| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Are there any flyover witnesses? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 16 2008, 02:13 AM (8,690 Views) | |
| Smiling_Gorilla | Jan 20 2008, 05:39 PM Post #76 |
|
troll
|
Condescension will get you nowhere. I watched the video. As I said previously in this thread, Calum Douglas, who gave the presentation for "Pilots for Truth", said that the raw FDR data shows the plane traveling at the correct angle to knock over the light poles and pass through the hole in the building. What didn't match up to the FDR data was the animation, which indicates an error in the animation software's interpretation of the file, not fabricated FDR data. You are basing your conclusions on the animation, not the raw data. The animation does not accurately represent the raw data. |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 20 2008, 06:04 PM Post #77 |
|
You are wrong. The presentation I linked you to is based off the raw data, not the animation. Please look up what altitude and descent angle means and watch the presentation. I am not being condescending, your reply indicates that you are not familiar with the meaning of the words or all that is reported in the raw data from the FDR. |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 20 2008, 09:54 PM Post #78 |
|
Why stop with only the witnesses who were at the Citgo. They weren't the only ones who saw the plane that day, were they? Lagasse and turcios each plotted their own lines, and the distance between the 2 paths in real life is about 300 feet. That's more than double the wingspan. Isn't it therefore possible that due to perspective differences, someone at a different location (away from the Citgo, perhaps) might plot it in yet another location? ETA: that link did not include a list. When you say "tens of witnesses", precisely how many do you mean? Edited by nicepants, Jan 20 2008, 09:55 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Avenger | Jan 20 2008, 10:23 PM Post #79 |
![]()
|
Still saw the plane north of the CITGO, just like Brooks.
Actually, they didn't stop with only the CITGO witnesses. You keep forgetting about Boger and Stephens. |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 20 2008, 10:56 PM Post #80 |
|
The fact that the eyewitnesses describe the flight path in locations 300 feet apart is enough to raise questions, regardless of which side of the citgo they reported it on. Just because it was reported on the same side of the station doesn't mean that the flight paths are corroborated. |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 21 2008, 12:26 AM Post #81 |
|
It means it was on the north side of the citgo. What you are failing to realize is that there is ZERO room for error in the official flight path but there is plenty of room for error on the part of the witnesses. They all place it far from the official flight path. THAT is the problem here. The witnesses are closer to each other than the official flight path which is 500 to 800 feet from where they all place it. The witnesses have it all within the same general vicinity which is drastically far from the physical damage. You are using spin and deception as a method to cloud basic logic. There is no logic in suggesting the plane was many hundreds of feet FURTHER from where they all place it because they were off by a mere 100 foot margin of error from each other. The logical thing to do would be to make a flight path based on all the witness statements. Yet you simply dismiss all of their testimony and accept a flight path that is drastically different from what they all say based solely on your confirmation bias. Shameful. |
![]() |
|
| bileduct | Jan 21 2008, 12:57 AM Post #82 |
|
Craig, Please answer these questions: 1) Lagasse utterly refuted, to your face, your placement of clipped light poles and Lloyd's taxi under a south side approach and instead placed them under the north side approach. You offered no argument to him at the time and instead chose to superimpose the covers of the Pentagon Building Performance Report and the 9/11 Commission Report, neither of which describe the placement of the clipped light poles and Lloyd's taxi. Why is Legasse mistaken about the placement of the light poles and Lloyd's taxi when a) you consider him to be a credible witness for the north side approach, and b) he was present and had access to the entire scene on the day of the attack? 2) What evidence do you have that the clipped light poles and Lloyd's taxi were under the south side approach as you claim? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that pinpoints specific light poles to specific positions that has not been deduced from diagrams or flight path animations? 3) Your video claims that the clipped light poles were placed on the ground at least hours, if not the night before the attack. Are you suggesting that traffic had been driving around the light pole laying in the middle of the road and Lloyd's taxi the entire morning prior to the attack? Do you have any witnesses that place these light poles on the ground prior to the attack? 4) You speak strongly about corroboration. Dozens of witnesses corroborate a plane colliding with the Pentagon, including people that even you believe are credible witnesses. NOBODY has corroborated a flyover theory. NOBODY. Why is this? Please provide links to all of the evidence you reference with your reponse. Thankyou. Edited by bileduct, Jan 21 2008, 12:59 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 21 2008, 12:58 AM Post #83 |
|
Who said we "stopped"? We will interview anyone who is willing to go on record regarding the flight path and the new presentation we will release next month will reveal new smoking gun testimony further proving the NTSB and RADES flight path fraudulent.
The physical damage path is 500 to 800 feet from ALL of them! They are both within about 100 feet margin of error of each other if the plane was a bit closer than Lagasse said and a bit further than Turcios said. The negligible discrepancy makes perfect sense with their different perspectives.
Yes it does. |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 21 2008, 01:20 AM Post #84 |
|
Lagasse admitted that he did not witness the plane hit any poles and he would not have been physically able to see the cab from his location at all. Why would you expect him to be 100% accurate about the placement of something he didn't even witness? This has nothing to do with is "credibility" whatsoever. Plus the north side claim is corroborated by all the other witnesses so it has been scientifically proven to be true. The light poles would have been a relatively insignificant and barely notable part of a very chaotic and emotional day for him. I can't imagine how anyone would have thought to take note as to the exact location of any of the poles during such an event. It makes perfect sense Lagasse would assume and insist that the physical damage (that he did not witness) would line up with where he saw the plane fly (which he did witness). If he understood there was a contradiction in this regard he probably would have never given me the interview in the first place. The fact that he insisted the poles (that he did not witness) line up with where he saw the plane simply speaks as to how certain he is about where he saw the plane.
The available photographs demonstrate the location of the downed light poles. Do your own research in this regard if you doubt it and prove me wrong. I have not had a single researcher on either side of this discussion doubt the placement of the downed poles or the notion that they couldn't have been hit from a plane on the north side. The fact that the official reports all completely ignore the light poles indicates a clear reluctance to address this anomalous yet significant physical damage.
No. That is our hypothesis based on the evidence proving the plane could not have hit the poles. Most of the poles were hidden off to the side, yes probably in advance but we believe that pole 1 was dropped or dragged from a shoulder minutes AFTER the violent event after the feds had blocked traffic. The images show the feds surrounding the scene and blocking traffic. See a time line for this here. Even if somebody saw them moving around a pole they wouldn't question it or know if they were moving a pole that was already there or actually staging the scene.
You have no idea what people really reported and the only true evidence for this was confiscated and permanently sequestered clearly indicating a cover-up of this critical information that you seek. Plus you are forgetting about the 2nd plane witnesses. If some people report a plane "chasing" or "shadowing" the AA jet and "veering away" immediately after the explosion by your logic why doesn't everyone see or report this? Regardless the answer to your question is answered in full in the OP of this thread. I guess you didn't bother to read it. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 21 2008, 01:30 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| bileduct | Jan 21 2008, 01:58 AM Post #85 |
|
Craig, Do you still stand by your assessment of the location of the downed light poles as detailed here? http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread309850/pg1 Is it your contention that the light poles fell as detailed in the photo Approximate Position of Where Poles Fell? |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 21 2008, 02:04 AM Post #86 |
|
Approximately yes. That image was made by Russell Pickering quite a while ago but I am not aware of anything that contradicts it significantly. This is a good one to show the poles downed and still standing in relation to the 124 foot wingspan with both paths. ![]() |
![]() |
|
| bileduct | Jan 21 2008, 02:30 AM Post #87 |
|
How approximate is approximately? Compare and contrast: Russell Picking's photo which you stand by - ![]() Another map of the downed light poles you have produced - ![]() Both are completely different! Pole 5 does not appear in the second diagram. Poles 3 and 4 are further to the south than shown in the second diagram. The first diagram shows the poles either side of the south off ramp. The second diagram shows the poles either side of the west overpass. Poles 1 and 2 are further to the north than shown in the second diagram. The first diagram shows the poles either side of the east overpass. The second diagram shows the poles either side of the north off ramp. The second diagram shows a downed pole close to the west wall of the Pentagon. This pole does not appear in the first diagram. Why the discrepencies? Edited by bileduct, Jan 21 2008, 02:34 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 21 2008, 02:38 AM Post #88 |
|
Really? I don't see how they are much different. Nor do I get your point in relation to the north side evidence. Are you suggesting that the physical damage could have been caused by a plane on the north side? |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 21 2008, 09:55 AM Post #89 |
|
I don't know how to get this point across to you that one of your witnesses is WRONG! Look at the flight paths of the 2 I compared...there is about 300 feet difference. That's a problem and calls into question the accuracy of their reports. Sure, they both reported it north of the citgo, but in very different locations. Just because both locations are NOC doesn't mean their accounts collaborate. Example: Headings of 070, 060, and 050 are all less than 090 but they are not the same heading. Just because you pick a specific point and say "all of them agree that it was north of this point" doesn't mean that the flight paths are corroborated. "they were off by a mere 100 foot margin of error from each other." The lines had 300 feet between them. I don't "dismiss" their testimony based on this, I say that it requires further investigation because clearly at least one of them is wrong about where the plane was. That's not a confirmation bias, that's logic. Edited by nicepants, Jan 21 2008, 09:56 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Smiling_Gorilla | Jan 21 2008, 11:05 AM Post #90 |
|
troll
|
If you are going to claim I'm wrong, then you are also admitting that "Pilots for Truth", the authors of the very presentation you linked to, are wrong. The information I provided came directly from them. "In the raw file, the flight path shows the plane traveling at the correct angle to knock over the light poles and pass through the hole in the building" - Calum Douglas Flight 77: The Flight Data Recorder Investigation Files (statement made at 21:16) You can cry "altitude and descent angle" until you're blue in the face. It's Pilots for Truth who says the plane was on the correct path and angle. Take it up with them. |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 21 2008, 12:13 PM Post #91 |
![]()
|
Um you're the one who is supposed to be crying about it, not us. Why don't YOU take it up with Pilots for 9/11 Truth... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3752900324142560520&hl=en |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 22 2008, 02:50 AM Post #92 |
|
Deleted User
|
They got Boger and Stephens, who both managed to see it NOC and both failed to see the impact. They also talked to other witnesses away from the Citgo, but the closer to impact it seems the further from believability theyget. Sucherman and Walter... USA Today Witness parade, liars and plants. Lloyd with the light pole fragment knocked through his windshield - CIT says that Lloy'ds 'the first known accomplice' and there are simply NO light pole witnesses. And Father McGraw... I coulda sworn by his placement in their video, his words, and his gestures he was a south path witness which also don't exist according to CIT. But as Craig has forcefully clarified to me, McGraw is a no-path witness. The thing he described as 'controlled and straight,' from 20 feet over his head to into the building, is not a flight path, but apparently God's penis or something else. Good observations on differences between NOC accounts, and on perspective. Not sure why Lagasse and Turcios' path disagree slightly, nor why Lagasse specifically describes a silver red lettered AA jet, Brooks a blue-lettered whitish United Airlines jet, and CIT is not arguing for a white jet with a blue stripe and vague or no lettering. The fallibility of human memory I guess... There are a finite number of published witnesses to the impact, numbered in the tens, near 100 I'd say but I've never counted either. Aldo's list is probably mostly accurate - is that this thread or another? Anyway... |
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 22 2008, 10:09 AM Post #93 |
|
I see you still haven't bothered to look up what the words mean and to watch the presentation to see how these values are what causes a major problem for the official story. You look silly. |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 22 2008, 10:34 AM Post #94 |
|
If you have proof that the USA today witnesses are liars and plants, I'm sure everyone here would love to see it. It's not like the area around the Pentagon was closed down that day, there were people around the area who would have seen the plane/impact. There's no reason to suggest that EVERY witness is a liar or a plant. There are approximately 20 people who report seeing the plane hit light poles, and there is no one who contradicts Lloyd's statements. The fallability of human memory would certainly explain the difference between Turcios' & lagasse's flight paths. It makes me wonder just how fallable their accounts are which is why I think they need to be investigated further. I don't believe it's logical to suggest that with all of the other details the NOC witnesses got wrong, that they could be expected to remember details about the flight path of a jet flying low and fast. |
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 22 2008, 12:18 PM Post #95 |
|
Where have all these new members who have never posted at any previous LC board coming from? Please show how those two images are "completely different" or acknowledge that you like to lie a lot. |
![]() |
|
| bileduct | Jan 22 2008, 12:37 PM Post #96 |
|
Actually, I'll acknowledge that I was looking at the second photo on the wrong angle when compared to the first. Funny how in truther world you are either telling the truth or a lie. I made a mistake. Simple as that. |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 22 2008, 12:48 PM Post #97 |
![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 22 2008, 05:20 PM Post #98 |
|
You guys only call them "mistakes" when you're called out on them. If I dedicated the time I could point out lots of "mistakes" that you - and all the other new member names I've never heard of on any other 9/11 forum (odd?) - have made......... It all comes down to whether or not someone challenges. Although I must admit that is nowhere near as bad as anything I've seen from Adam to date........... |
![]() |
|
| Mr_Gullible | Jan 22 2008, 05:43 PM Post #99 |
|
FWIW, CIT members seem to be dominating the Pentagon threads and discussions. I have no problem with this. But I also perceive there to be no room for any challenges or calling obvious ERRORS....just what they are..... errors. Better to keep ones mouth shout, and be a silent fool, than to open ones mouth and confirm it! Truth in events and timelines make complete LOGICAL sense when enough hidden data makes the "perceived" impossible .. absolutely POSSIBLE ! Silent observers...study on...think outside the box.... |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 22 2008, 07:29 PM Post #100 |
![]()
|
Oh gee, thanks Mr. Gullible. Let us know when you have something of substance to contribute instead of silent observations. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |










7:27 PM Jul 10