| 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! |
| Problem with PentaCon Video; Perhaps the producers could answer | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 18 2008, 08:06 PM (1,142 Views) | |
| nicepants | Jan 18 2008, 08:06 PM Post #1 |
|
I noticed that the "noc witness flight path" portrayed in the PentaCon video is not the same path drawn by Robert. Here is the path drawn by Robert...who specifically states that the plane flew OVER the corner of the gas station.  And here is the path drawn by CIT.  I'm just wondering if the creators can explain why their path differs from the path drawn by one of their witnesses. |
 |
 
|
| Avenger | Jan 18 2008, 08:39 PM Post #2 |
|
What about the other witnesses? |
|
|
| 22205 | Jan 18 2008, 08:44 PM Post #3 |
Arlingtonian
|
looks to me like both paths are the same. its the perspective of the photos that is different. the one distinction i should point out is that one was drawn by hand by a person standing up, while the other was made on a computer. but in both pics the paths line up to the same place (on the pentagon). in CIT's graphic the line is drawn slightly to the left of the citgo, but i assume that line coincides with the fuselage, which would still put the right wing over the citgo as stated by the witnesses. |
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 19 2008, 12:07 AM Post #4 |
|
The line made by CIT is still to the left of where the witness drew it. First he said it flew over the corner of the building and "between the two trees" then he states it was the right wing that was over the edge of the canopy. Yes, the perspectives are different, but the paths clearly are not identical. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 19 2008, 12:22 AM Post #5 |
|
 Measure 124 feet from the CITGO, consider statements from all of the witnesses at the station and draw a line that you think better represents this evidence. We'd be happy to entertain your honest interpretation. |
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 19 2008, 12:32 AM Post #6 |
|
Why draw one line when the witnesses draw 2 different ones? 124 feet is wingtip to wingtip. So unless your line is designed to represent the left wingtip of the aircraft, you've not drawn the path according to witness #2. Here are drawings from 2 of your different witnesses. They don't seem to match up. 
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 19 2008, 12:34 AM Post #7 |
|
Witnesses have different perspectives, the wingspan of a 757 is 124 feet, and they all place it completely on the north side. Feel free to make your own composite based off all the citgo witnesses' testimony. We'd be happy to entertain it. Thanks. |
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 19 2008, 12:40 AM Post #8 |
|
Witness #2 said that part of the plane was OVER citgo, so that's not "completely on the north side". Witness #1 didn't even mention the citgo. No need to make a composite, the witnesses drew the lines so there's no reason for them to be moved. Yes, witnesses have different perspectives, but the photos they drew on are identical perspectives, yet both drew a different path. Edited by nicepants, Jan 19 2008, 12:41 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 19 2008, 12:48 AM Post #9 |
|
I have no idea who you are talking about. They are real people and they all have names. All of them place the plane entirely on the north side. Perhaps you didn't watch the interviews. Watch them and quote them direct to prove your point because you are wrong. Of course you have to make a composite. That's what we did. The wingspan of a 757 is a 124 feet. Measure that from the corner of the citgo, listen to the witness account that you are referring to about what part of the plane was where, and then report back with the specifics in this regard. The data is all there. You just need to report it. Thanks. |
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 19 2008, 12:52 AM Post #10 |
|
26:45 Robert (#2) says: "It seemed to be just over the canopy here. Just over the corner of this canopy" |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 19 2008, 12:57 AM Post #11 |
|
Ohhhh! You're talking about Robert Turcios! Cool. Keep watching nicepants. He clarifies further when he says it was the tip of the right wing "just over the canopy" and that the entire plane was on the north side. Measure 124 feet from there and make your own composite please. Thanks. |
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 19 2008, 01:14 AM Post #12 |
|
He says the main fuselage was "just over this tree". If the plane was going towards the pentagon, that would mean that 10-15ft of the right wing was over the canopy (if the tree is 50-45 feet north of the canopy, respectively). 124 feet from the edge of the canopy is still about 200 feet away from where your other witnesses drew their flight path. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 19 2008, 01:18 AM Post #13 |
|
Yeah so? Are witnesses computers? They all had different perspectives and all place the plane on the north side. All scenarios contradict the official story 100% and make perfect sense when considering their perspectives. Robert was on the south side of the station so it makes sense that he would think the plane was closer. NONE place the plane on the south side. Thanks for helping to underscore this. If you don't think our composite in regards to this data is accurate please make your own and post it. Thanks. |
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 19 2008, 01:23 AM Post #14 |
|
I don't think one single composite accurately portrays the claims of all of your witnesses. Especially when 2 of them differ by approximately 300 feet! Which one of them was right? Because they were both talking about the same plane, so they can't both be right. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 19 2008, 01:26 AM Post #15 |
|
Considering the 124 foot wingspan and 100 or so feet in different perspectives between them they match perfecty. They all sure contradict the south side flight path that's for sure! I sincerely thank you for creating this thread. It's been very helpful in solidifying the north side claim. |
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 19 2008, 01:35 AM Post #16 |
|
-double post-
Edited by nicepants, Jan 19 2008, 01:36 AM.
|
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 19 2008, 01:36 AM Post #17 |
|
So you're saying that a different perspective could cause someone to report the plane being 100 feet away from where it actually was? Edit: That would be 224 feet including the wingspan. Edited by nicepants, Jan 19 2008, 01:41 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Avenger | Jan 19 2008, 11:51 AM Post #18 |
|
He's saying he still saw the plane north of the CITGO. Are you trying to say he could've been mistaken and that he actually saw the plane on the other side? What about Lagasse, Brooks, Boger, and Stephens? Why are you focusing on the person who says it was closer to the CITGO? |
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 19 2008, 12:12 PM Post #19 |
|
According to his statement, it was "over the canopy".
I'm not focusing on one person. I'm just pointing out that 2 of CIT's witnesses (Lagasse, Turcios) place the plane approximately 300 feet apart. Both of these accounts CANNOT be correct. This doesn't seem to bother CIT, they claim that all of the accounts corroborate each other, but this is simply not the case. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 19 2008, 12:41 PM Post #20 |
|
Are both lines on the north side of the gas station, yes or no? Did both witnesses say the plane was on the north side of the gas station, yes or no? Were both witnesses 100% sure of it, yes or no? It does bother us because it is absolutely and completely an insignificant point. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 19 2008, 12:52 PM Post #21 |
|
On which side of the gas station? Did you watch the part where he surmised that the fuselage was even further north of the canopy and the WING was close to the canopy? He was on the south side and was caught off guard by a plane he saw come from the corner of the canopy, OF COURSE chances are it is not going to match Lagasse's pefectly.
So? And Lagasse even conceded it could have been closer and Robert was clearly surprised when he looked to his left and saw the plane, so his estimate is not going to match Lagasse who had a better view of of the plane on the ACTUAL side of the gas station. So we know it was somewhere in between those two lines.
You are just swinging wildly with your eyes closed huh? Both of accounts place the plane on the north side, dear. Would you guess the plane is somewhere in the middle of that? Yes or no, and why? This has to be the dumbest thread I have seen in a while. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 19 2008, 12:57 PM Post #22 |
|
What is "it"? Did you watch the whole interview? He specifically states that "it" was the tip of the right wing and that the entire plane was north of the building. Robert was on the south side of the building so it makes perfect sense that he would think the plane was closer to the station than Lagasse who was on the north edge of the canopy. Brooks and Lagasse both match perfectly and Turcios' perspective brings the plane a bit closer. So what? They all saw the plane on the north side while nobody saw it on the complete opposite side in a completely opposite trajectory. They are not computers, they are humans with different perspectives who saw the plane for about 2 seconds. Minor discrepancies such as this are to be expected......just like the fact that they all differed in color. But the north side is corroborated by all and refuted by none. This much is clear. Exactly how far out is was is unimportant since north side destroys the official story no matter what. The fact that they all place it on the north side, and are corroborated by Stephens, Boger, and now someone else, proves a deception. Now please answer Aldo's questions above and provide your own composite considering all of their accounts. Thanks. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 19 2008, 12:59 PM Post #23 |
|
This is a perfect example of why people like nicepants are hypocrites. nicepants, Hypothetical situation: If they all reported the plane on the south side but Lagasse placed it closer to the building than Robert would you think it proved the official story false? Be honest. |
|
|
|
| Avenger | Jan 19 2008, 01:34 PM Post #24 |
|
You started out focusing on one person in your opening post, the person who places the plane closes to the CITGO. You still have not explained how he could believe he saw it north of the CITGO if it was really south. You haven't explained how Lagasse could be mistaken. Or Brooks, or Boger. Edited by Avenger, Jan 19 2008, 01:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 19 2008, 01:49 PM Post #25 |
|
So because they both place the plane on the "north side" that means that they agree on a flight path? No....the 2 paths reported are about 300 feet apart, that's a pretty big difference for 2 witnesses who were within about 25 feet of each other. How is it that they could each see the event so differently? No, I wouldn't assume that the plane is somewhere in the middle, because neither one of them reported it "in the middle". They can't both be right about the flight path. One reports it 300 feet north of the other. Which one is right? |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
7:52 PM Nov 26
