Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Pentagon _ The Pentagon Flyover full feature presentation now released!

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Feb 25 2008, 08:33 PM

Stage6 went out of business so I am looking for a different site to host the divx version but the google version is now released:

http://www.thepentacon.com/PentagonFlyover.htm

Feel free to spread the link anyway you can!
thumbsup.gif

Posted by: painter Feb 25 2008, 09:53 PM

Cool. Watching now. Looks and sounds great! WHEN CAN I GET A DVD??

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Feb 25 2008, 09:55 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Feb 26 2008, 02:53 AM) *
Cool. Watching now. Looks and sounds great! WHEN CAN I GET A DVD??


No plans to release a dvd for now.

Posted by: painter Feb 25 2008, 10:20 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Feb 25 2008, 06:55 PM) *
No plans to release a dvd for now.



crybaby2.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 25 2008, 11:14 PM

Excellent job guys... especially uncovering that JEMS report regarding a scheduled departure out of Reagan. Ask Woody if he can get the BTS reports of departures out of Reagan, im sure he already has them.

Also, do you have a link to that JEMS report statement?

Again.. great job... nice editing too Craig.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Feb 25 2008, 11:26 PM

Thanks man.

Yeah that was a score.

http://info.jems.com/911/pdf/jems0402.pdf

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Feb 25 2008, 11:31 PM

I'm pissed though that the google compression knocks the sound a tiny bit off synch.

It's fine in the file.

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 25 2008, 11:46 PM

Front page my friend.. .sending to Media contacts now...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Feb 26 2008, 12:08 AM

oops better republish it the site is down.

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 26 2008, 12:09 AM

our site or yours? Both seem to be up for me...

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Feb 26 2008, 12:13 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 26 2008, 05:09 AM) *
our site or yours? Both seem to be up for me...


It's up now.

That's awesome thanks!
salute.gif


You added an "s" to Citizen though.

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 26 2008, 12:38 AM

fixed.. i had a few other typos in there as well... smile.gif

Posted by: riv Feb 26 2008, 10:49 PM

I do not agree with every single part of this new doc but definitely most of the arguments are very solid. Well done.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 27 2008, 12:25 AM

QUOTE (riv @ Feb 27 2008, 04:49 AM) *
I do not agree with every single part of this new doc


Well please, by all means, elaborate.

elaborare per cortesia smile.gif
(Did I get that right?)

Posted by: riv Feb 27 2008, 05:44 AM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Feb 25 2008, 03:25 AM) *
Well please, by all means, elaborate.

elaborare per cortesia :)
(Did I get that right?)


Yep it's right :)

One of these things is the alleged white livery (with the blue stripe, similar to the C32 or whatever is called) of the decoy jet. I've counted 29 eyewitness that reported an American Airlines livery, plus 6 that described a silvery fuselage without mentioning a specific airline. I know just a small part are verified, but I don't see this huge evidence that point to this white livery. Also it's important to note that even if the fuselage is polished, wings, engine and wingmount that constitute more than the half of the visible portion of the aircraft from below are painted white. And this could be the reason why we have a small number of white plane reports.
By the way as I said before the doc is still built on solid arguments (and eyewitnesses) and the interpretation of the white livery reports doens't change the thing too much.

Posted by: riv Feb 27 2008, 06:20 PM

Anybody alive?

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Feb 27 2008, 07:34 PM

QUOTE (riv @ Feb 27 2008, 10:44 AM) *
Yep it's right smile.gif

One of these things is the alleged white livery (with the blue stripe, similar to the C32 or whatever is called) of the decoy jet. I've counted 29 eyewitness that reported an American Airlines livery, plus 6 that described a silvery fuselage without mentioning a specific airline. I know just a small part are verified, but I don't see this huge evidence that point to this white livery. Also it's important to note that even if the fuselage is polished, wings, engine and wingmount that constitute more than the half of the visible portion of the aircraft from below are painted white. And this could be the reason why we have a small number of white plane reports.
By the way as I said before the doc is still built on solid arguments (and eyewitnesses) and the interpretation of the white livery reports doens't change the thing too much.



Well the white claim isn't all that necessary for the hypothesis.

We assert it because it was so heavily corroborated by random previously unpublished witnesses that we have found on the street.

29 unconfirmed previous published accounts of AA livery aren't that many if you consider when they were interviewed and who the are etc.

Honest people will embellish details innocently. They don't all have to be liars to report it looked like an AA jet since of course many would have already heard this detail from the news before they were interviewed.

So take the people who are innocently embellishing added with the deliberate liars and operatives and I'm sure they could reach 29 rather quickly.

Each random previously unpublished account is worth more than dozens of previously published accounts that we KNOW consists of many liars.

As the white claim became more corroborated from independent witnesses we found on the street it became something we could not deny and had to report.

But bottom line it's not critical and perhaps it was some sort of hybrid livery of some sort to partially look AA and also blend with reports of the E4B.

Posted by: georgie101 Feb 28 2008, 05:40 AM

Great job CIT
Well made, and nicely put together.
Thankyou all for all your hard work.

Posted by: riv Feb 28 2008, 01:05 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Feb 25 2008, 11:34 PM) *
But bottom line it's not critical and perhaps it was some sort of hybrid livery of some sort to partially look AA and also blend with reports of the E4B.


It's not critical indeed.

BTW, did you try to find Captain Joseph Candelario? Seems like he saw something interesting but we need more details.

Posted by: riv Feb 28 2008, 07:28 PM

QUOTE (riv @ Feb 26 2008, 04:05 PM) *
It's not critical indeed.

BTW, did you try to find Captain Joseph Candelario? Seems like he saw something interesting but we need more details.


Another thing, who told Scott P. Cook all the details about the 757 path? And did you have a chance to talk with him?

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Feb 28 2008, 11:22 PM

QUOTE (riv @ Feb 29 2008, 12:28 AM) *
Another thing, who told Scott P. Cook all the details about the 757 path? And did you have a chance to talk with him?


Aldo had an email dialog with him.

That's where some of those quotes come from.

Unfortunately he wouldn't agree to an interview.

He never said who it was that he heard about that flight path from.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 29 2008, 10:15 AM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Feb 29 2008, 04:22 AM) *
He never said who it was that he heard about that flight path from.


Actually he did. It should be in the quotes in the movie, if not we should have put it in...

QUOTE
From E-mail: "I remember reading a quote from a congressman at the time saying he saw the 757 approach the Capitol from southeast, make a "fighter-pilot turn" directly over the Capitol, and head west before curving around
again and hitting the west side of the Pentagon going east."

Posted by: riv Feb 29 2008, 01:21 PM

Uh, that's even more confusing o_O.

Anyway, what about Candelario? He had an extreme vantage point but his account is minimal, there are no reference to build a path.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 29 2008, 03:44 PM

There is nothing to build a path on. But clearly on the OS flight path, he wouldn't be able to see it and it wasn't approaching the white house.

We don't know how extreme is view was. He claims he went out to take a break and that is when he saw the plane...

QUOTE
I went outside to the river to take a break. As I was looking across the river towards the direction of the Pentagon, I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it.


So my guess is he was outside on the ground near the river, not on an upper floor at the building.

He has to be referring to the DC flight path.

Posted by: riv Feb 29 2008, 03:59 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Feb 27 2008, 06:44 PM) *
There is nothing to build a path on. But clearly on the OS flight path, he wouldn't be able to see it and it wasn't approaching the white house.

We don't know how extreme is view was. He claims he went out to take a break and that is when he saw the plane...

So my guess is he was outside on the ground near the river, not on an upper floor at the building.

He has to be referring to the DC flight path.


I agree, he definitely couldn't witness the NTSB path from his POV. The point is: what kind of turn he saw?
For example, if the plane turned at the east of him the spiral should have been quite big. Instead, if all he witnessed happened over him, or at the west, the spiral had to be smaller (and the plane slower). That's all about having more detail about the approach. He's another good candidate for an interview.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 29 2008, 04:31 PM

I agree. I couldn't find him though.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Mar 3 2008, 02:23 PM

Great news!

megavideo.com takes divx files and the quality is MUCH better than google video!

The timing of the sound doesn't get altered so it's perfect and you can even watch it in full screen mode!


Use this link to spread it from now on:

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=O6G5WHVA

Google video sucks!

Posted by: SPreston Mar 25 2008, 08:32 AM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT)
So given that there is no other plane depicted on the RADES data that could possibly fit the flight path and timing that Steve Chaconas described, and in light of all the other fatal contradictions and anomalies we have uncovered in regards to the official story, it's 100% clear that the radar data representing the plane that Steve Chaconas saw on 9/11 was manipulated out of what 84 RADES released to the public in 2007 many years after the event and that the fabricated official flight path of AA77 was simply added to the data.

There is really no way around this conclusion as this evidence will surely test the intellectual honesty of some of the "debunkers" if they STILL refuse to accept it just like they refuse to accept the north side claim.

The east of the Potomac and north of the Citgo claims independently prove 9/11 was an inside job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5D2K19Y-aI



The account of Steve Chaconas to the CIT team is much more valuable than we first judged it to be. The NORAD Tapes actually support the testimony of Chaconas and place the decoy aircraft six miles southeast of the White House near Andrews AFB at 09:35:41. Chaconas picks the same decoy aircraft up just after it passes Andrews and continues west across the Potomac in a banking turn around Reagan National. We can estimate the average speed of the decoy aircraft by comparing the flight distance with the NORAD times and the official impact times.

Six miles southeast of the White House at the NORAD 1st report time of 09:35:41 would place the decoy aircraft about where the aircraft symbol next to Andrews AFB is on the satellite map. The remainder of the flight path drawn on the map as witnessed by Steve Chaconas is about 23.5 miles to the pull up at the Pentagon at an alleged 9:37:44 (previously 9:43 before changed because of stupid errors in disinformation). This would leave 2 minute 3 seconds for the decoy aircraft to arrive at the Pentagon. Dividing 23.5 miles by 123 seconds would give an average 757 aircraft speed of .191 mps or 687.804 mph. Obviously that cannot be correct. So let's add the 5 minutes 16 seconds of the original 9:43 explosion time to the formula. Dividing 23.5 miles by 439 seconds would give an average aircraft speed of .0535 mps or 192.7 mph average aircraft speed. Therefore this decoy aircraft actually pulling up at the Pentagon at 9:43 could have been just 40 mph above the recommended 757 landing speed of 152.236 mph (http://www.757.org.uk/sops/sop4.html and http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/tech_wb.htm) and could have easily landed at the end of the long runway from the north by engaging full flaps, dropping the gear and pulling a sharp right turn which these aircraft are easily capable of at slow speeds. Of course the landing time would be later than the 9:39 N644AW time, but since the PRIMARY SUSPECT has been manipulating official times to fit their faulty disinformation and magician's tricks, they likely would not hesitate to alter the landing time of N644AW to hide their trickery and also order a Federal employee Stephenson (Dulles and Reagan National are both owned by the Federal government) to adjust the official story.




QUOTE (NORAD Tapes)
09:34:01
WASHINGTON CENTER: Now, let me tell you this. I—I'll—we've been looking. We're—also lost American 77—
WATSON: American 77?
DOOLEY: American 77's lost—
WATSON: Where was it proposed to head, sir?
WASHINGTON CENTER: Okay, he was going to L.A. also—
WATSON: From where, sir?
WASHINGTON CENTER: I think he was from Boston also. Now let me tell you this story here. Indianapolis Center was working this guy—
WATSON: What guy?
WASHINGTON CENTER: American 77, at flight level 3-5-0 [35,000 feet]. However, they lost radar with him. They lost contact with him. They lost everything. And they don't have any idea where he is or what happened.

Don't forget that NORAD Commander Major General Larry Arnold testified before Congress that he and his staff were above Washington orbiting during the Pentagon attack, ("in fact my own staff, we were orbiting now over Washington, D.C. by this time" http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm) most likely in the E4-B National Airborne Operations Center.

QUOTE (NORAD Tapes)
This is a full 10 minutes later than the time Major General Arnold and Colonel Scott would give in their testimony; reality was a lot messier.
09:35:41
ROUNTREE: Huntress [call sign for neads] ID, Rountree, can I help you?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Latest report, [low-flying] aircraft six miles southeast of the White House.
ROUNTREE: Six miles southeast of the White House?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yup. East—he's moving away?
ROUNTREE: Southeast from the White House.
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Air—aircraft is moving away.
ROUNTREE: Moving away from the White House?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yeah.…
ROUNTREE: Deviating away. You don't have a type aircraft, you don't know who he is—
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Nothing, nothing. We're over here in Boston so I have no clue. That—hopefully somebody in Washington would have better—information for you.


This will turn out to be American 77, but since the hijackers turned the beacon off on this plane as well, no one will realize that until later. Depending on how you count, neads now has three reported possible hijackings from Boston (the phantom American 11 and two unidentified planes) as well as Washington Center's report that American 77 is lost.

Of these four vague and ultimately overlapping reports, the latest—word of a plane six miles from the White House—is the most urgent. The news sets off a frenzy.

09:36:23
NASYPANY: O.K., Foxy [Major Fox, the Weapons Team head]. I got a aircraft six miles east of the White House! Get your fighters there as soon as possible!
MALE VOICE: That came from Boston?
HUCKABONE: We're gonna turn and burn it—crank it up—
MALE TECH: Six miles!
HUCKABONE: All right, here we go. This is what we're gonna do—
NASYPANY: We've got an aircraft deviating eight [sic] miles east of the White House right now.
FOX: Do you want us to declare A.F.I.O. [emergency military control of the fighters] and run 'em straight in there?
NASYPANY: Take 'em and run 'em to the White House.
FOX: Go directly to Washington.
CITINO: We're going direct D.C. with my guys [Langley fighters]? Okay. Okay.
HUCKABONE: Ma'am, we are going A.F.I.O. right now with Quit 2-5 [the Langley fighters]. They are going direct Washington.
NAVY A.T.C.: Quit 2-5, we're handing 'em off to Center right now.
HUCKABONE: Ma'am, we need to expedite that right now. We've gotta contact them on 2-3-4-6.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?currentPage=7
QUOTE (NORAD Tapes)
"Six miles south, or west, or east of the White House is—it's seconds [away]," Nasypany told me later. "Airliners traveling at 400-plus knots, it's nothing. It's seconds away from that location."

The White House, then, is in immediate danger. Radar analysis in the following weeks will show that the plane abruptly veers away and turns toward the Pentagon, though the controllers at neads have no way of knowing this in the moment. Looking in the general capital area, one of the tracker techs thinks he spots the plane on radar, then just as quickly loses it.

09:37:56
MALE TECH: Right here, right here, right here. I got him. I got him.
NASYPANY: We just lost track. Get a Z-point [coordinate] on that.… O.K., we got guys lookin' at 'em. Hold on.… Where's Langley at? Where are the fighters?

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?currentPage=8

QUOTE
But ATC Stephenson was a witness to the official Flight 77 FDR and the RADES data flight paths

That doesn't quite work too well does it? NORAD and Air Traffic Controllers were in a frenzy because of the decoy aircraft which flew over Washington DC and was at 09:35:41 six miles southeast of the White House. Reagan National Chief Air Traffic Controller Chris Stevenson was shutting down flights and Reagan National was in the middle of a complete evacuation and the ATC tower was in a complete turmoil. We found out that Stephenson was apparently adjusting the official story and apparently didn't actually see either the official flight 77 or the decoy aircraft flyover or the C-130 which was supposed to be shadowing Flight 77 or America West N644AW landing 2 minutes after the explosions (actually while they were still rising hundreds of feet into the air) were catching Stephenson by surprise. Stephenson already had his hands full handling emergency after emergency and didn't have time to be gazing wistfully off into the northwest did he? That decoy aircraft with its transponder likely turned off which Steve Chaconas saw right before him banking around Reagon National from the east, and disappearing behind the hills and city buildings to the northwest, and was unknown to the ATC tower, was already gone up the Potomac or perhaps quickly landing as America West N644AW with its transponder suddenly turned back on, by the time Stephenson jerked his head around in surprise at the towering explosion and smoke suddenly to the northwest. Later Stephenson was probably adjusting the official story as ordered wasn't he?

QUOTE (Woody Box)
I think we have to take Stephenson's account as an adjustment to the official story. I don't want to denounce him for that, but look at that:

At 0939 HRS the National Airport control tower transmitted, “Crash! Crash! Crash!” over the MWAA frequency and activated an airport alert, but there was confusion about the exact location of the crash.

http://info.jems.com/911/pdf/jems0402.pdf

The "confusion about the exact location" refers to the fact that the tower first reported a crash "near the 14th street bridge" or "at the end of Reagan airport". Forgive me that I don't dig out the sources for now (I will if you demand it), but from your article one might get the impression that the tower controllers actually watched the plane exploding in the Pentagon. This was certainly not the case.



QUOTE
Stephenson and the others stood in stunned silence for several seconds. But then the phones started ringing again and they got back to shutting the airport down.

Posted by: SPreston Mar 26 2008, 07:17 AM

Correction for Post #28 above.


The account of Steve Chaconas to the CIT team is much more valuable than we first judged it to be. The NORAD Tapes actually support the testimony of Chaconas and place the decoy aircraft six miles southeast of the White House near Andrews AFB at 09:35:41. Chaconas picks the same decoy aircraft up just after it passes Andrews and continues west across the Potomac in a banking turn around Reagan National. We can estimate the average speed of the decoy aircraft by comparing the flight distance with the NORAD times and the official impact times.

Six miles southeast of the White House at the NORAD 1st report time of 09:35:41 would place the decoy aircraft about where the aircraft symbol is nearest to Andrews AFB is on the satellite map. The remainder of the flight path drawn on the map as witnessed by Steve Chaconas is about 12.5 miles to the pull up at the Pentagon at an alleged 9:37:44 (previously 9:43 before changed because of stupid errors in disinformation). This would leave 2 minute 3 seconds for the decoy aircraft to arrive at the Pentagon. Dividing 12.5 miles by 123 seconds would give an average 757 aircraft speed of .101 mps or 365.853 mph. Now let's add the 5 minutes 16 seconds of the original 9:43 explosion time to the formula. Dividing 12.5 miles by 439 seconds would give an average aircraft speed of .0284 mps or 102.505 mph. Much too slow, but the aircraft had already proceeded past its reported location by the time NORAD received the Boston Center 9:35:41 report. In 30 seconds time, the aircraft would have traveled between 3.03 and .852 miles along the flight path. The aircraft speed would be between 365.853 mph and 102.505 mph assuming the orginal 9:43 time of impact. Therefore this decoy aircraft actually pulling up at the Pentagon at 9:43 could have been very near the recommended 757 landing speed of 152.236 mph (http://www.757.org.uk/sops/sop4.html and http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/tech_wb.htm) and could have easily landed at the end of the long runway from the north by engaging full flaps, dropping the gear and pulling a sharp right turn which these aircraft are easily capable of at slow speeds. Of course the landing time would be later than the 9:39 N644AW time, but since the PRIMARY SUSPECT is manipulating official times to fit their faulty disinformation and magician's tricks, they likely would not hesitate to alter the landing time of N644AW to hide their trickery and also order a Federal employee Stephenson (Dulles and Reagan National are both owned by the Federal government) to adjust the official story.


Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)