CIT - Changes Their Flight Path.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Your accusations are uncalled for and completely unsupported.

Why don't you quote us or Scott Cook to prove your point?

I'll tell you why....because you are WRONG.

Apparently, Scott Cook's web site is no longer available, so I will quote Aldo quoting him.

I had just scanned the sky and the scene one more time, and turned to Ray. We were talking about the need for a swift response to this attack (we were already talking about bin Laden) when Ray leapt to one side, his face instantly animated beyond anything I had ever seen.

"They just hit the Pentagon!"

I turned. Rising up from the right center of the Pentagon’s mass was a gigantic spherical orange mass, the flames oddly bright and vivid in the clear direct sunlight. I stepped to the window, and instinctively put my hand to the glass. Verle and Ray were quickly on either side of me. A few seconds after the explosion, the glass rattled and a dull boom shook the room. Link

...the (C-130) reached the Pentagon at a low altitude and made a sharp left turn, passing just north of the plume, and headed straight for the White House.

All the while, I was sort of talking at it: "Who the hell are you? Where are you going? You’re not headed for downtown!" Ray and Verle watched it with me, and I was convinced it was another attack. But right over the tidal basin, at an altitude of less than 1000 feet, it made another sharp left turn to the north and climbed rapidly. Soon it was gone, leaving only the thin black trail.

He was using the Tidal Basin as a reference point from his perspective. I know this is a point that you will never concede because it's the only way you can turn Cook's own account against and use it as proof that he was lying.

As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. It was coming from an odd direction (planes don’t go east-west in the area), and it was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft. Trailing a thin, diffuse black trail from its engines, the plane reached the Pentagon at a low altitude and made a sharp left turn, passing just north of the plume, and headed straight for the White House.

All the while, I was sort of talking at it: "Who the hell are you? Where are you going? You’re not headed for downtown!" Ray and Verle watched it with me, and I was convinced it was another attack. But right over the tidal basin, at an altitude of less than 1000 feet, it made another sharp left turn to the north and climbed rapidly. Soon it was gone, leaving only the thin black trail.

"Directly in back of the plume."

Below is a line drawn from Scott Cook's location to a point where the C-130 was according to the RADES data.

Notice where the line crosses the Pentagon. Directly behind the smoke plume.

The fact is that it would have been difficult for him to see the RADES data C-130 bank with any detail from from his location way across the river.

Craig, I'm not trying to be derogatory, but do you have bad vision?

The distance between Scott Cook's location and the western side of the Pentagon is less than 2 miles. I could see fighters turning from left base to final at Andrews from the Sheraton Hotel, nearly 11 miles away.

reply to post by Boone 870


You are reaching so far on this it's really pretty outrageous.

He specifically says that it was headed towards the "White House"!

And it's quite clear that he is saying that this is what it did AFTER it was behind the plume and AFTER it reached the Pentagon.

How can you not understand that?

the plane reached the Pentagon at a low altitude and made a sharp left turn, passing just north of the plume, and headed straight for the White House.

So he describes it as traveling west to east which is already a contradiction (RADES data has it approaching from the south to north at that point) and then he has it reaching the Pentagon and THEN "headed straight for" the white house in complete contradiction to RADES.

Then he is very specific in describing how it supposedly does not turn away UNTIL it reaches the tidal basin and he even describes this as "another" turn meaning a distinctive turn from when it originally headed towards the white house from behind the plume at the Pentagon.

But right over the tidal basin, at an altitude of less than 1000 feet, it made another sharp left turn to the north and climbed rapidly.

He is clearly describing two maneuvers since he even uses the word "another".

Coming from behind the plume, turning towards the white house, and then turning away again over the tidal basin.

Not one drastic turn to the northwest in the opposite direction AWAY from the WH or tidal basin before ever reaching the Pentagon at all like the RADES data shows.

He clearly describes the opposite.

We twisted nothing.

You're doing the twisting and failing miserably.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT



Thanks for proving my point, Craig.

Ignore everything that matches the "official story" and highlight a detail that contradicts it so that you can dismiss the entire account because it doesn't fit your theory.

Another perfect example of CIT Selectivity.

reply to post by Boone 870


What are you talking about?

It is what he SAID.

You are trying to ignore it and say that we lied about it when I am merely quoting him direct.

You still deny it forcing me to point out each and every sentence.

It's clear as day.

He has the C-130 continuing past the Pentagon towards the White House and turning away over the tidal basin.

These are his very specific and very detailed words.

I am not being "selective" because I have not ignored any of his words.

That is however exactly what you are doing.

Good night Boone.

There's no escaping that you have invalidated your own claims, Craig. Now you have a flight path that would demand the pilot do an outrageous approach at impossible g forces to fly over the Pentagon in the direction you said Robert's reported.

What confuses you about your own claims, Craig?

You should have stuck to your original flight path and admitted that Roberts reported in his first interview two months after 9/11 that the only plane he saw hit a building was a replay on the TV he was watching of UA175 hitting WTC2, and that the only plane he saw "flying around the south parking lot" was a full half-hour before the attacks.

Knowing this, there is absolutely NO WAY you can claim Roberts proves a flyover.

I have repeatedly asked CIT to admit it has no evidence to refute the overwhelming congruence of evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. I am asking you again, in the New Year, to admit you cannot, and have not, proved a flyover.

Will you finally do that, Craig?

Isn't it quite telling that Craig has avoided the two most important points raised in this thread?

Instead of honestly answering these two great points, Craig starts a new thread trying to save face.

The two points I have are this:

Terry Morin is a 100% verifiable south of the citgo witness.

More importantly is to the OP of this thread:

CIT is not longer stating that the "attack jet" or "decoy" flew through the explosion, but now 100 or so feet to the south of the explosions. This new development by CIT makes their so called deception even less credible than their original.

Craig, so far has refused to remove the deceitful graphics from his website and so far has not replaced them with a more honest version of their hypothesis.

I also want to show another point that is being ignored by CIT. PFT's flight path that shows the possibility of a "fly around" throws Morin's interview under the bus.

Morin's path as states SEVERAL times is that of parallel to the Navy Annex. This not only confirms a SOC path, but refutes the graphics Craig posted on page 2 of this thread.

This is a simple line to show what the word parallel means:




This is what PFT and CIT believe what Morin saw:



Yet lets look again at the PFT diagram:

posted by CameronFox
Isn't it quite telling that Craig has avoided the two most important points raised in this thread?

Terry Morin is a 100% verifiable south of the citgo witness.

Why should Craig respond to a false strawman argument?

Terry Morin is a 100% Over the Naval Annex and North of Citgo eyewitness and Craig just proved it beyond any shadow of a doubt.



The Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY official flight path does not allow the aircraft to cross north of Columbia Pike and the VDOT tower, let alone fly Over the Naval Annex. Paik and Morin should have seen the aircraft flying south of the VDOT tower and south of Columbia Pike. They did not; but instead saw the aircraft fly Over the Naval Annex as did 20+ other eyewitnesses.



No verified eyewitnesses are on record as seeing the aircraft approaching on the official flight path south of the VDOT tower and south of Columbia Pike.



The Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is DEAD. Get used to it CameronFox.

SPReston, try to keep up:

Parallel: extending in the same direction, equidistant at all points, and never converging or diverging: parallel rows of trees.

dictionary.reference.com...

The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB)

-Terry Morin

Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon

Here SPreston.... a simple task for you. Draw a line parallel to the the Navy Annex and have that line go straight toward the Pentagon.

Tell me what side of the Citgo that line is on. ok?





[edit on 4-1-2009 by CameronFox]

Originally posted by SPreston

The Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is DEAD. Get used to it CameronFox.

Let's remind everyone what SPreston won't admit.

For the record, Craig Ranke's new "100% CIT certified flight path" demonstrates conclusively that there are NO pilots who would attempt for any reason whatsoever to fly over the Navy Annex to conform to CIT's flight path over the Pentagon as CIT (falsely) claims Roosevelt Roberts stated.

NO pilot would be crazy enough to approach the Pentagon from over the Navy Annex to do what CIT says it did.

NO aircraft could physically or aerodynamically accomplish such an outrageously ridiculous turn.

Craig Ranke has succeeded in invalidating and refuting his NoC approach by eliminating the Naval Annex as a possible physical point on an approach to the Pentagon.

Let's all give a hand to CIT for debunking itself so well!! The Official CIT Fairy Tale is officially dead.

Craig, your deceptive graphics are still up on your Pentacon web page. When should we expect you to correct it with the new flyaround theory?

Inquiring minds you know.

I think Craig must finally be writing his concession speech after the debacle he caused finally putting CIT's fairy tale unceremoniously out to pasture.

Or, he's in denial trying to invent yet another "flight path" using yet another variation of Rob Balsamo's "New Math."

posted by CameronFox
Morin's path as states SEVERAL times is that of parallel to the Navy Annex. This not only confirms a SOC path, but refutes the graphics Craig posted on page 2 of this thread.

This is a simple line to show what the word parallel means:

My oh my. Desperation has suddenly attacked these faithful believers in the Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY. You defenders of the 9-11 INSIDE JOB perpetrators have lost a lot of ground over the past several months, haven't you? You still don't get it CameronFox? Anywhere over the Naval Annex shoots down the Flight 77 official flight path. It is as simple as that. You are fighting an unwinnable battle. No wonder you people are so desperate.

Looking at another view of the Naval Annex with a too scale 757 above him, what does Terry Morin have to judge parallel with? He has the short open space at the end of the building wings, and the long length of the walls comprising wings 4 and 5. Looking up, he has no alignment with the end walls to accurately determine parallel. At a speed of 300-500 fps, Morin would have just a split second to view the aircraft above him from between the building wings.



All the other Over the Naval Annex eyewitnesses confirm Morin's placement of the decoy aircraft above the Naval Annex and more precisely place the aircraft more towards the north side and North of the Citgo. Morin is an excellent Over the Naval Annex eyewitness, and confirms that the jet aircraft that he witnessed did NOT dive down out of sight below the hill in order to strike the staged light poles. Apparently no confirmed living eyewitnesses saw the aircraft approaching the Pentagon along the official South of Columbia Pike and South of the VDOT tower and South of the Naval Annex flight path. No, the real aircraft was actually to the north out of range of the light poles wasn't it? Twenty plus eyewitnesses actually saw the aircraft Over the Naval Annex, which destroys the Official Flight 77 flight path through the light poles and into the Pentagon along the official damage path.





[edit on 1/4/09 by SPreston]

NO pilot would be crazy enough to approach the Pentagon from over the Navy Annex to do what CIT says it did.

Somebody flew the decoy aircraft over the Naval Annex, because that is where all the actual eyewitnesses have placed it. There was likely no real pilot inside the decoy aircraft, nor any living people because the aircraft was most likely remotely piloted by a pilot from a remote location.

The US military remotely pilots all kinds of aircraft and drones and UAVs from remote stations. Regardless, the eyewitnesses place the aircraft Over the Naval Annex and the nonsensical Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY fantasy tale is dead dead dead.

Originally posted by SPreston



Looking at another view of the Naval Annex with a too scale 757 above him, what does Terry Morin have to judge parallel with? He has the short open space at the end of the building wings, and the long length of the walls comprising wings 4 and 5. Looking up, he has no alignment with the end walls to accurately determine parallel. At a speed of 300-500 fps, Morin would have just a split second to view the aircraft above him from between the building wings.

I asked you to draw a line according to what Terry Morin stated that he saw. Can you please do that instead of dancing around it and posting graphics that have not been verified by him?

You can't tell him what he saw.

posted by SPreston
Looking at another view of the Naval Annex with a too scale 757 above him, what does Terry Morin have to judge parallel with? He has the short open space at the end of the building wings, and the long length of the walls comprising wings 4 and 5. Looking up, he has no alignment with the end walls to accurately determine parallel. At a speed of 300-500 fps, Morin would have just a split second to view the aircraft above him from between the building wings.

posted by CameronFox
I asked you to draw a line according to what Terry Morin stated that he saw. Can you please do that instead of dancing around it and posting graphics that have not been verified by him?

You can't tell him what he saw.

Neither can you. Your silly diagram showing the right wingtip aligned with the south edge of the Naval Annex pretends that the fuselage centerline is not 62 feet 5 inches north of that edge. Who do you think you are fooling besides yourself? I am certainly not going by your silly interpretation of parallel which conflicts with all the other eyewitnesses placing the aircraft Over the Naval Annex. Talk about grasping at straws. Your desperation has taken you over.



Not one eyewitness placed the decoy aircraft way over on the southern edge of the Naval Annex. Edward Paik had the decoy aircraft angling in away from Columbia Pike and flying over the Naval Annex. Some of the ANC eywitnesses had the decoy aircraft angling north from Over the Naval Annex just before it banked right.



Of course even that position you insist on destroys the official Flight 77 flight path through the light poles and your precious Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY doesn't it? Isn't it awful having your false reality shattered?

Your avoidance of my question is duly noted as well Spreston.

- Morin is a SOC witness.

- Morin refutes the current math supplied by PFT.

- The new flyaround claim by CIT was never witnessed by anyone.

- Deceptive graphics are still present on the Pentacon website.

Cameron what you've found is the single trait of the 9/11 Truthiness movement that prevents them from being taken seriously (no, not some MSM conspiracy).

A good researcher always re-evaluates their hypothesis based on the introduction of new evidence.

The 9/11 Truthiness proponents, once they have a theory, will attempt to contort, shape and smash the facts to fit their pet version of events. There is no new evidence that could be presented that would ever force a modification of theory or a new evaluation of information previously presented.

All that is expected of you is the mindless acceptance of whatever 9/11 Truthiness proponents want us to swallow. Do not attempt to apply science, logic, or reasoning. Do not criticize. Do not ask difficult questions.

The problem isn't the information, the presentation, or the calculations. The fault isn't in the graphics or in the explanations. The fault is yours for not accepting what you are being told. Just accept what you're being told and you'll see the truth!

Sounds like the other version of the events of 9/11, doesn't it?

Originally posted by SPreston

NO pilot would be crazy enough to approach the Pentagon from over the Navy Annex to do what CIT says it did.

Somebody flew the decoy aircraft over the Naval Annex, because that is where all the actual eyewitnesses have placed it. There was likely no real pilot inside the decoy aircraft, nor any living people because the aircraft was most likely remotely piloted by a pilot from a remote location.

Sorry, that dodge does not work with rational people. You have no evidence, just fanciful speculation. NO aircraft would be piloted that way whether remotely or by humans because it makes NO sense whatsoever to do so.

The US military remotely pilots all kinds of aircraft and drones and UAVs from remote stations. Regardless, the eyewitnesses place the aircraft Over the Naval Annex and the nonsensical Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY fantasy tale is dead dead dead.

If the plane flew over the Naval Annex, then it could not fly Craig's latest flight path. You know that.

Your just making it worse for CIT.

It's time to concede, SPreston. You and CIT have been unable to demonstrate any flyover of the Pentagon whatsoever. CIT's fairy tale is finished.

posted by CameronFox
Your avoidance of my question is duly noted as well Spreston.

- Morin is a SOC witness.

Really? How come you do not use the term official Flight 77 south flight path south of Columbia Pike witness CameronFox, instead of SOC witness? Here Edward points to where the aircraft came from, angling across Columbia Pike, and the electric lines and the parking space which are parallel with Columbia Pike.



Because he is not? Because the aircraft from where you drew it still cannot possibly knock down the five light poles? How do you get the light poles on the ground without staging them CameronFox, if the aircraft you agreed was Over the Naval Annex with YOUR blue line could not possibly have knocked them down?



In less than two seconds, the aircraft on your blue line has to bank quickly right, dive down more than a hundred and fifty feet, because it starts out ABOVE the Naval Annex, and then bank quickly left in order to hit both the #1 and #2 light poles at about the same time with both wings which requires near level flight, and still be in alignment with the damage path through the Pentagon 1st floor. That is just not possible in two seconds. The 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY has trapped you in an impossible situation CameronFox, with no possible way out. Please note that Edward here is demonstrating that the flight path is NOT parallel with Columbia Pike.



When a person looks closely at your term SOC witness, it translates into Over the Naval Annex witness which still destroys your official Flight 77 into the light poles south flight path doesn't it? Please note that here Edward is demonstrating the direction the aircraft flew angling across his parking lot and his parking spaces which are parallel with Columbia Pike. What a coincidence. That word just keeps popping up again and again.



Come on CameronFox; who is really being deceptive here?