| Viewing Single Post From: Question for CIT regarding Edward Paik | |
|---|---|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 26 2008, 03:28 AM |
|
You are 100% wrong. JREFERS have made some sad attempts to dismiss Edward Paik's account as not supporting the north of the citgo claim. This is completely false. Edward Paik drew three versions of the flight path:    Plus he described where the plane came from and where it went which firmly establishes the angle of approach.   He is corroborated on the approach by Mrs. Hubbard, Cindy Reyes, Veronica, and Jamal who were all further back. He is corroborated on the north of Columbia Pike by all the CITGO witnesses. The deceptive flight path that you and the JREFERS have pulled out of your asses while completely ignoring what Edward drew and described is this:  Except that is NOT the angle that Edward describes or drew in any of his images. You are simply straightening it out to make it end up south of the CITGO! In fact if the plane did what you have illustrated it would have hit the Sheraton. Here is a more accurate extension of Edward's flight path demonstrating the true angle he describes in relation to the official flight path:  North of the CITGO. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 26 2008, 03:28 AM.
|
 |
|
| Question for CIT regarding Edward Paik · Pentagon | |
8:49 AM Dec 6
