New Pentagon Video Detailing Actual Flight Path Over Naval Annex

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
This is a fact of life every day at the Pentagon. You ought to go sometime and see for your self.

I've visited and been inside the Pentagon plenty of times for business meetings. Have you? You have no idea what you are talking about but I'll just let you continue on and stew in your ignorance. It will make for a more entertaining end to this whole circus you call CIT.

Don't worry, we have plenty of other names of people scared to talk that can be subpoenaed.

But the 13 known north side witnesses already prove a deception beyond a reasonable doubt.

In order to get a subpoena, you need probable cause - something you lack. CIT and PfT's frantic hand waving and Bush Derangement Syndrome affliction is not going to convince anyone.

As far as "reasonable doubt" goes, that is BS. If it were true, you would have done something with this information besides just put up a new WEB PAGE (!!!) or set up a new HOME OFFICE (!!!) in PfT's basement.

This scope of this crime is way too large for any normal court case anyway.

LOL....what is THAT supposed to mean? Are you going to run to The Hague?
Demand the UN come in and rescue the country? Turn on your Bat Searchlight? Rotate your Super Dercoder Ring? You crack me up, man!

Craig,

I'd like you to clear something up for me regarding the "official" flight path.

You keep saying that any deviation from the official flight path is proof of a deception. This to me implies that there is only one version of the official flight path that you refer.

You have also stated that BigSarge could not have seen the plane on the official flight path.

But looking at your site today, I found the following image...



... on this page www.thepentacon.com... where you discuss that the official flight path data has the plane much too high over the Navy Annex, requiring a steep descent to hit the lightpoles.

But in this thread you now seem to be suggesting that the plane was much lower, and could not have been visible from BigSarge's position as, from his perspective, it would have been blocked by trees and the Navy Annex itself.

So really, how many "official" flight paths are there, Craig? Was it too low or too high?

Why do you use one "official" flight path to eliminate the light pole damage, and an entirely different "official" flight path to eliminate the witness testimony?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Well, your posts were plausible for me until you said this. I hereby declare troll, government shill, liar, or disinformation artist, take your pick. But I will not believe another word you say. Tezz has made a very good point as usual with the fact that Craig has witnesses with real names, and on site visual and audio testimony. You on the other hand get to say whatever you want with no responsibility to those statements whatsoever. In the Pentacon he even re asks the questions, just to be DOUBLE sure there were no misinterpretations, gray areas, or any room for errors in all those testimonies.

Ha! I was wondering when someone would start pulling the "schill/government disinfo spook agent of darkness crap on BigSarge. It took 18 pages to do so...now that's a record!

I knew it though. If you agree with them, you're a "hero" and a "crusader for truth". Disagree, and you're suddenly a CIA plant/evil spook of doom.

Seriously, seeing behavior and hysterical ranting/theatrics like this, is it any wonder why people are reluctant to give out their personal details and be interviewed?

No wonder the truth movement is seen as a haven for mentally unstable fringe lunatics.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Precisely. 9:30 is prime time for people to be WORKING inside the building and not outside in the parking lot watching the skies OR even in the courtyard taking a break. Were there some people in the courtyard and south parking? Of course! But not "thousands".

Hi Craig,

Here is the witness account from someone in Pentagon South Parking who reported seeing the plane impact with the building. He describes seeing the tail of the plane enter the building right where his office was. Several of his co-workers were killed.

aal77.com...

You must have read it already, however. It's in the same place you found all of your ANC witnesses.

Originally posted by trebor451

I've visited and been inside the Pentagon plenty of times for business meetings. Have you? You have no idea what you are talking about but I'll just let you continue on and stew in your ignorance. It will make for a more entertaining end to this whole circus you call CIT.

As far as I am aware, Craig actually has been inside the Pentagon at least once. There is a post on his forums describing a trip he took there in late 2007, and his NCOIC contact (the one who allegedly wrote the note of thanks) took him on a tour for two hours.

Originally posted by Reheat


What is this?

Witness flight path illustrations.

Thanks for proving my point.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Roosevelt only told the Library of Congress and us what he saw because he did not understand the implications.

I thought you didn't speculate? Could it be that he's talked to LaGasse and finds your methods repulsive? No, you're clairvoyant and know what people think, so you can explain it to your minions, I'm sure.

I am not speculating.

Roosevelt TOLD ME PERSONALLY that this was the case.

I know for a fact he is afraid.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Hopefully BigSarge has more courage.

So, Roberts' is a coward?

Roosevelt is a human. Yes he is very scared about what he had the unfortunate luck to have to witness, and rightly so.

Of course I am not surprised you would use a more derogatory term to attack him personally as a means to cover up mass murder.

Of course you won't even put your real name to published papers you put out on the subject and you're not a witness at all! What does that make you?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
After Roosevelt realized the implications he became too afraid to talk and backed out of doing an on camera interview when we would have had him illustrate the path.

Here you go speculating again when you recently said you only deal in facts. In essence you really don't know if he is a valid "flyover witness" or not, it's just speculation.

No it's a fact.

It is what he told me.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Luckily he already told the Library of Congress about this plane in 2001 and we were able to record independent confirmation of this in 2008 before he got too scared to keep talking.

Here you go speculating again. One would think that by now your minions would realize that you lie with impunity about not speculating when it's convenient. You've rejected people before because they didn't meet your standard of reliability, so how can you say his statements would not be rejected for the same reason?

It's not speculation, he told me this.

I heard it in his voice and he said it directly over the phone and then I saw it in his face in person when I went to his doorstep at our scheduled time anyway. He nervously and reluctantly agreed to the on camera interview in the first place but changed his mind and backed out because he said it was "too much to handle". He knew damn well what he was getting into because we TALKED about it. He agreed to the interview AFTER knowing the implications and then backed out because of fear.

This is a fact just as much it is a fact that he told the LoC and us about this plane openly before knowing the implications.

All of this is explained by us to the camera in Part 2 of the North Side Flyover

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So you are forced to accuse him of hallucinating this plane or lying to the officials and us but we sure as heck aren't going to illustrate or animate a flight path for him simply because you or anyone demands it. Go ahead and put "scare quotes" around him without referencing his name all you want but he is a real person and a real witness whose personal credibility you are forced to attack in order to defend mass murder.

How do you know what I think? His statements are very confusing and I'm asking for clarification. After all you're touting him as a "flyover witness". You're going off the deep end simply because I asked for a illustration of what he said. I'm defending mass murder simply because I ask for clarification of what your witness said? I'm simply asking for the same standard of verification that you've demanded of witnesses in the past. You can do it, but I can't?

Why are you asking me???

Ask him yourself.

He is the witness.

I told you all I know. You asking for clarification over and over does not refute the 13 times corroborated north side witnesses PROVING the plane did not hit and PROVING that Roosevelt DID see the plane flying away.

You accuse us over and over as being "delusional" yet you are so obsessed with us that you type and type and type all day long from behind your anonymous screen name calling me names and ranting like a teenager.

What does that say about YOU?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The fact that he saw the plane AT ALL is enough and the witnesses that Erik Dihle mentioned are even MORE confirmation of what all the north side witnesses already proved beyond a reasonable doubt without ANY flyover witnesses.

So, you really don't demand independent confirmation to draw a conclusion. You're just willing to speculate if it's needed to make your conclusions appear to be true. Roberts statements are AT BEST confusing and Dihle can't even remember saying what the CMH indicates he said or meant by his statements, yet you are willing to tout them as "flyover witnesses" anyway.

You are accusing Roosevelt of hallucinating or lying about this plane.

You are accusing Erik Dihle of hallucinating or lying to the CMH about more flyover witnesses.

The north side witnesses PROVE they are correct but you are attacking ALL of their credibility from behind your anonymous screenname as a means to cover up mass murder.

These are facts proven with evidence, no speculation required.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You just keep moving the goal posts because you will never believe it no matter how much evidence gets uncovered.

I don't think you understand what "moving the goalposts" means. You've introduced new information and I'm asking for clarification of what was said and an illustration of the flight path. You have no standards for evidence? You repeatedly tout your evidence as "scientific" yet you can't even explain what these two witnesses meant by their statements.

Ask for it all you want but the GENERAL details of their claims are what prove a deception. I understand the witnesses perfectly. They all saw it on the north side and some saw it flying away.

This proves a deception.

You refuse to accept their accounts and instead dedicate all day of every day of your golden years attacking their credibility and mine as a means to cover up mass murder.

The only reason I am addressing you at all is because it keeps this important thread bumped. Keep typing reheat. Your obviously bankrupt logic and continuous bumping only helps our cause.




[edit on 2-7-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by discombobulator
Craig,

I'd like you to clear something up for me regarding the "official" flight path.

You keep saying that any deviation from the official flight path is proof of a deception. This to me implies that there is only one version of the official flight path that you refer.

You have also stated that BigSarge could not have seen the plane on the official flight path.

But looking at your site today, I found the following image...

... on this page www.thepentacon.com... where you discuss that the official flight path data has the plane much too high over the Navy Annex, requiring a steep descent to hit the lightpoles.

But in this thread you now seem to be suggesting that the plane was much lower, and could not have been visible from BigSarge's position as, from his perspective, it would have been blocked by trees and the Navy Annex itself.

So really, how many "official" flight paths are there, Craig? Was it too low or too high?

Why do you use one "official" flight path to eliminate the light pole damage, and an entirely different "official" flight path to eliminate the witness testimony?

Not sure I follow your argument.

I know for a fact that the plane wasn't that high.

Are you arguing that this is not what the NTSB reported or are you arguing that this is what BigSarge claims he witnessed?

Originally posted by discombobulator

Hi Craig,

Here is the witness account from someone in Pentagon South Parking who reported seeing the plane impact with the building. He describes seeing the tail of the plane enter the building right where his office was. Several of his co-workers were killed.

aal77.com...

You must have read it already, however. It's in the same place you found all of your ANC witnesses.

Sure I'm aware of this anonymous govt controlled transcript that does not even remotely refute the north side approach.

It could either be a confused or lying witness but until you interview them on camera on location, it is not evidence.

Let me know if you can find them and get them to agree to an interview.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Not sure I follow your argument.

I know for a fact that the plane wasn't that high.

Are you arguing that this is not what the NTSB reported or are you arguing that this is what BigSarge claims he witnessed?

So you agree that the NTSB "reported" that the plane was too high, thankyou.

Can you explain to me then EXACTLY which "official" flight path puts the plane down low and behind the Pentagon (from BigSarge's perspective) please, making it impossible for BigSarge to have seen it as you would have us believe?

No speculation, just direct me to the "official" flight path that puts the plane as low as you say it was.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Sure I'm aware of this anonymous govt controlled transcript that does not even remotely refute the north side approach.

If north side approach means flyover, you must not have read the part where the guy says he watched the tail of the plane enter the building approximately where his office was.

It would be a bit hard to see that if the plane flew over the building, wouldn't it?

Okay, here are a few quotes I have rounded up from Craig and SPreston -

"The fact is BigSarge.....the ONLY way you would have seen the aircraft is if it was on the north side approach"

"The fact is that if you saw the plane it could NOT have been on the official flight path"

"Clearly this makes sense with where you place the plane and is the ONLY way you would have seen the plane at all"

"Nowhere in that section is it possible to see the plane on the official flight path"

"Official south flight path would have been obstructed by trees and the Naval Annex itself"

"Of course the make-believe official Flight 77 aircraft on its official south flight path would have been invisible to BigSarge behind the Naval Annex from BigSarge's vantage point."

This is the view that BigSarge would have had from the general area, according to Craig. Note the Navy Annex.



However, turn the discussion to how the plane could not have knocked over the light poles if it were on the "official" flight path...

www.thepentacon.com...



Look where the plane is now in relation to the Navy Annex, according to the "official" story.

Based on the descent rate provided by the NTSB in the FDR data, due to the G loads required for that vertical speed, it is aeronautically impossible for this aircraft to have pulled out of that dive instantaneously and be level with the lawn as depicted in the 2002 leaked and 2006 released Pentagon security video.

Hmmm.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by discombobulator

So you agree that the NTSB "reported" that the plane was too high, thankyou.

You're saying that you agree that the data released by the NTSB, which is alleged to have come from the "black box" of "Flight 77" which "crashed into the Pentagon", is fraudulent?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Reheat
What is this?

Witness flight path illustrations.

Thanks for proving my point.

You have no point at all. You don't have a flight path from Roberts (for obvious reasons), yet you tout him as a "flyover witness". That IS speculation no matter how you try to spin it. You have not even begun to prove what he said is possible not matter how much you pretend it is.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I am not speculating.

Roosevelt TOLD ME PERSONALLY that this was the case.

I know for a fact he is afraid.

NO ONE except your cult of minions accepts your word without proof and you have none.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Hopefully BigSarge has more courage.

Originally posted by Reheat
So, Roberts' is a coward?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Roosevelt is a human. Yes he is very scared about what he had the unfortunate luck to have to witness, and rightly so.

Of course I am not surprised you would use a more derogatory term to attack him personally as a means to cover up mass murder.

That was a question based on what YOU said. I haven't accused Roberts of anything yet, but I don't believe what he said until it's proven.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Of course you won't even put your real name to published papers you put out on the subject and you're not a witness at all! What does that make you?

You have an obsession with who I am. I'd prefer to have my pseudonym on your enemies list rather than have my real identify there. That's not cowardice, it's caution based on proven fact. Neither you nor Roberts can prove there is anything to fear based on what he says. Where are all of these people that have been harmed in any way other than sheer paranoid speculation for people who have died of natural causes. LaGasse got promoted, so why does Roberts have anything to fear? I don't want an answer as I don't want to see your silly paranoia on display again.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
After Roosevelt realized the implications he became too afraid to talk and backed out of doing an on camera interview when we would have had him illustrate the path.

Paranoid speculation.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Luckily he already told the Library of Congress about this plane in 2001 and we were able to record independent confirmation of this in 2008 before he got too scared to keep talking.

Paranoid speculation as you don't have a clue what he said other than that he said he saw an aircraft. Others have said they saw the aircraft impact, but you put thoughts into their head, words into their mouth and speculate that they were deceived. Yet, Roberts could not possibly have been deceived because he says what you want to hear.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It's not speculation, he told me this.

Proof?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I heard it in his voice and he said it directly over the phone and then I saw it in his face in person when I went to his doorstep at our scheduled time anyway. He nervously and reluctantly agreed to the on camera interview in the first place but changed his mind and backed out because he said it was "too much to handle". He knew damn well what he was getting into because we TALKED about it. He agreed to the interview AFTER knowing the implications and then backed out because of fear.

Without proof it is speculation, period.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So you are forced to accuse him of hallucinating this plane or lying to the officials and us but we sure as heck aren't going to illustrate or animate a flight path for him simply because you or anyone demands it. Go ahead and put "scare quotes" around him without referencing his name all you want but he is a real person and a real witness whose personal credibility you are forced to attack in order to defend mass murder.

I haven't accused him of anything yet, other than giving a confusing account. Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? I really resent that, don't you know. However, considering the source it really doesn't matter.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Ask him yourself.

I'm not interested in wasting my time.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I told you all I know.

You've just identified the major problem with all of this.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You asking for clarification over and over does not refute the 13 times corroborated north side witnesses PROVING the plane did not hit and PROVING that Roosevelt DID see the plane flying away.

Your standard of proof is pathetic, yet amusing at the same time.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The fact that he saw the plane AT ALL is enough and the witnesses that Erik Dihle mentioned are even MORE confirmation of what all the north side witnesses already proved beyond a reasonable doubt without ANY flyover witnesses.

Only in your deluded imagination.

More of the same type of babble snipped

You are even deluded about the impact of this thread. It simply exposes your delusions to eliminate any doubt of what I previously said that was snipped because the Mods here won't allow it. You are being exposed for what you are and what you say. It should stay near the top until there is sufficient time for your Operation Accountability results to come in when you can post the results WITH PROOF.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by Ligon

You're saying that you agree that the data released by the NTSB, which is alleged to have come from the "black box" of "Flight 77" which "crashed into the Pentagon", is fraudulent?

The argument I am making is quite simple, and is completely isolated from the accuracy of the NTSB data.

1) On the one hand we are told by CIT the "official" flight path puts the plane too high over the Navy Annex to be able to hit the light poles and continue into the building

2) On the other hand we are told by CIT the "official" flight path puts the plane too low, and actually blocked from view by the Navy Annex.

3) The Route 27 video presents a completely different third "official" flight path.

4) We are continuously told by CIT that there cannot be any deviation in the "official" flight path or else a military deception is proven.

The point is that there is no consistency in the "official" flight path that CIT uses to eliminate witnesses from the witness pool. They pick and choose which one they need to remove testimony that is not conveniant to them.

reply to post by Ligon


I don't know, nor can I speak for discom, but that side-view "NTSB" depiction needs to be checked for chain of custody, because it certainly looks like it's been doctored, compared to this NTSB depiction:

(Please note that when the animation stops, the airplane has yet to strike the Pentagon, it is still yards away. Airspeed reads 462 KIAS. It shows at most a 5-7 degree right bank. The Heading is 070 [magnetic]. Notice also, from the 2000 foot altitude, as the airplane is rolled out of the descending turn for the final run, you can see the yoke manipulation indicating a very amateurish pilot, but nonetheless able to hit his intended target. Also, look at the airspeed IN the turn, very reasonable, it increases during the rapid straight-in descent).



What that side-view diagram seems to show is a "not-to-scale" depiction....thus, exagerrating the angle of descent. THAT is what the P4T used to "prove" the incredible G-force for the level off. The YT video shows otherwise, that it was a gradual descent from 2000 feet, miles out.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I don't know, nor can I speak for discom, but that side-view "NTSB" depiction needs to be checked for chain of custody, because it certainly looks like it's been doctored, compared to this NTSB depiction:

I do not in any way endorse that image I linked earlier as being any way accurate.

I believe it was created by either Craig or PfffT, most likely based on misinterpretation of data.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
What that side-view diagram seems to show is a "not-to-scale" depiction....thus, exagerrating the angle of descent. THAT is what the P4T used to "prove" the incredible G-force for the level off. The YT video shows otherwise, that it was a gradual descent from 2000 feet, miles out.

LOL, nice one, you've just posted the "official" NoC flight path

I believe the problem there is that the map has not been rotated to compensate for magnetic declination.

From memory the NTSB data actually stops before AA77 reached the Navy Annex. I may be wrong but I cbf fact checking my statement right now, it's 2:20am.

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by Ligon

You're saying that you agree that the data released by the NTSB, which is alleged to have come from the "black box" of "Flight 77" which "crashed into the Pentagon", is fraudulent?

The argument I am making is quite simple, and is completely isolated from the accuracy of the NTSB data.

So what?

Your argument does not even begin to remotely refute the evidence proving a deception.

1) On the one hand we are told by CIT the "official" flight path puts the plane too high over the Navy Annex to be able to hit the light poles and continue into the building

Quite true, and yes it is evidence that the data is invalid.

2) On the other hand we are told by CIT the "official" flight path puts the plane too low, and actually blocked from view by the Navy Annex.

Heading and altitude are two different values and yes it is true that both of these values as reported by the NTSB are irreconcilable with the witnesses and/or the physical damage proving the data is not valid.

3) The Route 27 video presents a completely different third "official" flight path.

Huh?

There is nothing but an ambiguous blob visible in that video so it is impossible to distinguish heading at all.

You have no point.

4) We are continuously told by CIT that there cannot be any deviation in the "official" flight path or else a military deception is proven.

I'd say I agree especially when discussing the NTSB provided alleged black box data and/or the physical damage.

The point is that there is no consistency in the "official" flight path that CIT uses to eliminate witnesses from the witness pool. They pick and choose which one they need to remove testimony that is not conveniant to them.

How in the heck do irreconcilable inconsistencies in the govt provided data prove the unanimously corroborated firsthand witness accounts incorrect about their placement of the plane on the north side of the gas station? How does it prove that Roosevelt Roberts and the witnesses that Erik Dihle referenced lied or hallucinated the plane flying away?

THAT is your argument.

Too funny.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
How in the heck do irreconcilable inconsistencies in the govt provided data

Are you now saying that there are multiple "official" flight paths?

Can you please direct me to the official flight path that puts the plane low and obstructed by the Navy Annex? That is not what the NTSB data shows.

I would like to see that one please.

Originally posted by discombobulator
I believe it was created by either Craig or PfffT, most likely based on misinterpretation of data.

It's infamously known as the "hockey stick". All it proves is that there are people dishonest enough to pass it off as being a valid representation of anything other than deceptive math and the ability to operate CGI software.