown into The Pentagon but as I understand it, to do so, even for an experienced pilot, would be an amazing feat. So I would redirect the craft to a facility where a more controllabe, remotely operated craft was. I would execute the passengers (or maybe even leave them alive, perhaps sedated) and strap them into this specially designed craft, along with relevent debris and evidence to be injected into the site. Continue from there.

Originally posted by fleabit
There were I believe 186 identified passengers, and the remains were returned to the families for burial. Where did those remains come from, if not from the passengers?

I believe they genuinely came from the passengers. There are lots of ways they could have been planted though.

Originally posted by fleabit
People are very nosey, intuative creatures by nature.... I think those coming up with this theory are not taking into account just how much humans notice. They suggest they noticed NOTHING. That staggers me, honestly.

A very well executed trick, surely. Choreographed beautifully. You are going to be watching the plane, not the lightpoles. But do you have fourteen impartial witnesses to the plane hitting these poles or following the official path?

Look at the two paths. The official one would catch The Pentagon a very glancing blow. I believe that it hit the side (the only side) reinforced against such an event. This would lead to both an imperfect penetration and a wider chance of evidence being scattered further into the public domain, as it were. The northside flight path is a more or less perpendicular hit. A much more effective way of injecting the evidence to the scene.
But why not claim originally that this was the path taken? No idea. Would this flight path be even possible or likely if the official story is correct? Still a lot of ifs and buts.

Ultimately, I still believe that foul play on behalf of the powers that be was responsible for the events of that day.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The evidence proves her story false....primarily Ed Paik and Terry Morin but of course all the other 11 north side witnesses as well.

Hey Craig,

Really keen to see how you get on with Wanda Ramey, the former DPS officer who claims she witnessed the plane impacting with both the light poles and the Pentagon.

You remember her, don't you? After all, a year ago you had this to say about her -

Wanda Ramey. She is the ONE known witness who is directly quoted as having "seen" the plane hit the poles. She is or was a Pentagon police officer just like Chad Brooks. Chad had also said in the past that he saw the plane hit the poles. When we interviewed him he clarified and said that he didn't actually see it happen but simply saw the poles on the ground after the fact. No doubt Wanda is also deducing this and simply honestly embellishing her account just like Chad did. Since she is the ONLY one to specifically make this claim and since we have directly spoken with so many others who specifically say that they didn't see the poles get hit it is a fair assumption on our part to make. We are still trying to get a hold of her for direct clarification. Nonetheless she is the only one.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You know she exists, and with my help you'll be able to track her down quite easily. And as she no longer works for DPS/PFPA there won't be any need for her to obtain permission to talk to you guys!

Wanda Ramey, Waldorf MD
Former DPS officer and 9/11 eyewitness
Founder of company Bizzy Bounce
www.bizzybounce.com...

So Craig, in the interest of the truth and armed with the above information, will CIT interview Wanda Ramey and clear up this pesky light pole issue?

Who knows, she may even also be a NoC witness!

[edit on 30-8-2008 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by TheBobert
Craig you MOST CERTAINLY did say that civilian contractors planted explosives that the Pentagon!
You said it on the Dam report radio show.
I may have the name of the radio show wrong but you know exactly what radio show I am referring to.

Yeah I remember hearing Craig say something along those lines as well.

But I can't be bothered wading through hours of his crap to find it.

it was his last radio appearance.

Originally posted by TheBobert
it was his last radio appearance.

www.latalkradio.com...

Scroll down to Wednesday, July 30, 2008.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I never said that.

As usual pseudo-skeptic/CIT obsessoids have no problems blatantly lying about my claims.

This is why they never quote me and source it.

Bad news Craig.

The DAMage Report, June 30 2008
www.latalkradio.com...

Caller: I'm not trying to put words in your mouth Craig, but you'd be implicating these civillian contractors in this massive coverup.

Craig: Oh absolutely, a lot of people are implicated in this deception.

Caller: So you're implicating the civillian contractors for planting bombs inside the Pentagon

Craig: There's most definately civillian operatives involved in this deception, it's wide reaching and far reaching enough that there is plenty of civillian operatives involved. Yes! There is no question!

Craig's predictable defense will be:

"I am not personally accusing the civillian contractors of planting the explosives. I am merely saying the evidence speaks for itself and implicates them."