CIT Witness Account + Security Video Potentially Prove Aircraft Strikes Pentagon AND NoC Theory

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


I'm sorry I forgot to address one of your assertions.

You claim my images are illegitimate due to the source.

There were two sets of these images released, one set leaked by the AP in 2002 and another set presented at trial in 2006 which can be found here. SPreston found these and posted them in his thread but didn't share. But I can tell you already know why.

The next part is not directed at you, Craig, but for posterity.

You can see from the "high quality" images in the link above that match the frames I analyzed that there are TWO GLARING DIFFERENCES between those images and the ones I have sourced to 2002. First the Gov't images are obviously a different size. Second if you compare what I have termed IS1 to this image that when you compare the shadows of the entry gate housings they are of an totally different contrast. These images have are undeniably different and possibly doctored when compared to the images from 2002. I would also submit that the 2002 images could be equally as false (but false in different ways from different sources), but that would either make them both false or the Gov't images legitimate.

Do you like the leaked images better now or the ones the government provided?

My analysis was performed on the best source I could find for the images attributed to the AP and not the U.S. Government. I provided the source link for my images above. If you can provide better imagery then I will perform the analysis again on those images.

Can you prove that either of sets of these images are faked or otherwise illegitimate? Can you tell me which one is more legit?

Prove it because there's nothing that tells me the 2002 images are anything other than 100% legit.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]

I have a little work to do... but here's something to chew on in the meanwhile.

This post on another forum was offered in another thread.

It is 100% in keeping with my theory and makes no claims that the north side approach is false.

www.davidicke.com...

For what it's worth I'm still looking for the source to that YouTube video that is shown.

Any assistance would be appreciated.

reply to post by cogburn


You are all over the place again.

If you are suggesting a missile hit the Pentagon, please provide evidence to back up your claim.

If you are suggesting the plane flew north of the citgo and pulled up as Robert Turcios, please prove how this is reconcilable with the physical damage.

You are not making sense and you are looking rather silly because the fact is, as accepted by all researchers, engineers, pilots, scholars, scientists, and our entire army of pseudo-skeptic detractors, that the plane HAD to be on the south side to cause ANY of the physical damage.

You have not demonstrated them incorrect.

posted by cogburn
There were two sets of these images released, one set leaked by the AP in 2002 and another set presented at trial in 2006 which can be found here. SPreston found these and posted them in his thread but didn't share. But I can tell you already know why.

What kind of doubletalk is this? I found these images and posted them in my thread, but I did not share? What does that mean? I am responsible somehow for what OUR corrupt government saved for their Zacarias Moussaoui show trial? Their kangeroo courtroom in which a tortured incompetent confessed to practically every criminal act for the past 100 years?

Never mind. You are going lickety split in a dozen different directions at once. You make absolutely no sense at all.

Your David Icke piece of trash was proven a complete fraud. A complete waste of time.




[edit on 11/19/08 by SPreston]

Truly Laughable.

Preston and the others have blown "Your theory"
out of the water .

why would someone go through so much effort to
try and convince people of something they know is false.??

that little object that flies into view does not look like any
plane.

and the flying it would take to pull it off like "Your Theory"
implies is just nuts.

sure makes you wonder about the rumors about hired bloggers
that debunk 911 conspiracy theories .

they argue pointless details and the big story stays out of the loop.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Please note the direction and position Craig Ranke places AA77 as it started it's supposed climb over and away from the Pentagon from the NoC approach.

posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Turcios saw the plane on the north side like everyone else.

The north side approach is irreconcilable with ALL physical evidence.

The government provided security video means nothing when compared to the hard physical evidence evidence.

The generator trailer kills it.

But so does ALL the damage including light poles and building.

Relax, take a deep breath, realize that you jumped the gun here and concede because you are rapidly exposing yourself as someone with no regard for facts, science, evidence, and truth.

posted by jthomas
Please note the direction and position Craig Ranke places AA77 as it started it's supposed climb over and away from the Pentagon from the NoC approach.

That is not Flight 77. That is the decoy aircraft replacing Flight 77. That is the official position given Flight 77 on the right side of the image. You know; the position which is impossible which you defenders so rabidly adhere to. Flight 77 is nowhere around; likely still up in Ohio or where ever the 9-11 planners sent it.

The decoy aircraft there, flying from Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo completely missed ALL of the light poles and its going to miss the generator too, and if it does not fly over the building; then it will really screw up the internal damage pattern to the Pentagon, and really get you guys all upset and waving your arms wildly in the air.

Maybe you misunderstood, but 60 feet + higher means the decoy aircaft is above your aircraft and above the roof.



[edit on 11/19/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by jthomas
Please note the direction and position Craig Ranke places AA77 as it started it's supposed climb over and away from the Pentagon from the NoC approach.

Actually I did not make that image.

Proven deceptive pseudo-skeptic/admittedly CIT obsessed Caustic Logic did.

We do not endorse this image as a direct representation of the location of the north side approach or flyover.

It was simply meant to demonstrate how the hypothetically best case scenario for a NoC impact still does not account for the physical damage to the generator trailer.

Stop trying to attribute things to me that I have not claimed.

Alright look.

Craig I tried to point this out to you in another thread and it went all haywire and I stepped over the line.

However this time I have received applause from the mods and not warnings. This is the right way to say to express what it is that I am trying to say and I hope now you'll understand.

You have access to some of the best eye witness testimony ever collected in regard to the Pentagon attacks, however your supposition rushes too far ahead of your facts and it does you a disservice.

I call this a thread theory instead of proof because it does have holes. There's information that's missing. I've eluded to it over and over and over again in this thread and for all that has been provided thus far, nothing has been able to refute either my eye witness testimony or my photographic evidence that supports it.

There's lots of holes in my theory and you haven't struck upon them because you're looking in the wrong place. It's not in your information, it's in mine.

The reason I do not come out and say what this particular evidence is is because you don't have it either, but you are the best person in the entire world that can get it.

It's gonna cost you though. To get this data you have to be able to believe that the following is true: once this data is collected in a manner that no one can argue with as a best possible attempt it will either prove one of us right or both of us wrong. If you can accept that... and I mean really accept that... then together we can get that piece of evidence and see where it fits.

It is for this one piece of evidence that I started this thread in the first place. However I want you to gain credibility with the staunchest of critics and this was the only route I could conceive to achieve both objectives.

I admit I am enjoying myself a little bit but it's absolutely not at your expense, it is solely to your benefit even if you choose to believe that or not.

... and I can prove it.

So my riddle to anyone that reads this thread is the following:
The hole in my theory is contained within data that is missing from my theory. It is also data that is missing from Craig's theory. This data can either prove one of us right or both of us wrong and it can still be gathered from the witnesses using no tools or mathematics that came into existence after 1000AD, save a polaroid camera and a sharpie. What is it?



[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]

Forgot about the polaroid and the sharpie in my riddle.. Sorry.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]

reply to post by cogburn


You need to stop playing games, and come out with what is missing, how can you expect anyone to take you serious when you play here is my “riddle” Please! This is not a game this is a debating forum.

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by cogburn

 

You need to stop playing games, and come out with what is missing, how can you expect anyone to take you serious when you play here is my “riddle” Please! This is not a game this is a debating forum.

No, it's not a game but there's so much bad science and crappy theory on ATS that maybe, just maybe, for once I want someone to have to think to be able to argue. That's not directed at Craig or you or anyone in particular.

I don't believe that's asking too much and for as long as this thread lasts I am contributing to the ongoing intellectual debate of this community.

Ok... maybe the riddle was a bit over the top, but there's no reason why this can't be serious and fun at the same time.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]

[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]

I want to make something else clear.

I used the north side fly-over as part of my hypothesis because I believe it to be the single piece of evidence in Craig's presentation that does not contradict any facts, however still has a long way from being vetted. Well, there's two pieces of evidence that I think are proven quite well... The second is that Lloyde England is a lying SOB. Why he's lying is anyone's guess.

This missing data could potentially take the north side flyover one step closer to being irrefutable.... or it could destroy it.

It could, if collected correctly and completely, also be used to determine a set of potential matches for the actual make model of the aircraft, 757 or otherwise.

I didn't go through all this trouble and potentially look like a fool on my new favorite forum if I wasn't 100% confident that this data is what I claim it is.

Here's more proof that this is 100% legit. I posted that David Icke link to prove the following: any theory that does not end with the plane flying off after the impact at the Pentagon satisfies every single point in both my theory and Craig's... except that ONE assertion.

If Craig just backed off on that ONE conjecture our theories would not only be in agreement, but would also corroborate portions of the 9/11 commission evidence, and most other impact AND non-impact theories.

I mean look at the pictures that were submitted as evidence in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. If that was successfully submitted into evidence his lawyer was either totally inept or in on the scam. Why? Because if there was doubt cast on those photos being doctored then there would be a record of this challenge. If you are a defense attorney attempting to prove reasonable doubt against a "mountain" of evidence, would you not attempt to chip away at it one stone at a time?

The 2002 images were around since... 2002. The Gov't images are both resized and had the contrast modified. At that point can you say that those are reliable and original documents? If they were modified as a result of analysis where is the supporting documents? Where'd the other images come from? Who doctored what?

I don't want to go too far off topic, but I offer that as a possibility. You could overturn all kinds of nice anthills if the work is finished to its fullest extent.


[edit on 19-11-2008 by cogburn]

THIS is the image that breaks the back of the official story..




This is the one image that simply and purely proves that this impact was not caused by a plane this image clearly shows a detonation NOT an uncontrolled explosion. It is perfectly consistent with a high explosive detonation, the bright color the angle the shape the dark center, not to mention the perfect penetration into the building..

Btw in the original post in the one image where the "plane" is outlined is not proof at all of a plane, if i was so inclined i could produce the outline of the millennium falcon from the images.

The plane came from the SW using I - 395 as a navigation aide.....durr. I worked in a building just off the interstate. I was out in Salt Lake city at the time, trying to return that same day and was stranded out there for 5 days. Stupid 3.5 beer laws. ANYWAY, the folks that were in the office did hear the plane as well as heard and felt the explosion. There were people from the company who were on a shuttle bus to the Pentagon suck in rush hour traffic that heard and saw the plane go over.

It happened...Get over it....Move on. Maybe work on an MMOFPS so i can shoot people in the backside.

Originally posted by SPreston

That is not Flight 77. That is the decoy aircraft replacing Flight 77. That is the official position given Flight 77 on the right side of the image. You know; the position which is impossible which you defenders so rabidly adhere to. Flight 77 is nowhere around; likely still up in Ohio or where ever the 9-11 planners sent it.

The decoy aircraft there, flying from Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo completely missed ALL of the light poles and its going to miss the generator too, and if it does not fly over the building; then it will really screw up the internal damage pattern to the Pentagon, and really get you guys all upset and waving your arms wildly in the air.

Maybe you misunderstood, but 60 feet + higher means the decoy aircaft is above your aircraft and above the roof.

Thanks for the confirmation that you still claim a jet flew over and away from the Pentagon.

Note that I have asked you repeatedly for positive, verified eyewitness or media reports of any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon and you have been completely incapable of demonstrating any flyover by any jet whatsoever.

I even created a separate thread for you to present verified eyewitnesses yet -- very strangely -- you couldn't. Instead you just re-posted eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen a jet hit the Pentagon or who believed it did.

So it's very strange that you are claiming any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon yet you have absolutely no evidence that one did!

How do you explain your confusion?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by jthomas
Please note the direction and position Craig Ranke places AA77 as it started it's supposed climb over and away from the Pentagon from the NoC approach.

Actually I did not make that image.

No matter. You used as your example to claim: "The north side approach is irreconcilable with ALL physical evidence." You cannot back out of the fact that you used it to support your claims. It is on the record.

In addition, you have shown the same representation on your website:




And is the same representation of the so-called "flyover" that P4T created with CIT's participation:




I can understand if you are trying to back out of your "flyover" claim since I have shown conclusively that you have no evidence or eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen any jet fly over and away from the Pentagon. This would be a good time for CIT to admit that it cannot prove any flyover took place.

How about it, Craig?

reply to post by jthomas


You wrote:
"Note that I have asked you repeatedly for positive, verified eyewitness or media reports of any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon and you have been completely incapable of demonstrating any flyover by any jet whatsoever."


That sounds like both a serious understatement, and a serious overstatement!

I rather get the "feeling" that you have asked this question, yes repeatedly, but several
hundred times, and over a period of many months.

I don't know how many times you in fact have been asking this same question, and
over how long a period, but I think it would be in many peoples interest if these exact
figures could be revealed.

This could then be compared to the amount of times, or lack of, you have responded
with a positive, approachable attitude to debate all the same answers you have been given over this same period.

It would also indicate that a person who repeatedly ask the same question day by day,
endlessly, without any regards to the answer, must surely live in a kind of 'Groundhog
day' type of world, far removed from any sense of 'reality'!

It would help a lot, jthomas, if you at least could give some good reasons, preferably with good evidence, why you cannot accept the answers given!

Isn't that fair enough?

How to get more information from Mr. Trucios
--------------------------------------------
Materials needed:
* A piece of chalk
* A 500ft ball of twine pre-marked at 5ft increments for at least 300ft or some other way to measure large distances easily
* 4 friends
* A few pieces of paper
* A pen or pencil

Return to the scene with each witness and have them do the following:
* If they do, then let them begin the exersize without any aids. If not, allow them to view their video. If they ask if you have their old video handy, say yes and let them watch it. Do NOT tell them why... just ask them if they want to fix what they said. This will give you some indication of both their confidence in and the quality of their recollections.
* Based (or not) on their previous statements, specifically for Mr. Trucios, have them indicate on the GROUND the position of the (as it flew overhead) nose of the fuselage (and have a friend stand there), the tail of the fuselage (and have a friend stand there), the tip of the port wing (and another friend), and the tip of the starboard wing (one last friend).
* Have the witness modify the position of any of your friends so that they are correct
* Once each friend is perfect, have them stand feet together and make an X on the ground between their shoes. Also ask Trucios where on the wing they would place the engines that they witnessed and mark an X on the ground with the chalk. Finally ask the witness if everything is perfect. Make changes as necessary and make sure you properly indicate all false X's. Again ask the witness if everything is perfect. Make changes as necessary and make sure you properly indicate all false X's. The reason for asking for the engine positions is one more point of reference for another quality check on the accuracy of their recollections and potentially provide some form of data to identify the aircraft witnessed.
* Measure the distance between all X's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not the missing data that I keep referring to, even though it certainly is data that is missing.

I offer it as proof that Mr. Ranke's investigation is so lacking in hard evidence that there's a reason it exists only on conspiracy sites. Furthermore I use it to support my claim that there is valuable hard data that is being left untouched.

You can also create an easy set of double-checks to ask Mr. Turcios to measure the plane repeatedly in different ways. You can then build an average size of the aircraft as Mr. Turcios witnessed it.

C'mon. You guys are smarter than this.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by cogburn]

People please! Why does everyone think an airplane even crash we have “no” proof! None, nothing! We were *told* a plane crashed at the pentagon by the media other than that it has never been proven.
1. There never have been any real records found on any of these planes.
2. There never have been any records of any of the time change out parts found on any of the four airplanes.
3. There are no maintenance records of any kind on any of these airplanes.
4. Where is the luggage records
5. Where are the catering records of who catered the food on the airplanes that day.
Pilots for 911 truths tried to find something anything but came up empty handed.
There are no records in existence to really show these airplanes were really in services.
The Feds take some pictures and post them all over the internet and “they” claim this is some of the airplane parts. People that is not proof! If the Government wants to lay this conspiracies theory to rest, then at lease they can produces some of the airplanes time change out parts serial numbers that match said aircrafts.

The Feds could also show us some of the maintenance records and last fueling up records, of these so call highjack airplanes.
I have never read a single article about any other airline flight attendants working on any of these planes before 911.

Everything about these four airplanes seems to have been invented on 911 and ends on 911.

YaYa! Here some pictures that’s the airplane parts in this garbage heap here look another picture that is an engine Oh the other engine uh we do not know were it is, oh it burnt up ya that’s it. Here look! Here is a landing gear see you see the proof PLEASE! TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT! We are your Government and we will never lie to you! Listen to the News they will not lie to you. Do not ask our Government questions! Asking questions about 911 might get you on a no fly list.

Oh look! Another airplane part that fell off the aircraft bone yard dump truck that is my opinion.



[edit on 11/20/2008 by cashlink]

Originally posted by cashlinkThis is not a game this is a debating forum.

You seems to have missed that point.