The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


My question is how many total people did you interview? You obviously didnt just interview 13 people. You must of interviewed at least a hundred. What did those other people say? What flight path did they see? It seems to me that you have taken very few statements from the witnesses on that day. You keep pointing to the fact that only 1 person saw a plane fly away. Plus you are interviewing people 5 years after the incident. It would be completely normal for a small percentage of people to not remeber the exact flight path of a plane that was flying 500+ mph. Also one of those flight paths that your witness drew (darius) doesnt even look like it is possible. The way those flight paths were drawn you would think citgo was some huge tall obstruction that AA 77 had to fly around to hit the pentagon.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by tide8888]

"Not according to well-placed informers within CIT."

Jthomas, stop your incessant lying. Do you think you are clever by lying? Do you think attempting to sow dischord helps your case?

I am not furious and there are no "well-placed informers within CIT".

Aldo Marquis
CIT

Originally posted by emsed1
Well please forgive me saying that your continued refusal to answer clear and simple questions leads me to believe that you are only here to sell your $25 DVD.

OK, now THIS is absurd. I have to ask... What's your interest?

I mean, here is someone who went to a HELL of a lot of effort, has awesome information, from what I can see, it was a fair and balanced approach, witnesses agree all over the place that the Official Conspiracy Theory (this part, at any rate) cannot be true...

And you're attacking this guy for bringing up a measly $25 worth of CD, probably hoping to recoup a bit of the time and expense this effort cost.

That is just wretched, sir. In my humble opinion. And in that same opinion...I must suspect you have an interest here.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Please stay on topic.

Please create your own thread to offer irrelevant viewpoints.

If you are not addressing the evidence presented direct then there is not a need for you to reply in this thread.

Ok let's discuss your evidence.

In your video about 18 minutes in, you are asking a man with a very thick accent about what color the plane was while showing him photographs at the same time.

Here is his testimony:

'Yeah black and then this one... I saw some grey... I think this one is uh... (question about one or two engines) yeah yeah I saw this one not two engines.'

(The questioner states people saw more than one plane in the area and shows the witness a picture of a C-130 and asks if he saw more than one plane)

'No only one.. .only one'

(questioner keeps saying other people saw more than one and asks if he only saw one)

'You know how, you know how big this airplane? Yeah if this one that much lower kind of all ground vibrate'

(you only saw one the whole time?)

'Looks like the uh... shoom! And then I saw the uh kind of a feeling grey kind of a round one go this way'

(questioner leads the subject again asking if the wings were dark)

'Yes kind of a grey. Not black not completely black like this... but dark grey. Yeah.'

As a side note here I just want to say that anyone who has flown on American Airlines knows that the AA planes are aluminum and that control surfaces and engine housings are painted gray.

The interviewer goes on to state how this eyewitness makes the official story 'impossible'.

Now... contrast this 'evidence' with a statement given by Richard Benedetto on May 22, 2002, who was driving northbound on the highway in front of the Pentagon.

"I heard an airplane. A very loud airplane. ... I heard the airplane coming from behind me. ... So I looked up, and I saw this airplane coming, heading straight down toward the ground. It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly. ... The plane went down and for a split second it was out of my line of vision because there was a bridge there and a hill. ... I didn't actually see the impact... I didn't see any flaps, it looked like the plane was just in a normal flying mode but heading straight down, sharply down. It was straight. No flopping. It was going pretty straight. ... The only thing we saw on the ground outside there was a piece of a - the tail of a lamp post."

Omar Campo - cutting the grass across the road, interviewed by The Guardian on September 12, 2001:

"It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire."

Another witness, Dennis Clem:

"There was a commercial airliner that said American Airliners over the side of it flying at just above treetop height at full speed headed for the Pentagon."

Cmdr Mike Dobbs, USMC, standing INSIDE the Pentagon when it hit:

"It was an American airlines airliner. I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy annex at a slow angle. It looked to me to be on a zero-to-zero course. It seemed to be almost coming in in slow motion. I didn't actually feel it hit, but I saw it and then we all started running."

Penny Elgas, stuck in rush hour traffice on I-395 in front of the Pentagon:

It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes. And I remember thinking that it was just like planes in which I had flown many times but at that point it never occurred to me that this might be a plane with passengers."

William Lagasse - Defense Protective Service:

"It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it." "I didn't hear anything, but I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground, 400 miles an hour. The reason, I have some experience as a pilot and I looked at the plane. Didn't see any landing gear. Didn't see any flaps down. I realized it wasn't going to land. I realized what it was doing."'

Would you like to continue with 'evidence' and 'scientific proof' or would you still like me to start my own thread?

Originally posted by emsed1
OK so let me get this straight. All of your witnesses believe the plane hit the building.

...


Did a plane hit the Pentagon?

All your witnesses say yes.

You are a poor reader, it would seem. Only one I noticed said they SAW a plane hit (while ducking and covering on the floor!). All others ASSUMED a plane hit, having seen a plane just before the explosion, and being TOLD a plane hit.

Yes, it's quite clear you're here for a purpose, and all the more reason I have to believe the Official Conspiracy Theory is manufactured out of whole cloth.

Originally posted by emsed1


Would you like to continue with 'evidence' and 'scientific proof' or would you still like me to start my own thread?

You did not address a single thing presented in the OP.

Please start your own thread.

reply to post by emsed1


here is a good 8 minute video of the turcios witness.the trouble with turcios
BTW I think emsad post has relavance to this thread. Why should he have to start a new one.


[edit on 6-8-2008 by tide8888]

Continuing....

From your video, interview with Sgt. Lagassi, Pentagon Police, 53 minutes into video 1:

I'm just you know... It's kind of like this and you know you can take all the data that we've given... um... and there's only one thing that's irrefutable, that isn't me guesstimating. The fact is; an American Airlines plane went from here into the building

Then there is more [REDACTED] and then you say that if you want to read more accounts you can see them in THE PENTACON: THE RESEARCHERS EDITION.

I assume this is something else you are selling, due to the comment on your home page:

We will soon release the “Researcher’s Edition” which will feature many more eyewitnesses and take a comprehensive look at the many other dubious circumstances surrounding the Pentagon attack. [\quote]

Finally, a word from our sponsor:

From the ATS T&Cs:

Advertising: You will not advertise or promote other discussion boards, chat systems, online communities or other websites on ATS within posts, private messages, avatars or signatures without prior written permission from The Above Network, LLC. You will not choose a username that is the same as website domain, subdomain, or URL for which you are associated. Doing so may result in removal of your post(s) and immediate termination of your account depending on the severity of the material.
[\quote]


So, having watched the video and refuted the evidence, I would say that you are purposefully posting spurious and misleading information.

In my opinion this dishonors all the folks who served and died during these attacks.

Shame on you.




edit for formatting

[edit on 8/6/08 by emsed1]

[edit on 8/6/08 by emsed1]

[edit on 8/6/08 by emsed1]

[edit on 8/6/08 by emsed1]

Originally posted by tide8888

My question is how many total people did you interview?

Frankly I am not sure.

But the fact is that everyone in a position to tell places the plane north of the citgo.

This much is fact.

Now if you are truly interested in all of the interviews we have done I suggest that you take the time to watch ALL of our presentations in full listed here:

www.thepentacon.com...

Come back after you have reviewed them all.

Thanks.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


So out of all those people only 13 people were qualified to tell what the flight path was. I find that very hard to believe. It also looks like two points were drawn, a starting point and and endind point (the pentagon crash site), and you asked them to draw a flight path. BtW i just watched your whole interview with turcios and if anything it seems like you were leading him to say the things he said. He looked extremely confused. And if the whole thing took two seconds how did he run from the station up that embankment and see the plane pull up and fly over the pentagon. He must be really really fast. Speedy Gonzalas

[edit on 6-8-2008 by tide8888]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Please refrain from telling people what I think.

I have never said such a thing nor do I believe it.

The one thing that detractors are trying to claim is that the plane Steve Chaconas saw was the C-130 but this is impossible for a few reasons.

snip

2. Steve is on the river every day as a charter boat captain and is quite familiar with the planes that fly over his head every few minutes. He is quite aware of the difference between military and commercial airliners as he explained in the interview. He specifically stated that the plane he saw looked like a "commercial jet".

You are the one who stated that it was "impossible".

Originally posted by emsed1
A commercial airliner heads directly for the Pentagon.

Nope. It was landed somewhere en route, and a military plane takes its place...

At the moment it should have impacted there was a massive explosion.

Nope. A missile is shot at the last minute...

Then someone sees a plane bank away from the building?

Yep! You got THAT one right!

So somehow in broad daylight while a massive terrorist attack is underway on our country, someone is able to set off an explosion at the precise instant a jetliner was right over the building and then the jetliner flies away and is hidden for seven years while 'people' sneak into a cordoned off disaster area to 'plant' pieces of an airplane that are mysteriously identical to the plane that supposedly left?

Nope. All wrong. The military jet banks away, pretty much unseen, because, like a magician who directs attention to one hand to "hide" what his other hand is doing, the explosion, on the wake of the Towers incident, transfixes people's attention. Rare will be the individual who sees the military plane (prepped in whiteish/silverish) leave the scene.

Then the plane disappears and all the passengers are executed?

No... The military usually don't have passengers for their missions. As for the passengers on the original flight...I have theories, but get flamed for them, so I won't bother. It doesn't matter, though. They're likely dead. They would have no qualms killing a few more, after the 3000 they killed in the Towers.

What in the world would be the point?

Additional convincing for the public (make it seem like these "terrorists" are REALLY serious, attacking the PENTAGON!), maybe they killed someone they wanted dead, to "show off" to those "in the know," I can think of several reasons they might have chosen this target along with the Towers.

If there is a conspiracy, why not just crash the damn plane into the building instead of coordinating all this incredibly complex activity with nobody noticing?

LOLOL! Because it's DAM' difficult to do the maneuvers as precisely as they (theoretically) were done with a big airliner. FAR easier for a trained military pilot to land a missile spot on. THAT's why.

Originally posted by Boone 870

You are the one who stated that it was "impossible".

Why are you lying about what I said again?

Number 2 is just that.

Number 2.

I didn't say it was impossible for ONLY that reason.

It is impossible because of ALL the reasons that you failed to quote because your fallacious post would be exposed if you quoted my full statement.

Just relax, take a deep breath, wake up in the morning and watch part 1, absorb it for a day, then wake up the next morning and watch part 2 and absorb it.

Then come back having actually viewed and considered the evidence you are trying to argue against with deceptive out of context partial quotes of mine.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
I forgot to source my external quote, again.

Link

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


So I reviewed the evidence and read your site. You make this statement that sums up your entire work:

One of these 11 new confirmed witnesses did not see the plane on the approach but saw the plane flying away from the building after the explosion providing for us the ultimate validation that the north side evidence is accurate.

Now I am not putting words in your mouth or making implications. This is a direct quote from your site.

How does this equate to ultimate validation?

One person?

Really?

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

I forgot to source my external quote, again.

Link

Thanks now it should be clear I listed 3 reasons, not 1.

Back on topic...

Wait until you see where all of these new witnesses saw the C-130 approach from!

Guess what Boone?

The corroborate what the C-130 pilot said and our interpretations of his flight path perfectly!

I really suggest you view the evidence before spouting off your mouth about something you haven't even seen.

To all of you who are posting all these interviews with people who claimed they saw a plane hit...

I do want to ask:

Who did they tell this to?

Are they or family members affiliated with military, media or politics? (Could they be plants?)

Could they be embellishing their story to get interviewed? ("Oh, yeah... Hey *I* saw the plane! Yes, yes. Come talk to ME!)

Could they want to believe they saw a plane so badly that they created one in their mind?

These things are possible. And I am more inclined to believe these others than people making claims within the first three months or so. ESPECIALLY with the FBI confiscating private footage (and given that I heard a story the next day, 9/12/01, of a group at a convenience store or gas station who watched the footage immediately after it happened - before the FBI showed up - and THEY claimed it was a missile; don't know where that story disappeared to...).

So...

Just because you have "witnesses," it doesn't mean they are honest ones. At least these quoted "witnesses" were sought out and years later, their stories all tell virtually the same story.

Well, I'm tired of the "debunkers." They have a job to do, and no point of logic will change that. I've had my say here.

Originally posted by emsed1

How does this equate to ultimate validation?

Because everyone else saw the plane approach and bank on the north side of the gas station proving it could not have hit the building.

I thought you said you watched it.

This shouldn't be so difficult to comprehend.

Craig -

In the OP you stated:

Those who are familiar with Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) know that we have made it our mission to shed light on this event by locating and interviewing eyewitnesses. We refused to take the media reports at face value so we made a point to contact dozens of the previously published witnesses, whose statements had been used to help sell the official story, in order to confirm their accounts first hand.

How do you reconcile this reliance on witness testimony with the following quotes you made on the Loose Change Forums?

“As far as the passengers go........most are probably pure victims while some might even be fabricated identities”

“We can not rule out the possibility that a few of the family members were involved.”

“bottom line if 9/11 was an inside job we will never know the full situation with all the passengers and it HAD to involve a significant amount of operatives whether or not the passengers are all innocent victims.”“some may be expendable patsies or dupes”

Are you stating that everyone who doesn't agree with you is a dupe?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Reheat

 

Psssst.....

CIT does not have a flight path.

We merely report what the witnesses say.

They report a relatively slow bank north of the gas station.

This evidence has nothing to do with CIT so stop blaming us.

Yes, I know you don't have a flight path. That's why I made several for you at different speed in accordance with what the witnesses said. Yes, I know exactly what the witnesses said (without your usual little twist and spin). A slow bank is quite funny. ANY AND ALL of these turns would have required an AEROBATIC type bank. You can knock off the slow bank crap any time. All the witnesses would have seen is the BOTTOM of the aircraft as it either stalled, crashed, and burned or floated off somewhere completely missing the impact point because it could not make the turn, not even close.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Oh and did you forget how Robert Turcios even saw the plane "pull up" over the highway?

I wouldn't brag about this to loudly because a pull up at that point makes it even more IMPOSSIBLE. I know you're hoping that everyone who reads or see your hogwash is as ignorant of aerodynamics as you are, but there won't be that kind of ignorance in a Court Room or even in any mainstream media outlet.

Why don't you show the entire flight path from oh....say...Mr Paik rather than just showing a short segment from the Citgo Station to the Pentagon. I don't have any hope that you'll put some numbers with it because that would destroy your fantasy and expose you for the deluded fraud you are.....

Here's why your garbage won't work. It's pretty simple stuff, just basic aerodynamics that destroys your NoC and an even more ridiculous flyover.

www.911myths.com...

[edit on 6-8-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 6-8-2008 by Reheat]