New Pentagon Video Detailing Actual Flight Path Over Naval Annex

reply to post by rich23


More waste of bandwidth.....

You need a strawman for an avatar rather than a cat.

All of those fighters you mentioned would not have been on alert even if they had been at their normal base of operations. Now, if you're intelligent enough and can do some research you can find out why.

It's been almost 8 years since 9/11 and I'm tired of wasting my time looking up links and posting information that people just ignore as if it doesn't exist and then bring up the exact same issue over and over again.

People who post stuff that you think I didn't provide an answer to are being WILLFULLY IGNORANT as the correct information has been in the public domain for several years now. There is nothing new anymore it's just recycled junk over and over again. People who post the kind of stuff in your examples are not looking for legitimate answers at all, they are simply posting false information for _____ reasons. Therefore, most of my replies are cryptic and to the point without elaboration. Many of the posts don't even deserve that, hence they are ignored.

[edit on 27-6-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by BigSarge
It was dipping slightly left and right, it was not steady, so it may very well have been turning and/or not flying in a direct path.

If it was dipping and unsteady and probably turning, as you describe, then how did it manage to fly a straight flight-path to knock down the five light poles?

I had sent BigSarge a message asking if he'd call me but he replied on the board that he does not want to be independently interviewed. Unfortunately I have a feeling we are not going to be hearing from BigSarge anymore. Hopefully I'm wrong. But this statement about an unsteady/turning/not direct flight path, as well as other things he has said led me to believe he was being honest. He hasn't said anything so far that has convinced me he is a liar. Of course that could change if he comes back and his story starts morphing but as I said, I doubt he will.

Assuming that he is honest, what's clear is that he did not view the evidence presented in the video before deciding to jump in on the conversation.

We know that because he said this:

Anytime I hear people try and say that it was missles or whatever other incorrect conspiracy theory out there I feel the need to give my point of view, of what I witnessed.
BigSarge quote source

Naturally that can't be what compelled him to post a response here because clearly there is nothing in the video that says anything about missiles. BigSarge also came off as rather oblivious to the fact that the video includes interviews with multiple Arlington Cemetery workers who were right next to where he claims he was, but with a perfectly clear view of the approach of the plane completely unobstructed by trees.

I think he would find that very compelling and if he is honest, my guess is that he has now viewed the interviews and understands how he is not able to refute their accounts, and in fact corroborates them. Which could only mean that he would be rather unnerved having found out for the first time about the incredible implications of what he witnessed that day.

We do know for a fact that if he was where he says he was, in section 70, that he would not have been able to see the alleged impact and he would not have been able to see the plane on the official flight path at the official speed for more than a fraction of a second, if at all.

Here is an image taken on 9/11 from the exact section where he says he was located on the very edge of the cemetery:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dd00f109e614.jpg[/atsimg]

Here's what it looks like from further back in the same section:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c35535e90acb.jpg[/atsimg]

Here is a gif showing the entire area revealing how he would not have a view of the official flight path at all:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a46870a7f41e.gif[/atsimg]

I walked all over this section analyzing all the potential views and I can promise you that there is no place at all that would allow you to see the plane on the official flight path for more than a mere fraction of a second, particularly at the officially reported speed of 460 knots.

So if BigSarge is honest, we know that the plane HAD to have been on the north side approach to remotely match his account.

Here is a view of the Navy Annex from the outer edge of that section by Patton Drive where it would have been the best possible vantage of the plane on the official southern approach after it passed the Navy Annex during its (impossible) high speed descent and pull up to be low and level enough to hit light pole 1:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/85997b575184.jpg[/atsimg]

And here it is from closer inside that section:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/27fcb36719b9.jpg[/atsimg]

There is no view of the official south side approach from this location at all.

Because remember, the official data and physical damage absolutely 100% require the plane to be entirely south of Columbia Pike and even completely south of the VDOT building across the street from the Navy Annex:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ea0e757efa6b.jpg[/atsimg]

BigSarge would have only been able to catch a quick flash if anything at all if the official story was true. He already understood that a plane significantly south of the Navy Annex would have been obscured to him which is evident from this statement he made:

Had it flown far to the left of the Annex, it would have been directly over me, which it was not. Had it been far to the right of the Annex, it would have been obscured from my view by trees.
BigSarge quote source

BigSarge already knew that he would not have been able to see the plane if it was entirely south of Columbia Pike and the VDOT building as required by the official story. But like most witnesses, he was simply unaware of the required official story flight path.

Of course his claim of seeing bodies during the clean up is not surprising. We know that people were killed inside the Pentagon and BigSarge already understands how he was not able to actually identify the bodies and he even said as much here:

I would find it very hard to believe that it was an empty plane with no passengers, but I guess it could be possible as none of them were identifiable.
BigSarge quote source

His claim of seeing plane parts is not surprising either as we know there were a relatively few amount of parts that were photographed. Obviously BigSarge would have no way of knowing if these parts came from Flight 77 or tail# N644AA or whether or not they were in the building before the event.

Same goes for suitcases, ID's, and passports. All of this is stuff that could have belonged to Pentagon employees and/or been actually planted inside the building prior to the event and BigSarge would have no way of determining this.

But if he is honest and he was really in section 70 of Arlington Cemetery, his account of seeing the plane AT ALL is evidence in support of the north side approach proving the plane did NOT hit the light poles or the building.

His description of the behavior of the plane as quoted in the beginning also exclusively supports a banking north side approach:

It was dipping slightly left and right, it was not steady, so it may very well have been turning and/or not flying in a direct path.
BigSarge quote source

The official story REQUIRES a perfectly straight, direct, and steady path at this point and the official speed of 460 knots would not give him any time to perceive any sort of slight "dip" right or left at all.

Thanks for adding to the discussion BigSarge, if you haven't viewed the video with all the interviews I am talking about please go to the original post of this thread and view it. I would also like to personally invite you to the conference I'll be speaking at in Arlington on Saturday July 11th at 10:00 am. Full itinerary and details about location can be downloaded
here.

What you witnessed has astronomical implications on a world historical level. I highly recommend that you attend. Even better what I'd REALLY like to do is meet you at ANC on Friday July 10th in order to document your firsthand eyewitness account on video on-location in the same place you saw the plane just like we have with so many other witnesses.

Unfortunately people will consider your account tainted since you are now aware of where all the other witnesses at ANC and in the surrounding area place the plane and aware of how this fatally contradicts the official story.

Nonetheless if you are an honest witness who is willing to go on record with your real name, I'd be happy to independently document your account.











[edit on 27-6-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Reheat
Now, if you're intelligent enough and can do some research you can find out why.

This from the same person who thought he knew what he was talking about when it came to Operation Northwoods, or when he said this:

Originally posted by Reheat
It's been almost 9 years since 9/11

9 years? How the Helsinki can it be almost 9 years when it hasn't even been 8???

Originally posted by Reheat
I'm tired of wasting my time looking up links and posting information that people just ignore as if it doesn't exist

Ah, like when I posted information about Cheney/Rumsfeld, et al and how they tried getting us to go to war with Russia by saying Russia was amassing weapons of mass destruction in the 1970's, just like they did in the 2000's, but you ignored it as if it doesn't exist. Hypocrite much?

Originally posted by Reheat
There is nothing new anymore it's just recycled junk over and over again.

Then stop wasting your time and ours by reading or posting in our threads. That will solve that problem.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Reheat
Northwoods did not involved killing or even harming anyone. The person who wrote it was fired.

False. Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs, signed by the Chairman of the Joint chiefs, and then sent to the Secretary of Defense. President Kennedy then removed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs for approving the operation. A little research would have informed you of this.

How do you know who actually drafted it? You don't. What I said was correct so don't go off half cocked pretending I don't know about it.

Here's a summation of it and it is not a valid comparison to 9/11 at all. It did not involving harming American Citizens and comparing it to 9/11 is disingenuous at best.

Originally posted by Reheat
As if we need another "truther" Utube video to prove something.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_Ah, so you refuse to look at any evidence that goes against your beliefs? Thank you for showing people you have no credibility.

Who said I didn't view it? It a good thing jumping to conclusions is not a cliff or you would be severely injured. I didn't ignore it at all, it's someones opinion and I wasn't impressed.

Originally posted by Reheat
Got any evidence? As if I really needed to ask...

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I posted some evidence. You refuse to look at it. Your fault.

You post a freakin' Utube video of someone giving an opinion and call that evidence? Evidence is obviously not what you think it is....

[edit on 27-6-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 27-6-2009 by Reheat]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Thanks for pointing out my typo. I'll post when and if I am so inclined to do so. I suspect you know what you can do with your suggestion.

Originally posted by Reheat
I never once said I knew exactly what their mission was on 9/11, but I'll guarantee you it was not for some nefarious purpose,

Logic school must have been closed this morning. Instead of Reheat going to his scheduled class, he chose to post here and contradict himself. Again.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Reheat
I never once said I knew exactly what their mission was on 9/11, but I'll guarantee you it was not for some nefarious purpose,

Logic school must have been closed this morning. Instead of Reheat going to his scheduled class, he chose to post here and contradict himself. Again.

It was canceled for today and a school to teach common sense instead. It is obvious you didn't attend.

How many people would have to be involved in this vast expanding conspiracy for a NEACP aircraft to be involved? What purpose would it serve?

Come on now, don't be shy, take a guess.....



[edit on 27-6-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by Reheat
How many people would have to be involved in this vast expanding conspiracy for a NEACP aircraft to be involved? What purpose would it serve?

I don't know.

Originally posted by Reheat
Come on now, don't be shy, take a guess.....

I don't know.

See, I did attend the school of common sense. When I'm not sure about something, I state that I don't know.

Your desperation really shows, Reheat, when you so openly contradict yourself, like you did.

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
So, don't sit there and say you know exactly what that E-4B over DC was doing and that it wasn't nefarious. Unless you were actually onboard the E-4B, you have no clue.

I'll do damn well what I please, thank-you. I never once said I knew exactly what their mission was on 9/11, but I'll guarantee you it was not for some nefarious purpose, which you seem to presume. That is a preposterous and evil suggestion unless you have proof and you have none. How dare you even make such outrageous suggestions. The depths some people will go to to reinforce delusions have no moral or ethical bounds, none whatsoever!

Get over yourself man. Seriously. Are you gonna U2U me those answers or not?

Just as was stated, you were not on one of those E-4B's. Your assumption is pointless.

However, since you guarantee it was not for some nefarious purpose, go ahead and include your proof of that in the U2U, since you dont wanna clog the thread up.

Originally posted by Reheat
How do you know who actually drafted it?

That would be where real research comes in handy:

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Reheat
it is not a valid comparison to 9/11 at all

Oh really?

This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on a foreign government, namely Cuba.

Source is the above Wiki link.

With 9/11, the phony evidence blames the terrorist acts on muslim extremests that reside in any country including our own, instead of blaming a single country.

You'd be just as fooled had Operation Northwoods been acted upon, just as you were fooled with 9/11. How you can sit in that chair and think that the government wouldn't do 9/11 when they had already concocted something similar in the form of Operation Northwoods, is beyond me.

Originally posted by Reheat
You post a freakin' Utube video of someone giving an opinion and call that evidence? Evidence is obviously not what you think it is...

Now I know you're being dishonest and you did not watch it. It's not "someone's" opinion. It's an excerpt from a program that was on the History Channel. And you go tell the CIA that it's just their "opinion" when they said that Rumsfeld/Cheney were lying about Russia and Iraq amassing weapons of mass destruction. I want to see what they say to you.

reply to post by P1DrummerBoy


That was priceless!

Back on topic, I haven't seen one person counter CIT's evidence posted in the OP. Doesn't anyone have any evidence they'd like to share that attempts to debunk the evidence in the OP?

reply to post by _BoneZ_


You call Wikipedia real research. Pardon me, I'm ROFLMAO and can't type any more.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Back on topic, I haven't seen one person counter CIT's evidence posted in the OP.

Now who's ignoring evidence. It debunks itself. Terry Morin kills this crap and it's in the video. He was in the best position of all to determine the path as he was looking directly in line with the direction it flew.

His statements along with Paik's non misinterpreted statements debunk this crap. So does the FDR, the Radar tapes, ATC audio tapes, the Tribby Video, the Looney Photographs and the fact that NOBODY witnessed a flyover.

If that's not enough the book "Firefight" supports what the poster Big Sarge said.

You've been duped by a cult!

reply to post by tezzajw


The fact that you say you don't know simply indicates that you wish to remain willfully ignorant. That's fine, but don't spew your ignorant implications toward people who have sworn to defend their Country and it's Constitution, not kill or assist in the killing of that Country's innocent citizens.

Desperate indeed! Considering the ignorance displayed in this thread there is nothing to be desperate about. It's nothing but a joke and the joke is on those who buy this fraudulent crap propagated by a cult of ignorance.

reply to post by Reheat


Not sure what reality you're living in but Paik illustrated the path exactly like he described it:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a48ce0584d40.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ce431c080d32.jpg[/atsimg]


...which has the plane directly over the Navy Annex or completely NORTH of Columbia Pike as always described by Terry Morin fatal to the official data, reports, and physical damage:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb67f1311797.gif[/atsimg]


Fact: the Navy Annex is on the north side of Columbia Pike.

Fact: the official data, reports, and physical damage require the plane to be completely on the south side of Columbia Pike.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ea0e757efa6b.jpg[/atsimg]

Fact: Ed Paik has the plane flying directly over the Navy Annex.

Fact: Terry Morin has the plane flying directly over the Navy Annex.

Fact: Terry Morin says there is "no frippin way" the plane was on the south side of Columbia Pike like this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7c041ece3be5.gif[/atsimg]

Fact: Many others in a good position to tell have the plane flying directly over the Navy Annex.

Fact: A flight path directly over the Navy Annex proves the official data and reports fraudulent and is irreconcilable with the physical damage proving the plane flew away after the explosion as reported by Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr.












[edit on 27-6-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]