The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

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

This is why they never quote me and source it.

I have - every time.

For instance, your full admission, right here:

"CIT does not have a flight path."
- Craig Ranke, 08/16/2008

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by jthomas


he's provided more proof than the government did that there even was a plane to begin with. Your straw man arguments are not being taken seriously. All you're doing is trying to divert attention from the relevant facts by means of heckling in an attempt to constraint the efforts of this thread. So please, don't post anymore.

[edit on 8/31/2008 by JPhish]

reply to post by almighty bob


again bob I cannot be any clearer. IF THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON A NORTH OF CITGO PATH IS IMPOSSIBLE CIT even states this. So if you think a plane hit the pentagon then the official flight path is true. If you think the plane flew NoC then a plane didnt hit the pentagon. It is one or the other. Even CIT says that.

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by jthomas

 

he's provided more proof than the government did that there even was a plane to begin with.

We don't need the government to know what the evidence was. The evidence was independent of the government and neither originated with the government nor was it possible for the government to control it.

Your strawman argument was destroyed in early 2002 so please don't try to use a thoroughly debunked and silly argument. You just discredit yourself.

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by almighty bob

 

again bob I cannot be any clearer. IF THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON A NORTH OF CITGO PATH IS IMPOSSIBLE CIT even states this.

Are you willing to accept the possibility that CIT might be wrong?

Why is the northside path impossible if the plane hit The Pentagon? Sorry if this has been covered before, but there is a lot of discussion here and I could have skimmed over it.

Originally posted by almighty bob


Why is the northside path impossible if the plane hit The Pentagon? Sorry if this has been covered before, but there is a lot of discussion here and I could have skimmed over it.

Because it is irreconcilable with the physical damage starting with the downed light poles but also the generator trailer and damage to the building ending with the curiously round C-ring hole.









The impossibility of a plane on the north side causing the physical damage is why the witnesses prove the plane did not hit.

There is zero room for error in the official flight path. It HAS to be on the south side of the gas station for the official story to be true.

The position of the downed light poles, particularly the cab scene with pole 1 is what really kills it.



There is simply no way for a plane on the north side to hit that light pole and it's clear that the physical evidence of the cab proves a pole did NOT hit it.






The cab driver's story is impossible.

The hood would have been damaged.




Interview with cab driver:

Google Video Link

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by almighty bob


Why is the northside path impossible if the plane hit The Pentagon? Sorry if this has been covered before, but there is a lot of discussion here and I could have skimmed over it.

Because it is irreconcilable with the physical damage starting with the downed light poles but also the generator trailer and damage to the building ending with the curiously round C-ring hole.

Does everyone see how Craig Ranke contradicted himself?

Does everyone see the blue line Craig Ranke labeled as the "north side flight path" in the photo above?

Do CIT believers actually think a "flight path" ended over the Pentagon? Of course you don't. You aren't that stupid. But why has Craig Ranke treated you CIT believers as real idiots?

You all see Craig's quote above: "CIT does not have a flight path."

Why doesn't Craig Ranke have a flight path beyond the Pentagon, you ask?

Because Craig Ranke has absolutely NO evidence of any jet flying past the Pentagon. Craig Ranke has absolutely NO eyewitnesses anywhere beyond the Pentagon in the Washington, DC area who saw a jet fly away from the Pentagon. No eyewitnesses, no flight path.

As has been said before and will be said again, Caig Ranke can pull the wool over you CIT believers' eyes because he knows you won't take the time to question the logic of his claims.

He wants you to believe that a few witnesses claimed to have seen AA77 fly on a different flight path than one that could have caused the observed damage. He wants you to believe so hard in his "north side flight path", doesn't he? He doesn't say to you: IF the north side flight path is correct THEN the jet could not have crashed into the Pentagon.

NO way. Craig wants you to believe that the "north side flight path" is absolutely, 100% CIT certified the ONLY flight path the jet could have taken.

He pleads, he begs, he calls everyone who disagrees with him, disinfo agents (which would have to include his 13 eyewitnesses since none of them claimed to have seen a flyover), he will not tolerate any questions about his claims.

Which means that the jet would have had to fly past the Pentagon. And that means there would have to be eyewitnesses out of the thousands of people in a position to see the jet fly away from the Pentagon.

Which means CIT would be hungry to find real, corroborating testimony to not only confirm a flyover, but to construct a flyaway flight path.

Which would mean CIT would blow the whole thing out of the water and be true 9/11 Truth Heroes.

But no, Craig and Aldo refuse to find any eyewitnesses to a flyover. They can't produce a single one. Not a flight path. Craig can't explain to you why there wasn't a lot of hootin' and hollerin' from eyewitnesses to a flyover when the media never reported it. If you saw a flyover and it was never reported by the media, what would YOU do?

So is it any wonder that CIT is trying to desperately steer its true believers away from questionning why there are no eyewitnesses? YOU who believe in CIT don't even question how the jet could NOT be seen by ANYONE flying away from the Pentagon?

The question comes down to the basics. CIT has true believers who refuse to question anything Craig Ranke tells you. You won't even question the most fallacious reasoning of Craig Ranke. And that allows Craig Ranke to get away with nonsense and use you.

It is only when you CIT believers stop to question what you are being told by Craig and Aldo, that you will demand that CIT produce real evidence.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Thanks for the reply Craig, and apologies. I realise that it must get frustrating repeating yourself over and over for the benefit of thickies like me.

I've gone over the original postings and agree that there was a flight that went to the north of Citgo. I also do believe that the events of the day were a plot by the controllers of America to increase their level of control.

However, considering the astounding amount of work you have put into this, it is a very large break in your overall theory if you do not have witnesses to a flight leaving the scene. Fair enough, I could see how people on the impact side of The Pentagon could be distracted enough by the explosion not to have noticed a craft flying away, but people on the far side, on the side the flyover craft would have continued on, would surely have noticed something but I don't think there have been any reports as such.

Now, looking back through the thread (a daunting task for my MTV attention span!) I see that you have a Roosevelt Roberts Jr. as a witness to a plane banking away after the event, but I really do think you need more corroboration on this.

Again, much respect for your efforts.

reply to post by almighty bob


Thanks bob.

Yeah Roosevelt.

The north side approach proves a flyover.

There is no way around this fact.

Added together with the anomalous physical damage including the lack of foundation damage put together with the clearly fraudulent NTSB data and there really is no other conclusion.

The plane did not hit.

So unless you want to go with exotic weaponry/holograms etc the "flyover" is the only alternative.

Given the incredible amount of evidence we have that they had a clear and deliberate cover story and there can be no doubt.

Yes it would be nice to have more flyover witnesses but the fact is that if they really understand what they saw, and haven't talked by now, they're not going to.

Roosevelt only talked because he was told it was a "2nd plane" and he believed it.

It's unlikely he does anymore which is why he clammed up.

Trust me it is not easy finding people willing to talk. But the level of validation we have achieved of the north side approach is way beyond a reasonable doubt.

And the north side approach proves a flyover.

There is no escaping it.

reply to post by jthomas


Oh quit your ranting.

Go drink a beer and calm down or something.

CIT does not have a flight path because we were not witnesses to the event.

We report witness flight paths.

The image you are referencing above is simply a representation based on the average of all the witnesses we spoke with put together.

Here is a composite image with all of their personally illustrated paths:


But none of them are "CIT's" flight path and even the averaged one should not be attributed to us as it is based off the witnesses.

The reason we aren't going to draw an estimate of exactly where the plane flew after the Pentagon is because we don't have enough data for that.

Admittedly Roosevelt Roberts is the first critical flyover witness and his flight path description was a bit confusing. We regret that he backed out of the scheduled interview where he was going to illustrate it and clarify.

But that does not change the fact that the north side approach has been validated beyond a reasonable doubt which proves a flyover.

And it also does not change the fact that the flyover is the only viable explanation for Roosevelt's account of a "commercial airliner" banking around after the explosion "just over the light poles".

Originally posted by jthomasDoes everyone see how Craig Ranke contradicted himself?

I don't see any contradiction. I see the interpolation of a flight path created from the evidence of witness statements. CIT acknowledge that they cannot give an 100% accurate flight path, and it would be unreasonable to expect them to be able to do so. However, from my bystander position, there has been far more (seemingly) impartial and credible testimony to the possibility of the flight having gone north of Citgo than there has been to support the official story. Until equal and equivalent impartial and credible testimony to the official story is presented, logically I am moved towards this series of events, that the flight went north of Citgo.

The flyover however is still too underdocumented for me to form a swayed opinion either way although I accept that the scenario is quite plausible.

And overall, from what I have witnessed and read of the events of that day as a whole, I find it very hard not to see a conspiracy. But that's just me.

Originally posted by jthomas
We don't need the government to know what the evidence was. The evidence was independent of the government and neither originated with the government nor was it possible for the government to control it.

You're a funny guy.

There's not much more i can say besides that . . . i have trouble typing when i'm laughing uncontrollably.

[edit on 8/31/2008 by JPhish]

Hello Craig?

Will CIT be interviewing former DPS officer Wanda Ramey to investigate her claim that she saw the plane hitting light poles and the Pentagon?

What about Mark Bright?

If Pentagon cops make such fantastic witnesses, why are there at least four DPS/PFPA officers who all claim in no uncertain terms to have witnessed the plane impact with the Pentagon if a flyover took place?

Ramey's story even matches ATC chief Sean Boger, who from his prime view of the impact location described the plane impact with, fully entering and then exploding inside the Pentagon.

That's right... The fireball occurred after the plane had impacted with and fully entered the Pentagon.

To suggest that the witnesses were distracted by a fireball and other Hollywood special effects that came after they've just watched the supposed flyover plane slam into the side of a building is nothing short of ridiculous.

You have no flyover witnesses, no matter how hard you twist the witnesses accounts.

[edit on 31-8-2008 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by discombobulator
Hello Craig?

Will CIT be interviewing former DPS officer Wanda Ramey to investigate her claim that she saw the plane hitting light poles and the Pentagon?

Oh right.

I saw your post and just haven't got around to replying.

We already interviewed her but simply haven't released it.

Trauma and medication have pretty much wiped her memory clean so she isn't really a credible witness at this point.

Here, I uploaded it just for you:
www.thepentacon.com...

What about Mark Bright?

Got his number?

If Pentagon cops make such fantastic witnesses, why are there at least four DPS/PFPA officers who all claim in no uncertain terms to have witnessed the plane impact with the Pentagon if a flyover took place?

Because their placement of the plane on the north side proves they were deliberately deceived into believing an impact.

Ramey's story even matches ATC chief Sean Boger.

If you say so.

But since of course Boger saw it banking on the north side like everyone else this simply proves they were deceived about the impact.

That's right... The fireball occurred after the plane had impacted with and fully entered the Pentagon.

Frankly I don't think determining such a thing with preciseness down to the millisecond during such a traumatic event would be distinguishable to any human eye.

To suggest that the witnesses were distracted by a fireball and other Hollywood special effects that came after they've just watched the supposed flyover plane slam into the side of a building is nothing short of ridiculous.

The plane likely reached the building SIMULTANEOUSLY with the explosion.

I doubt the human eye would be able to tell much otherwise in such a split second during such a traumatic event.

You have no flyover witnesses, no matter how hard you twist the witnesses accounts.

Roosevelt Roberts Jr. is the first critical flyover witness no matter how much you try to twist his account.

Originally posted by almighty bob

The flyover however is still too underdocumented for me to form a swayed opinion either way although I accept that the scenario is quite plausible.

I would suggest the following resources:

Library of Congress - Recorded Interviews
memory.loc.gov...

Army Centre of Military History Interviews
aal77.com...

The CMH interviews have all had their names redacted, but this is essentially where almost all of CIT's interviews were sourced from.

Please take the time to read through and listen to the interviews. Pay particular attention to what Sean Boger (NEIT299) has to say:

And so I am looking out at the road, and I see the traffic has liked stop, and I look out the window and I just hear a --- I just see like the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us, and he didn't veer.

And then you just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I am watching the plane go all the way into the building.

So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered up my head.

aal77.com...

Sean Boger, if you are not already aware, is also NoC witness.

[edit on 31-8-2008 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by discombobulator


Sean Boger, if you are not already aware, is also NoC witness.

That's for sure!

You HAVE listened to our interview with him, right?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by discombobulator
Hello Craig?

Will CIT be interviewing former DPS officer Wanda Ramey to investigate her claim that she saw the plane hitting light poles and the Pentagon?

We already interviewed her but simply haven't released it.

Trauma and medication have pretty much wiped her memory clean so she isn't really a credible witness at this point.

"I think I recall it seeing it hit the light poles, but you know, once again it has been a long time and a lot of medication ago."

Not exactly a surprising response when asked to recall a traumatic event at least five years later. Her response leans in favour of her actually witnessing the event, however her testimony given within weeks of the event offers more clarification:

At the time of the explosion, Rosati couldn't see the cause but 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.

findarticles.com...

... ignoring your standard reply crap.

Roosevelt Roberts Jr. is the first critical flyover witness no matter how much you try to twist his account.

Answer me one simple question.

Did Roosevelt Roberts Jr. witness the incoming plane pull up and fly over the Pentagon at the alleged point of impact?

Yes or no.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
That's for sure!

You HAVE listened to our interview with him, right?

Yes I did.

He told you in that interview that he saw the plane hit the Pentagon, just like almost all of your other witnesses.

Craig,

I noticed that during your call with Wanda Ramey at no point did you advise her that she was being recorded.

In addition to this, when I spoke to Sean Boger he was completely unaware and surprised that he had participated in a recorded interview.

You also claimed that Levi Stephens declined to be recorded during his interview, but the story has since changed and we have Aldo claiming that you guys do possess a recording of the interview but you do not have permission to release it.

Given the above I am inclined to believe that you were in fact "surreptitiously" recording Mike Walter at his home despite your claims (lies) to the contrary.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I saw your post and just haven't got around to replying.

Uh huh.

So you would have seen the post about the civillian contractors as well then, huh?