The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

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.

I just quoted you half a dozen witnesses who say the plane did hit the building?

Are they lying?

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

Nobody has done even that.

They are posting nothing but unconfirmed out of context media quotes.

That is hearsay not evidence.

First hand witness accounts are evidence.

Many people were deceived into believing the plane hit.

They are not all liars.

If they saw the plane and simply heard the explosion they will sometimes say "I saw the plane hit the Pentagon" even if they could not see the Pentagon.

This does not mean they are lying.

It just means that they deduced the impact and were deceived as intended.

This is why first hand confirmation and analyzation of actual points of view etc is so important.

Of course the fact that all the witnesses place it on the north side proves that there were some other alleged witnesses who DID lie.

This much is certain.

Originally posted by tide8888
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

Also one of those flight paths that your witness drew (darius) doesnt even look like it is possible.

NONE of them are possible according to the witnesses.

www.911myths.com...

Originally posted by emsed1


I just quoted you half a dozen witnesses who say the plane did hit the building?

Are they lying?

Unconfirmed out of context media quotes are not evidence.

That is hearsay not evidence.

First hand witness accounts are evidence.

Many people were deceived into believing the plane hit.

Certainly they are not all liars.

If they saw the plane and simply heard the explosion they will sometimes say "I saw the plane hit the Pentagon" even if they could not see the Pentagon.

This does not mean they are lying.

It just means that they deduced the impact and were deceived as intended.

This is why first hand confirmation and scrutiny of actual points of view etc is so important.

That's the difference between investigative reporting and investigoogling.

Of course the fact that all the witnesses place on the north side proves that there were some other alleged witnesses who DID lie.

This much is certain.

Originally posted by Reheat


NONE of them are possible according to the witnesses.

Huh?


What the witnesses say they saw is impossible according to themselves?

How does that make sense?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Reheat


NONE of them are possible according to the witnesses.

Huh?


What the witnesses say they saw is impossible according to themselves?

How does that make sense?

It makes more sense than your garbage. The witnesses describe a scenario in which a flight path to get there and execute is IMPOSSIBLE.

If that is not true, you should be able to prove it's possible. You haven't been able to do that in OVER TWO (2) YEARS. ALL you can do is spit and sputter about how reliable your witnesses are.

CHALLENGE - Post a flight path that complies with witnesses statements from Mr. Paik to the Pentagon impact point WITH NUMBERS.

Your fantasy is destroyed.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by Reheat]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Craig,

I haven't had time to dig through your long and detailed thread, and I'm sure I'll have some questions for you when I do. I did however submit it to DIGG for you. That will get it attention outside of ATS borders, which ATS wholeheartedly tries to do, to get more people interested in this site.

Hope it helps, and I hope to have some information to add to as well as questions for you and the thread soon.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


How did the lightpoles get bent?

Where did the American Airlines aircraft debris on the Pentagon lawn come from?

If flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, where is it?

Where are the passengers?

Are you telling us that because one person 'thought' he saw a plane flying away from the explosion that EVERYONE else in Washington DC is lying?

Are your witnesses lying or telling the truth?

Do you have any answers to these questions or are you just going to keep referring us to your site where we can buy the DVDs and await 'The Researchers Edition' with baited breath?

What I want to say here concerning this, is that it is possible that some of the eyewitnesses who thought they saw the Plane Impact were thinking this, due to what was being reported in New York City.

All this talk about Planes hitting buildings "SEEDED" many peoples minds. So it is worth considering, that in a stressful situation you might think this is the case, when in fact it isn't.

It could be in the confusion of the Plane approaching the Pentagon at High Speed, timed with a very Large Explosion, and all the story's of Planes Hitting buildings, that people just concluded what they thought was obvious.


[edit on 6-8-2008 by talisman]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Thanks!

I haven't set up an account there yet.

I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Thanks!

I haven't set up an account there yet.

I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have

Before I go digging through your thread, have you seen this ATS'ers thread on the same topic?

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

I've dug through it some in the past, and will be linking to this thread over there as well.

Let's see who thinks what and if the two threads have similar information.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas





PUH-lease.

That is SOO 2004 and SOOO debunked.

Please view the evidence presented in the OP and respond to it direct or keep your diggs to yourself and don't bother.

Thanks.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Your own witnesses make your story pure fantasy.

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building." "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

77 hit the Pentagon, your witness. The question is which part of "hit the building", do you have a problem with.

Originally posted by beachnut


77 hit the Pentagon, your witness. The question is which part of "hit the building", do you have a problem with.

It's the part where he corroborates all the other witnesses from different perspectives and says it was banking on the north side of the gas station proving he must have been deceived in regards to the impact.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

PUH-lease.

That is SOO 2004 and SOOO debunked.

Please view the evidence presented in the OP and respond to it direct or keep your diggs to yourself and don't bother.

Thanks.

There is no evidence in the OP.

There is no evidence in your little video.

There is no evidence in your website.

You are presenting 'opinions', not facts.

Why don't you answer any questions?

Why don't you make a point so we can debate it like gentlemen?

What sort of proof do you need that would convince you by a preponderance of the evidence that the plane was on the south side of the road? What would it take?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by beachnut


77 hit the Pentagon, your witness. The question is which part of "hit the building", do you have a problem with.

It's the part where he corroborates all the other witnesses from different perspectives and says it was banking on the north side of the gas station proving he must have been deceived in regards to the impact.

Oh, you mean the part that is aerodynamically impossible.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by beachnut


77 hit the Pentagon, your witness. The question is which part of "hit the building", do you have a problem with.

It's the part where he corroborates all the other witnesses from different perspectives and says it was banking on the north side of the gas station proving he must have been deceived in regards to the impact.

If he was deceived, who deceived him?

reply to post by emsed1


Every court in the land accepts first hand eyewitness accounts as evidence.

One account equals evidence.

2 independently corroborated accounts equals strong evidence.

3 independently corroborated accounts equals extremely strong evidence.

4 or more is typically proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have 13 independent accounts of the plane on the north side.

It's proof man.

I know it sucks.

Just deal with it and help us expose this horrible injustice.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by emsed1

 

Every court in the land accepts first hand eyewitness accounts as evidence.

One account equals evidence.

2 independently corroborated accounts equals strong evidence.

3 independently corroborated accounts equals extremely strong evidence.

4 or more is typically proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have 13 independent accounts of the plane on the north side.

It's proof man.

I know it sucks.

Just deal with it and help us expose this horrible injustice.

No court in the land would allow you to question witnesses like you did in the video, leading them, putting words in their mouth and then twisting their statements in post-production.

What you have in reality is a bunch of folks who thought they saw a plane on one side of a road.

What you are trying to stretch out of that is that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.

I will repeat for a third time a challenge to you CRAIG RANKE CIT to a debate in the ATS debate forum to present your evidence and refute mine in an organized fashion.

We won't have the benefit of cheerleaders or skeptics, just our own evidence in a structured format.

Will you accept?

...there's one more point I want to make. I'm quite sure that most of us has been at an airport observation deck to watch a loved one take off. These are well away from the actual plane and runway.

So, a jet plane this big makes a hell of a lot of noise and vibration this low to the ground would it not rattle any body's brain enough to put them in shock and disbelief for perhaps 30 seconds.
Things happened so fast and LOUD and the fear of dying that there focus is getting out of the way.
What they really saw and what they assume are two different things.

the end