Is it possible for the Pentagon attack jet to fly north of the citgo and still hit the Pentagon?

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Is it possible for the Pentagon attack jet to fly north of the citgo and still hit the Pentagon?

No, it is not possible. Because of the angle of penetration of an impact from the Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo flight path, an entirely new and different damage path would have been created into the Pentagon interior.

My point in the very first two sentences.

Given that we may not use testimony or anything else (because that is how the discussion of this thread has been framed by Craig), it is as equally valid to say that an approach from the east could not cause the damage, either.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by cogburn]

posted by cogburn
To determine the exact damage pattern I will also need the angles of the pitch yaw and roll of the aircraft as provided by the witnesses.

Arlington National Cemetery eyewitnesses










[edit on 11/20/08 by SPreston]

Superb. So there is some indication that that information might be available.

So after all the time that Craig spent plotting the X.Y approach that he didn't plot the altitude, pitch, yaw, or roll? I have to do it?

It's an aircraft. It moves in three dimensions. X,Y, and Z as it is graphed.

Furthermore to determine how the damage pattern could be caused (or not) by the north side approach you need the final pitch, yaw, and roll of the aircraft as witnessed by each person.

How do you prove a fly-off was possible?

reply to post by cogburn


Asking me to provide speculated values for your claim is rather silly don't you think?

Apparently you are still having trouble understanding the question here.

I know it's hard to admit when you're wrong but it does show integrity.

The question is whether or not ANY plane that flew ANYWHERE north of the gas station could possibly cause the physical damage.

Feel free to make up any values you like for speed, pitch, roll, etc. The only requirement is that the plane is on the north side of the station.

YOU are the one claiming the plane could still fly NoC and cause the observable physical damage so it's up to you to back up this blatantly ridiculous claim with evidence.

Everyone reading this thread knows for a fact you will fail because it is physically impossible.

Asking me to provide speculated values at all is a cop out as is suggesting I framed the question unfairly. It can't get any more cut and dry.

So are you going to demonstrate how it is possible or are you going to concede that you are wrong and that everyone else, including the hardest core CIT skeptics, are right about this one?



[edit on 20-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

I'm trying very hard to answer your challenge but I am trying to be completely honest.

I will not say something that has not been proven. That would be knowingly making a false statement and I will not do that.

I will say that from all the information you collected it is equally likely that a plane both did and did not hit the Pentagon.

We won't know if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive until you are able to provide the altitude, pitch, yaw, and roll information that I am assuming you must have to make such a definitive statement.

If you cannot provide such information then my statement stands as above.

Between my thread and this one I think I've proven my point pretty well. However I'm willing to leave that for posterity to judge. I thank you for the opportunity to sharpen my mental claws on your research.

Someone actually solved my riddle. Tezzajw. He was so close that it was absolutely worth giving him credit. I'll leave this thread to ponder the answer I gave him. He can verify if it is what I sent him hours ago. It was a little story that provides and example of how you could get the final pitch, yaw, and roll information with nothing more than a polaroid camera and anything that Pythagoras had available. It's the story of how I learned to do it.

Craig, good luck to you in your endeavors.

The GOLDEN DATA that Craig is missing is a close approximation as is possible as to the pitch, yaw, and role at the VERY LAST MOMENT each witness saw the plane. That data from that ONE moment is all that is required to determine the feasibility of a fly-off.

But, how do you get that in the time of Pythagoras?

Here's why I call it "hillbilly math". I went to college in Kentucky for a time. Every month or so a bunch of us on the floor of my dorm would go down into the hills of central eastern Kentucky to get some moonshine. Lame, right? Anyway, my buddy knew this moonshiner that had a still hidden on the other side of the valley from his farm. This next part is tough to visualize w/o pictures so you might have to re-read it a few times to get the picture.

His still was hidden and he had a really nifty way of determining where it was. It was so ingenious I never forgot it.

Out on the eastern edge of his farm, looking up the eastern wall of the valley, was a fence post that had a line drawn straight through the diameter. He would first ball his right hand into a fist and place it on the center of the stump so the line also dissected the center of his fist. Next he opened his left hand flat and placed the heel of his palm on the post and while keeping his hand rigid, would bring it down until it rested on top of his balled fist. The center of the heel of his palm would rest on the painted line on the stump. He then aligned the tips of his fingers to the pained line as well. He then would rest his left cheek on the top of his left hand and sight down his middle finger with his left eye. The point on the valley wall right above the tip of his finger was the exact location of the still.

What would happen if I took a polaroid picture while he was sighting down his finger? I could measure the angle of inclination made by his left hand with a protractor.

You could devise a very simple test using a similar methodology that would result in a polaroid photograph of the witness indicating the last perceived angle of the pitch yaw and roll of the aircraft. You could then measure those angles with a protractor and extrapolate the rest w/ the works of our old buddy Pythagoras.

Then you could then build an average for those values, discarding the high and low values first, with a totally scientific margin of error.

EDIT: Poor Sgt. Lagasse. The first time he's called as a witness and the defense attorney has seen your videos, the Mr. Lagasse may end up driving a desk. Stating you are "100% positive" when you're a cop contradicting evidence submitted at trial can be quite embarassing.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by cogburn]

reply to post by cogburn


Huh?

It's like you are talking in riddles. You are saying ANYTHING to avoid the point.

If you accept the north side approach you MUST accept that the plane did not hit the building.

There is no way around it.

That is the entire point and why the north side evidence is so important.

Do you concede or are you going to continue to be the loan individual willing to dogmatically stick up for this ridiculous claim without even bothering to attempt to back it up?

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Hey Craig! Just wondering if you calculated the time from the first down light pole to the impact according to the FDR data? Is it at all possible to steer from NoC to the first street lamp?? Not steering with purpose but panic steering, trying to control the plane to target.

Hi Leo!

Absolutely not.

Not a single pilot, engineer, physicist, or studied CIT skeptic who has looked at this has suggested it was even remotely possible.

Also wondering if you ever considered the possibility of both a plane impact and pre-placed explosives which would be the same M.O., a duplicate of the WTC attacks??

This is impossible in relation to the observed physical damage which is completely irreconcilable with a north side approach at all.

The light poles and generator trailer should make this obvious to even a layperson but the directional damage to the building also proves it.

Oh and besides.....we have a flyover witness and there was an elaborate 2nd plane cover story.

Witnesses talking about a plane in the airspace at the same time as the explosion really amount to evidence for a flyover. There would be no other reason for this clear deliberate effort to have false tales planted of a mysterious plane flying away immediately after the attack or "shadowing" AA77.

This piece is absolutely critical to understanding how it was pulled off:

Google Video Link

[edit on 21-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by cogburn

I thank you for the opportunity to sharpen my mental claws on your research.

Someone actually solved my riddle.

Craig, good luck to you in your endeavors.

Sharpen your "mental claws"?

"Riddle"?

Well thanks for at least admitting to your true motive for posting here.

You have now made it perfectly clear that I was right about you.

I am here to get out vital information as a means of life or death.

You are here for personal entertainment.

That's fine, a lot of people are, and I wouldn't hold it against you except you have chosen to make the vital information that we have obtained and I present here your target at all costs and without regard for truth and justice.

I find that to be abhorrent and unless you are able to concede when you have been proven wrong in my opinion this demonstrates your intentions are entirely dishonorable.



[edit on 21-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

If you accept the 13 independently corroborated accounts of the plane on the north side approach as accurate you MUST accept a flyover.

Please don't evade the fact that all of your eyewitnesses either saw the jet hit the Pentagon, believe it did, and none witnessed any jet fly over and away from the Pentagon.

See: www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted by SPreston
Arlington National Cemetery eyewitnesses

posted by cogburn
Superb. So there is some indication that that information might be available.

So after all the time that Craig spent plotting the X.Y approach that he didn't plot the altitude, pitch, yaw, or roll? I have to do it?

It's an aircraft. It moves in three dimensions. X,Y, and Z as it is graphed.

Furthermore to determine how the damage pattern could be caused (or not) by the north side approach you need the final pitch, yaw, and roll of the aircraft as witnessed by each person.

How do you prove a fly-off was possible?

It is YOUR wild theory you are working on. Here are the eyewitnesses. You know where the videos are. You have two eyes; supposedly a brain. You figure it out. Your silly riddles and mesmerizing footwork are too illusory to comprehend.

Here; maybe this will help you.

1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive





[edit on 11/21/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston

No, it is not possible. Because of the angle of penetration of an impact from the Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo flight path, an entirely new and different damage path would have been created into the Pentagon interior. Also after the pull up at Hwy 27 witnessed by Robert Turcios, it would have been impossible for the aircraft to impact the 1st floor in level flight in the short remaining 700 foot distance. The aircraft could probably have impacted the 3rd or 4th floor in level flight; but that damage did not happen did it?

Evasion noted.

You have presented no evidence of any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon.

ALL of the witnesses either saw the jet hit the Pentagon, believe it did, and NONE saw any jet fly over and away from the Pentagon.

Please present positive, verified eyewitnesses who saw any jet fly over and away from the Pentagon.

Originally posted by SPreston
Arlington National Cemetery eyewitnesses

What about them? Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and Rob Balsamo already admitted they ALL of the Arlington National Cemetery workers believed that jet hit the Pentagon and NONE of the them witnessed a flyover.

See

Google Video Link

Starting at 38:23

"Although all of these witnesses believe the aircraft impacted the building,..."

Starting at 38:52

"Furthermore, these witnesses describe how they were running away from the scene for their lives and were not paying attention to what the plane did after it passed them."

SPreston, why are you confused about CIT's eyewitness statements?




[edit on 21-11-2008 by jthomas]

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

OP posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Is it possible for the Pentagon attack jet to fly north of the citgo and still hit the Pentagon?

Hypothetically? Of course.

But not on 9/11 due to the physical damage.

A north of citgo approach is 100% irreconcilable with ALL of the physical damage and therefore proves the plane did not hit the building.

posted by pinch on 11/21/08 @ 13:01
And to make this topical, I'll reiterate - of course it is possible for an aircraft flying north of the service station to hit the Pentagon. The physical damage, however, says that never happened, though.

Very excellent answer to the OP.

We welcome such honesty in an adversary.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

If you accept the 13 independently corroborated accounts of the plane on the north side approach as accurate you MUST accept a flyover.

Please don't evade the fact that all of your eyewitnesses either saw the jet hit the Pentagon, believe it did, and none witnessed any jet fly over and away from the Pentagon.

See: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes I couldn't agree more JT, but I still believe theres some reason why so much evidence is being withheld on the pentagon crash(videos) whether nefarious or not time will tell.

I do think it is rather strange though that there are so many wits who believe that F77 flew NOC, but it also could be a perfect example of our ability to foul up a eye witness report after the fact. Still it does make you wonder.

Ultimately, CIT , if you take away all the hoopla and the constant repeating and defending you still have that major 300k pound problem which is the flyover jumbo that not a single person saw do just that "flyover".

I cannot , nor can I logically understand how anyone could believe that anyone with in eye shot of the building would not of seen it fly over the top of the pentagon, let alone not one person to come forward saying they witnessed it.

Alright folks. Let's review. The topic is...

Is it possible for the Pentagon attack jet to fly north of the citgo and still hit the Pentagon?

What it is NOT is anything about anyone's preference of clothing, or what they prefer to drink.

Let's stick to the topic.

reply to post by Hal9000


Yes. I believe it is possible based off viewing the map CIT shows us in his OP that the flight very well could have flew the NOC and still hit the Pentagon causing all known damages.

No one here knows for sure how fast F77 was really going, maybe it was going a lot slower on its approach than we are told.

I still however, am convinced that the wits must be wrong. Eye witness testimony is notoriously wrong after the fact, especially 6 and 7 years after the fact. So until CIT can come up with some hard evidence I have to believe the plane flew SOC.

Like I have said before CIT, you dont even have enough to take to a grand jury right now, let alone a jury of your peers.

I do wish you the best though to your mission, I always give you guys the benefit of the doubt and watch and read your posted info. I would love to see you guys find the so called smoking gun but I think your barking up the wrong tree here.

posted by Stillresearchn911
Yes. I believe it is possible based off viewing the map CIT shows us in his OP that the flight very well could have flew the NOC and still hit the Pentagon causing all known damages.

No one here knows for sure how fast F77 was really going, maybe it was going a lot slower on its approach than we are told.

I still however, am convinced that the wits must be wrong. Eye witness testimony is notoriously wrong after the fact, especially 6 and 7 years after the fact. So until CIT can come up with some hard evidence I have to believe the plane flew SOC.

Like I have said before CIT, you dont even have enough to take to a grand jury right now, let alone a jury of your peers.

I do wish you the best though to your mission, I always give you guys the benefit of the doubt and watch and read your posted info. I would love to see you guys find the so called smoking gun but I think your barking up the wrong tree here.

The wits must be wrong? Not are wrong. Not were proven wrong? Not the wits are a pack of liars?

Must be? That sounds like a prayer. Please please let them be wrong.

The wits are usually wrong especially 6 and 7 years after the fact? The ANC eyewitnesses were interviewed way back in 2001 right after 9-11 by the Center for Military History, their interviews censored, released with names redacted in 2008 by FOIA, and CIT still tracked them down and reinterviewed them.

Why do you think they were censored and names and personal information STILL redacted afer a judge ordered their release? Perhaps SOMEBODY had reason to fear their eyewitness accounts?

Guess what? Their eyewitness accounts did not change over a seven year timespan. Of course CIT did a much finer job of interviewing with video cameras and on original site questioning with a model plane for demonstration purposes and maps to draw what they thought the flight path was to their best judgement. So you are quite mistaken about these particular witnesses, aren't you?



The aircraft flew straight at them from above the Naval Annex, flew essentially over their heads, and towards the Pentagon in the distance, where there was an explosion. What is so difficult to determine about a low-flying large aircraft flying straight at you and over your heads?

These guys are just ordinary honest working people who just want to tell the truth as they saw it. Correct?



As to the damage pattern, how do you explain how this ONA and NOC aircraft could knock down light poles it was too far north of and somehow miraculously and suddenly change the inertia of 90 tons of aircraft at impact to conform to the actual damage pattern inside the Pentagon 1st floor? That looks like about a sudden 15-20 degree jog to the left. What kind of physics laws has this 9-11 INSIDE JOB set aside this time? That nonsense is not even remotely possible. That 90 tons of aircraft would have continued along its impact trajectory, creating a completely different damage pattern inside the Pentagon. But the existing impact trajectory is what we are stuck with, isn't it? It has to be along the Official south Flight 77 flight path through the light poles and generator trailer and internal damage path. Correct? That did not happen did it?

Therefore an aircraft did not impact the Pentagon. Nothing knocked down the light poles because they were staged. A light pole was not knocked into a taxi windshield because it was staged too. Correct? Nothing impacted the generator trailer because it too was staged. Explosives accomplished the destruction and planned murders inside the Pentagon because Flight 77 was simulated. Correct?





[edit on 11/22/08 by SPreston]