The Impossibility of CIT's Flyover... many SHOULD have seen it!

Originally posted by nutz1
problem solved I have seen video from several different angles of the plane hitting the pentagon there is nothing else in the sky anywhere. only one plane that was that low. on top of that pentagon employees and drivers on 395 would have seen another airplane regardless of the direction of travel. 395 encircles the pentagon and there is a great view of it in either direction

And how do you know that there was nobody who saw a plane flying away from the Pentagon from 395, or anywhere else? Do you have proof that nobody saw the plane flying away or over the Pentagon?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Craig. I looked at ALL the evidence. I know for a FACT what hit the Pentagon. I do not need to interview anyone. It has been done. It's called "reinventing the wheel."

You don't know for a fact. That is why you are here. That is why you are obsessed with us and the evidence. You are trying to convince yourself, TY. No one else.

Yes you do need to interview these witnesses or others or CONCEDE that the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo. Over confident posturing does not make your "FACT" true.

The more important question to you sir;

Why do you waste your time here or on lunatic internet radio broadcasts?
If your proof is so solid, take it to MSNBC and see Keith Olberman. He himself stated the Bush should be tried for criminal negligence. Find some media outlet outside of the United States. God knows how many countries hate us now.

What makes you think I am wasting my time?
Understanding is the key and information is necessary. Kieth Olberman, CNN, Fox News...all in good time.

Ask yourself why they gave so much attention to Louder Than Words and haven't even touched us? Because they were easy targets with 0 evidence and only supposition. Did Dylan and those guys go out of their way to seek out the BBC or CNN? Nope. They sought out LTW.

So why aren't they knocking down our doors? We have interviews on location, we have data, we have a solid case. So why are they so silent?

I think you know why.

It's highly probable people like you are simply just riding our coat tails, trying to define some type of self importance for yourself. Perhaps deep down you know what this means that when and if it actually broke into world historical news or even ended up like the legend of JFK conspiracy talk, you simply want to be able to brag to your grandchildren how you were there with CIT at the ground floor "discussing" the evidence. Who knows? But clearly you have a vested interest and almost seem to revel in your pseudo-internet celebrity status that seems to center around us and 9/11 truth.

Us? We just want justice and the truth. Remember, we didn't do this for notoriety-we originally were trying to remain in the background and simply help compile evidence for Dylan's 'Final Cut', but we were forced to use our real names and conduct the investigation thoroughly ourselves


[edit on 20-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by PplVSNWO

Originally posted by nutz1
problem solved I have seen video from several different angles of the plane hitting the pentagon there is nothing else in the sky anywhere. only one plane that was that low. on top of that pentagon employees and drivers on 395 would have seen another airplane regardless of the direction of travel. 395 encircles the pentagon and there is a great view of it in either direction

And how do you know that there was nobody who saw a plane flying away from the Pentagon from 395, or anywhere else? Do you have proof that nobody saw the plane flying away or over the Pentagon?

Exactly. People supposedly did...

www.thepentacon.com...

Roosevelt Roberts saw a large commercial airliner with jet engines banking around south parking lot, 50 ft above the light poles.

Again, for those who haven't been there. People see planes flying over all the time due to Reagan departure/arrival traffic. Just because you are on 395 doesn't mean the Pentagon is in full view. There are limited areas where you can see it as you drive southbound with trees, bushes, and buildings blocking your view. Also, foreshortened photos give the impression that the Pentagon is a lot closer than you think. Go there, you will see for yourself, it isn't.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Topic 6 on the confiscated and unavailable 911 tapes is pretty good reason for there being no known flyover witnesses besides Mr. Roberts.
www.thepentacon.com...
How are we supposed to interview any possible fly over witnesses if we have no leads?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Would you like to tell Roosevelt that the plane he saw was a C-130 propellor cargo plane he saw 3 minutes after the event?

I didn't think so.

Actually, Craig, I would love to speak with him. Please forward his contact information via U2U.

And it was at three minutes, but you knew that already.

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

 

Would you like to tell Roosevelt that the plane he saw was a C-130 propellor cargo plane he saw 3 minutes after the event?

I didn't think so.

Actually, Craig, I would love to speak with him. Please forward his contact information via U2U.

And it was at three minutes, but you knew that already.

You've a got a phone and the internet. Knock yourself out.

It was roughly 3 minutes after the event when it arrived on the scene.

Roosevelt saw the commercial airliner with jet engines after he took 7 steps out to the edge of the loading dock or under 10 seconds/10 sec tops.




[edit on 20-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

[edit on 20-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

You don't know for a fact. That is why you are here. That is why you are obsessed with us and the evidence.

I do know for a fact. That's why I am here. To show those the truth, and not be conned into your fantasy.

You are trying to convince yourself, TY. No one else.

No sir, I need no convincing. I looked at ALL the evidence. Something you continue to fail to do.

Yes you do need to interview these witnesses or others or CONCEDE that the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo. Over confident posturing does not make your "FACT" true.

I do not NEED to do anything. I am not posturing. You and your very few followers have failed to look at all the evidence as has been shown to you on many occasions.

What makes you think I am wasting my time?
Understanding is the key and information is necessary. Kieth Olberman, CNN, Fox News...all in good time.

I would love to place a rather large wager on the odds of you:

a. getting on main steam media such as above and

b. taken seriously.

Don't forget how outside this forum, you are pretty much laughed at by everyone.

Ask yourself why they gave so much attention to Louder Than Words and haven't even touched us? Because they were easy targets with 0 evidence and only supposition. Did Dylan and those guys go out of their way to seek out the BBC or CNN? Nope. They sought out LTW.

I dont have to ask. I don't see the counters on Google anymore, but at one time it was one of the most downloaded videos on Google. (in the millions) Actually it is STILL one of the most shared videos on Google. (2nd Cut)
But yes I agree it's all lacking evidence.

So why aren't they knocking down our doors?

The same reason why those that claim no planes hit the towers. Your theory is as insane as the hologram and DEW theories. Sorry Craig...it's the truth.

We have interviews on location, we have data, we have a solid case. So why are they so silent?

No, Craig, you don't. If you had a solid case, you wouldn't be here trying to justify it to ME.

I think you know why.

I do.

It's highly probable people like you are simply just riding our coat tails, trying to define some type of self importance for yourself. Perhaps deep down you know what this means that when and if it actually broke into world historical news or even ended up like the legend of JFK conspiracy talk, you simply want to be able to brag to your grandchildren how you were there with CIT at the ground floor "discussing" the evidence. Who knows? But clearly you have a vested interest and almost seem to revel in your pseudo-internet celebrity status that seems to center around us and 9/11 truth.

Sweet Jesus on a Popsicle stick... Dude.. PLEASE tell me your kidding. I mean I know your a little different in your world... but.. oh man... I have to clean my screen... I spit all over it.

Us? We just want justice and the truth.

Then get off your computer and get it. Stop making goofy videos and present your evidence to a court of law. We all know you wont.

And here you are again. What? Did you, no wait, your "ride", rush home through Boston traffic just so you could hurry up and get home and "show those the truth" back here on ATS again?

Whatever TY. I'll let your actions speak for themselves. If we're nuts go away. You won't because you are obsessed.

Just keep tuning in for developments. We know you will.

Ta-ta.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


I'm on vacation this week. But you're right. The traffic is terrible coming from Boston.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

It was roughly 3 minutes after the event when it arrived on the scene.

Darius Prather said it was five minutes. Were there 2 C-130s on the scene?

There may be more to this conspiracy than I first believed.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

I'm on vacation this week. But you're right. The traffic is terrible coming from Boston.

Oh ok. Even better. So you are on vacation and yet here you are spending it with us. Yeah that is not obsession.

Why don't you catch a connecting flight or since you have the time drive to Arlington and tell the witnesses they didn't see the plane on the north side of the Citgo and that Roosevelt saw a c-130 arrive nearly 3 minutes after the event.

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

 

It was roughly 3 minutes after the event when it arrived on the scene.

Darius Prather said it was five minutes. Were there 2 C-130s on the scene?

There may be more to this conspiracy than I first believed.

Please, Boone. He said 5 minutes, he also said a couple of minutes to us. So obviously it was somewhere in between there. He obviously didn't have a stopwatch. He used his best estimate and the Tribby video now validates that.

Please don't convolute this thread with misleading and confusing insinuations.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

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

 

It was roughly 3 minutes after the event when it arrived on the scene.

Darius Prather said it was five minutes. Were there 2 C-130s on the scene?

There may be more to this conspiracy than I first believed.

Please, Boone. He said 5 minutes, he also said a couple of minutes to us. So obviously it was somewhere in between there. He obviously didn't have a stopwatch. He used his best estimate and the Tribby video now validates that.

Please don't convolute this thread with misleading and confusing insinuations.

Speaking of misleading and confusing insinuations, the Tribby video clearly shows the C-130 has completed it's turn after approaching from the SW. It COULD NOT have approached in the manner you surmise the ANC people said. No way, so take your own advice and just stop your lies.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Please don't convolute this thread with misleading and confusing insinuations.

Pot.

kettle.

Black.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Actually spent the day painting the trim in my house. You know Craig REAL life things. Not prancing around internet forums spreading lies.

I checked the map and how I-395 skirts around the Pentagon on the south and east sides. There is no way that numerous motorists on that road could miss a wide body aircraft thundering away from the explosion and fireball (or any sort of aircraft for that matter). If we apply some of what we've learnt about G forces resulting from maneuvers at speed the plane would need to have flown right over their heads yet none reported such an event or even hearing the engines on that side?

The only logical explanation for that is that there was NO flyover - the Pentagon wall made sure of that.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
There is no way that numerous motorists on that road could miss a wide body aircraft thundering away from the explosion and fireball (or any sort of aircraft for that matter).

Can you please supply the data that shows how many motorists were on that section of road at the time of the alleged flyover? Can you prove that every single person SHOULD have seen a plane flying over their car?

I'm often surprised at what my wife does NOT notice what's around her when she's driving. She HAS missed planes flying over our car, on final approach, when she's been driving near the airport.

The only logical explanation for that is that there was NO flyover - the Pentagon wall made sure of that.

Can you please explain why the FAA has released a video showing that the alleged plane flew North of Citgo, in contradiction to other flight paths?

Can you please state the exact time of the impact that you claim the alleged plane hit the Pentagon?

Thanks for that.

Sorry, Double Post. It doesn't happen very often.

[edit on 22-10-2008 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw
Can you please supply the data that shows how many motorists were on that section of road at the time of the alleged flyover? Can you prove that every single person SHOULD have seen a plane flying over their car?

I'm often surprised at what my wife does NOT notice what's around her when she's driving. She HAS missed planes flying over our car, on final approach, when she's been driving near the airport.

I'll simply refer you to the first accounts of motorists who were on those roadways at the time. They make much mention of the late morning rush hour traffic jam - it was essentially stationary, bumper to bumper and I-395 has 8 or more lanes so what would be a conservative estimate of the number of cars in that 1.5km+ section with a clear view of such a flyover? Yet no-one has come out saying a large jet flew over them at low altitude, except for those stuck in traffic on Washington Boulevarde who observed the jet fly into the building. What's a reasonable explanation for no-one witnessing a large aircraft flying away from the explosion and fireball? could it be that the plane was actually destroyed in it?

My wife would most likely miss a plane too - unless it was dressed up like a boutique art gallery or craft shop

Can you please explain why the FAA has released a video showing that the alleged plane flew North of Citgo, in contradiction to other flight paths?

It seems obvious, to me at least, that the raw FDR data was fed into a crude simulation with no correction for the magnetic vs true north orientation (FDR bearings are magnetic, maps are oriented to true north, 11 degrees error). If the map is adjusted to magnetic north, that final FDR bearing takes the plane through the light poles and into the building as reported on a bearing of ~60 degrees which correlates with the damage path through the building as well.

Can you please state the exact time of the impact that you claim the alleged plane hit the Pentagon?

That's up for grabs give or take a few seconds which doesn't have much bearing on whether it impacted or missed the building or who did/didn't see it at any given location. The distance from the Sheraton to the Pentagon would take approx. 4 seconds and I doubt anyone had a stopwatch ready for the event.

The OP question is a valid one - if it flew over, how did it go totally unobserved?
The obvious answer is there was no flyover.

The disintegration of CIT.

It's been several days since I re-posted conclusive proof showing that CIT's claim that the topography prevented anyone from seeing a low-flying, fast-moving AA77 flying away from the Pentagon:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Craig Ranke is caught in his tangled web of nonsense unable to explain why there are no eyewitness reports nor media reports of any jet flying away from the Pentagon.

A bevy of you 9/11 Denier believers in the CIT fairy tale cannot fathom that CIT cannot demonstrate a flyover.

We watch as Craig Ranke dissembles into a pile of irrational contradictions, now saying it is only possible that eyewitnesses to a supposed "flyover" could only "see" it from the approach side of the Pentagon but could not see it from the departure side.

Such is the nature of full-blown 9/11 Denial. The only question on the table is when Craig Ranke is going to admit he is wrong.