Yes, I like these "in the own words" accounts much more than some strange translation into an aerial photograph. Usually Ranke doesn't miss the chance to tell the proband that "we have numerous witnesses who all saw the plane north of Citgo". Sometimes it is in the video, sometimes it is not. However, the failure is immanent.
He does this - after he has their unbiased testimony on record. The Stafford interview is a typical example of how he asks - and should ask - the witnesses. Go and watch how he finds out that Stafford saw the plane "on the right side" of the Annex. How did he get all those "no friggin' way" statements?
It isn't. It is south of the Annex and north of the VDOT mast. The FDR path is some feet more to the south and above the VDOT mast. Therefore you see a little left bank. After that banking the plane is exactly aligned to the damage path.
Here is the bridge and the cab (frame 42 in the animation):
[qimg]http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/6928/nvstafford042.jpg[/qimg]
It's really quick, right? ...just 3 seconds from the Annex to the wall.
You have no wiggle room. Eighter the plane was on a straight trajectory towards the pentagon and knocked out the poles, hit the generator and caused the "exit hole" on the c-ring - or it wasn't.
Your plane isn't and i await you getting schooled on perspective issues in 3, 2, 1...
Yes, I considered it but never heard of any - not one - damaged lamp pole north of the known 5.
Really, you can turn it and turn it round and round. The NoC path simply makes no sense.
e.g. look at the damage to the lamp poles. The damage do not look like "little explosions" whatsoever. It looks like a giant baseball bat hit it. The poles are bowed. You can get the angle of the bowing by looking at the cube-like fracture zone that was formerly aligned to the street. You will see that the poles are bowed into the trajectory of the plane.
You need at least some plane impact or do you believe in a fly-over against ALL witnesses? You have to take the witnesses at the highway into account. That's what Ranke deosn't like. Have you seen any drawing of the flightpath by these witnesses?
Here is a drawing of Storti (he wrote his impression in his own words into the image):
Take the CIT drawings and you get a speed-banking ralation that tells you "impossible":
For the slowest possible speed of a Boeing in the air (requires flaps down) you get at least 46° banking all the way from the Annex to the Pentagon.
Is the misinterpretation of the recollections of a small specific group of witnesses possible? Is it possible to force that group to draw their perspective dilemma 6+ years later?
If not then take all witness accounts into account. If yes then watch out for the matching points in all accounts.
In both cases CIT do the opposite.
He does this - after he has their unbiased testimony on record. The Stafford interview is a typical example of how he asks - and should ask - the witnesses. Go and watch how he finds out that Stafford saw the plane "on the right side" of the Annex. How did he get all those "no friggin' way" statements?
By interpretation.
Stafford saw it OVER the RIGHT corner (prior to the banking). Follow the line of sight and take into account that Stafford needed some seconds to ran up the hill. What do you think, how far away is that plane OVER the RIGHT corner? 300ft? 3 miles? 30 miles?
You have no wiggle room. Eighter the plane was on a straight trajectory towards the pentagon and knocked out the poles, hit the generator and caused the "exit hole" on the c-ring - or it wasn't.
Your plane isn't and i await you getting schooled on perspective issues in 3, 2, 1...
I await you getting schooled on perspective issues in 3, 2, 1... done.
Same path different view:
[qimg]http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8/straightpoles.gif[/qimg]
Achim, the polygon belongs to beachnut. Please give it back to him.
Nobody reported back about the CITGO witnesses. Got north and south straight? What about achimspok's video? Apparently Turcios wasn't there, seen that pixel?
I am refering to more than a dozen witnesses who were contacted by CIT after being on official record as witnesses, invited on scene and asked to clarify the statements they made in 2001. They independently and unanimously describe a flight path so different from the official one, that a plane approaching on this path couldn't cause the physical damage. They were (if they aren't acting) not aware of the implications of what they had seen, they simply told their story.
That's the problem and that's the evidence: corroborated witness testimony. If you have a better theory than "flyover" to explain the evidence, go ahead.
If you don't accept the evidence, you must explain it away. Caustic Logic says that the witnesses are in on it. Remember, most of them were on official record since 2001.
So, what's your opinion?
1) The witnesses are all mistaken in the same bizarre way.
2) They are actors payed by CIT to pose as the real on record witnesses.
3) They are part of a disinfo operation that fooled CIT.
4) They honestly and accurately describe what they have witnessed.
Nobody objected to the CITGO witness testimony corroborating Paik and Morin in a NoC flightpath.
That makes it 5:0 for me.
My intention in this thread is to establish that CIT have indeed evidence of 13+ witnesses in the most crucial vantage points - which is the complete body of eyewitness evidence from those points - independently and unanimously describing a flight path so different from the official one, that a plane approaching on this path couldn't cause the physical damage.
Nothing more, nothing less. What you or I make of this evidence is not the topic of this thread. I'm confident that we'll finally reach the point where all lines end, but if it takes another year ... so be it.
Next - William Middleton, Arlington Cemetary. 34 min in.
Nobody reported back about the CITGO witnesses. Got north and south straight? What about achimspok's video? Apparently Turcios wasn't there, seen that pixel?
So he didn't see it coming and he didn't see it going.
What's left? A very short flash. If he was not where he said he was then he probably just heard the noise, ran up and saw the fireball.
Nobody objected to the CITGO witness testimony corroborating Paik and Morin in a NoC flightpath.
That makes it 5:0 for me.
My intention in this thread is to establish that CIT have indeed evidence of 13+ witnesses in the most crucial vantage points - which is the complete body of eyewitness evidence from those points - independently and unanimously describing a flight path so different from the official one, that a plane approaching on this path couldn't cause the physical damage.
Exactly. It couldn't. The CIT plane would have been that slow that it would have dropped out of the sky right on top of Citgo. But there are 20+ witnesses describing the plane "full throttle". There are all the witnesses in the crucial area of the Highway supporting the statements of Morin, Hemphill, Storti, ...
What is it? Something like 5:20?
CE, go to the pumpitout website. Jeff has called a lot of witnesses and asked them about all these things. You get it first hand - almost all of them - and yes, CIT hates that old converted No Planer Jeff for calling the witnesses because Jeff don't want to be lied to for a second time.
Paik just saw it passing on the opposite side of the road.
Morin saw it south from between the wings, ran out and saw it dive behind the trees. Just try to find Morins trees and you got the full truth about his testimony.
Exactly. It couldn't. The CIT plane would have been that slow that it would have dropped out of the sky right on top of Citgo. But there are 20+ witnesses describing the plane "full throttle". There are all the witnesses in the crucial area of the Highway supporting the statements of Morin, Hemphill, Storti, ...
What is it? Something like 5:20?
Once it's established that the path in the official data is not what the witnesses saw, and knowing that they report a plane much slower than the data shows, you ask us to rule out their reports because of the parameters suggested by the same already questionable data (type of the plane, that is, for your argument)? Give it up. Believe the witnesses or believe data released through dubious channels years after the event. It's eighter or.
I'm familiar with Jeff's phone calls, thanks but no thanks again.
Once it's established that the path in the official data is not what the witnesses saw, and knowing that they report a plane much slower than the data shows, you ask us to rule out their reports because of the parameters suggested by the same already questionable data (type of the plane, that is, for your argument)? Give it up. Believe the witnesses or believe data released through dubious channels years after the event. It's eighter or.
I'm familiar with Jeff's phone calls, thanks but no thanks again.
You ask us to rule out the majority of witnesses + logic + damage + FDR data just to trust Lagasse and Turcios interviewed by WHO???
(You talk about that guy who accused an old cabbie to be the "first known accomplice" and who made an FBI agent out of his cleaner wife. How deep...)
...and since we know that the NoC plane left no damage = never hit the building nor the light poles = nothing left.
Morin: "...the throttles were steady and full."
Creed: "...going full speed, going full throttle..."
Liebner: "It was wheels up, flaps up, engines full throttle. "
Marra: "...the pilot had the throttle completely floored."
Snaman: "...came in low at full throttle, banked left and smashed into the wall of the Pentagon."
Khavkin: "The engine was at full throttle."
Regnery: "...apparently at full throttle ....this plane was too low and going too fast..."
Leonard: "...then went full throttle directly toward the building."
Owens: "I didn't think the careering, full-throttled craft would get that far."
Martinez: "...a big jet flying close to the building coming at full speed."
Clem: "...above treetop height at full speed headed for the Pentagon."
Plaisted: "...over my house at great speed and just above the treetops..."
Renzi: "...with incredibly high speed..."
Narayanan: "...slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed."
Sucherman: "It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle--almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target..."
Munsey: "...almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon..."
Barbara: "...was coming in too fast and the too low..."
Eberle: "...a jet airliner flying very low and very fast..."
Gaskins: "...was flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the obvious target."
Benedetto: "Then the plane flew right over my head. I said to myself, boy, that plane is going awfully fast."
Wallace: "It was about 200 yards away, and was coming in low and fast."
Gus: "I saw the plane. Low. Too low. Fast."
Stafford: "By then it was vastly approaching. It was quiet thought."
Lagasse: "...the aircraft was exceeding the speed that would allow gear to be extended."
Middleton: "He kicked the throttle. When I looked, went straight into the building."
There is not one witness for a slow and creeping plane. Only the CIT interpretation of the statements (e.g. Boger) lead to a slow and creeping plane.
No Achim, i'm just noticing that you bukkake us with always new stoopit since pages and yet my debunk of your buddy YougeneDebs' deceptive little video stands firm.
No Achim, i'm just noticing that you bukkake us with always new stoopit since pages and yet my debunk of your buddy YougeneDebs' deceptive little video stands firm.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
