New full feature presentation from CIT now realeased!

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Does this version show a realistic flight path? If not, it will be considered bunk. Thanks.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Steve saw the C-130 cross the river, prove by hard evidence, RADAR data. FDR shows the path of 77 never crossing the river. Thus, the only plane that crossed the river where Steve was looking was the C-130. Now did he keep the C-130 in sight the whole time, cause 77 was further away, maybe he saw 77 later as he was boating towards the Pentagon, and lost sight of the C-130 which he say higher than usual and on the strange path never used, but by military planes on the departure which passes over the river right there.


So you are still blaming the military, FAA, and others for faking the RADAR data? Got proof? No. No evidence no proof. You just make all this up and a few people gullible fall for it without thinking. The only plane for Steve to see cross the river is the C-130, 77 never crossed the river, based on hard data, released for all to see. Some of that secret evidence others have wanted to have. The made up paths of CIT, wait, you have no paths, so you have no story. Darn, there is nothing here to challenged, they now say they have ZERO paths.

CIT's flight path can't be impossible because we never had one

And we still don't.

Then you don't have a flight path? Okay, never mind.

And then you have all the witnesses, even those you use who saw 77 hit the Pentagon. But since your own witnesses saw 77 hit the Pentagon, and do not support the NoC. Will you redo this video to correct the failed implications of a flyover.


The departure the C-130 had to fly, oops, it matches the RADAR data, something anyone can check, it is not secret, you can even ask the C-130 pilot. This departure is south of the Mall, you can see the 2 mile long Mall from many, many miles away, flying is cool, you get a big view.


[edit on 19-4-2008 by beachnut]

reply to post by beachnut


Your sentences are still very awkward but I am getting used to interpreting them. It's very laborious though beachnut and you are as usual being completely disingenuous regarding the data we present.


The winds on 9/11 would mean that if they had the C-130 take the "Camp Springs One" departure they would be having him vector right into traffic at Reagan National.



This makes no sense.

The "Morningside One" standard departure makes infinite more sense AND fits the comments of the C-130 pilot better since he says: "we traveled NORTH and west which took us by the south side of the Mall."




Regardless.....the C-130 can not be what Steve Chaconas describes because Chaconas is very clear that he saw a commercial airliner and that it came from the NORTH east or DC skies and very clearly looped north around the other side of the airport.



This is nothing like the fake C-130 flight path in the fraudulent 84 RADES data.






[edit on 19-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

Does this version show a realistic flight path? If not, it will be considered bunk. Thanks.

The evidence presented is not reliant on a specific flight path.

We prove that the plane flew over DC skies and came from east of the river.

This general claim is enough to prove a military deception.

But here is another potential final bank in the flight path that you can take to your anonymous "aviation professionals".

We estimate the speed at 300 knots.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

That sure looks lie a path you said you never had. It is impossible too.

No need to estimate the speed, it was as high as 470 KIAS. It is on the FDR, and the headings your have on your newest non-path do not match the 70 degree magnetic heading, plus or minus one degree, found in the FDR.

Plus Paik said the plane was level ruling out the 4.6 G turn, at 77.5 degrees! No one saw 77 degrees of bank; you made up another impossible turn.

Using your made up speed of 300 knots, you need 62 degree of bank and 2 Gs, but no one saw that bank either! So, your path is still impossible with your own made up speed. In fact you need to slow down to 93 knots (below stall speed, crash and burn right there in the turn as it slows down) to fit the even close to the witness statements of the bank angle and I am giving you 10 degrees, which no one said was their either. You should not ignore the FDR, the witnesses actually support it if you knew how to interpret their statements.. I was trained as an aircraft accident investigator and I can see your errors in witness testimony collection and manipulation. You lead them and actually draw the lines for them without listening to their testimony. Why?

reply to post by beachnut


Your numbers are wrong but nice try!

That path fits perfectly with all the witnesses.

Boger and Walter reported the bank.

If the plane banked AT ALL it proves the official story false.

The speeds reported in the FDR have nothing to do with the north of the citgo flight path.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by beachnut

 

The winds on 9/11 would mean that if they had the C-130 take the "Camp Springs One" departure they would be having him vector right into traffic at Reagan National.

The "Morningside One" standard departure makes infinite more sense AND fits the comments of the C-130 pilot better since he says: "we traveled NORTH and west which took us by the south side of the Mall."

This is nothing like the fake C-130 flight path in the fraudulent 84 RADES data.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

The WINDS? Do not bs a pilot, both departures are good for 9/11 winds, you do not understand flying. Did you even read the departure instuctions. The C-130 was not going north! He was going home.

No, the departure I gave you is the one used by the C-130, if you noticed the one you used never lets the plane turn west. The departure I have matches the south of the Mall, it is south of the Mall and that is confirmed by the RADAR data. The RADAR data you say is fake, faked by the FAA and the military, and you have no proof, just blame the military. I'm a pilot, I flew military planes, he used the departure I showed you, your conclusion is wrong, he headed west on the departure, your departure goes north never to the west; you need to look at what you post it make zero sense. Anyone reading can see your flight path is made up and the departure you picked proves your path wrong for the C-130.

Steve saw a plane, the only plane that does what he saw on 9/11 was the C-130, proven by RADAR data and the departure here.

Matching, exactly, the RADAR data. And the path Steve points to! Proof complete, thanks to your own work; good job. (and south of the Mall; flight stuff)

Steve could only see the C-130, 77 was not crossing the river. Of course you will say the FAA and the military faked the RADAR data, adding to those who lie, and your interpretation of witness statement, flawed as it is, is proof of the FAA and the military in murder. with no proof or evidence, just you saying so

[edit on 19-4-2008 by beachnut]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by beachnut

 

Your numbers are wrong but nice try!
That path fits perfectly with all the witnesses.
Boger and Walter reported the bank.
If the plane banked AT ALL it proves the official story false.
The speeds reported in the FDR have nothing to do with the north of the citgo flight path.

Your numbers are wrong but nice try!

Please present the numbers you have. My numbers are conservative, I left out the time to bank to 77 degrees, it take over 2 seconds and there for the Gs would be greater, I have giving you all the rope you need to hang yourself. I was so conservative your turn is totally impossible just taking the roll in and out away. There is no possible path to connect to your path. Please present you numbers for the 60 to 80 degree bank turns you posted.

That path fits perfectly with all the witnesses.

Paik said level. Level wings means no turn.
No Morin said parallel, not over the annex, parallel to the south side of the Annex, making the NoC impossible. Parallel to a building means no turn, unless the building is oval.

Boger and Walter reported the bank.

They both saw 77 hit the Pentagon! Oops.
What bank did they report? In degrees please.
You need 60 to 80 degrees to do your path! Wowzers
Boger alse reports 77 hit the Pentagon. Walter waves his hand and you get some bank information. Good job. Walter saw 77 hit the Pentagon, so you are going to make up a bank angle from Walter, and ignore the FACT he saw 77 hit the Pentagon.

If the plane banked AT ALL it proves the official story false.

WRONG! No, 77 did bank up to 10 degree in the last 20 seconds. But let me tell all about the banks seen. They were 6 to 10 degrees MAX. Guess the turn radius of those big giant bank angles of 6 and 10 degrees? 21 and 35 miles, turn radius. Not more than 1 or 2 degrees heading change in 3 to 4 seconds. OOPS. The OFFICIAL STORY CAN HAVE BANK ANGLE! NoC and not have more than 10 degrees, because no one saw more than 10 degrees! OOPS Official story has bank, the NoC need LOTS of bank. ... new witnesses.?

The speeds reported in the FDR have nothing to do with the north of the citgo flight path.

So you make them up?
You mean the FDR found in the Pentagon, is not real? Who planted it and how did they get all the data on there from all previous 25 hours of Flight 77s flight on there? The funnies things done so far and confirmed by people in the truth movement was an analysis of Paik's story which give over 780 fps speed to 77. Matching the FDR from Flight 77 found with the dead passenger part form 77, in the Pentagon. Does not sound good for the made up non-paths of CIT.
The witnesses who worked in and around the Pentagon were use to planes at approach speed just clearing the roads and landing and taking off at DCA. All these witnesses said fast! They were all right, 470 KIAS is fast. So using fast, you can not go below 300 KIAS, and thus you need 60 degrees of bank, not confirmed by anyone. Most say level, which 10 degrees is kind of level compared to 60 or 80 degrees needed for all your failed non- paths.
Even if you throw out the hard evidence on the FDR, you are stuck with fast. Big banks and fast! You need 90 knots to pull of your non-paths, that is not FAST! You need new witnesses.

Craig,
It is nice that ATS alows for open debate.
This is unlike the other forum where disenting voices are banned.
But if you could please refrain from insutling people that would be appreciated:

Your sentences are still very awkward but I am getting used to interpreting them.

I am sure you will endeavor to improve this, thanks Craig!
You are doing a great job over here!
Keep it up!!

Originally posted by beachnut

The WINDS? Do not bs a pilot, both departures are good for 9/11 winds, you do not understand flying. Did you even read the departure instuctions. The C-130 was not going north! He was going home.

Yes beachnut.

The direction of the wind determines which direction the planes approach and depart Reagan.

You didn't know this?

Steve Chaconas was very aware of this since he is on the river every day.

Planes land into the winds and depart with the winds.

The winds on 9/11 were coming from the north so planes were approaching from the south which would make it extremely unlikely that ATC would direct traffic out of Andrews right into that approach corridor.

Since the Morningside One departure avoids Reagan traffic on 9/11 and fits perfectly with the C-130 pilot's statements (and final destination of Minnesota) it makes sense that this standard departure procedure was what they used on 9/11.



[edit on 19-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

The winds on 9/11 were coming from the north so planes were approaching from the south which would make it extremely unlikely that ATC would direct traffic out of Andrews right into that approach corridor.

The above claim never really passed the smell test for me.

Aircraft departing to the north from Reagan are required to fly up the Potomac or a heading of 328° for 10 miles before Potomac departure allows them to turn to their desired heading due to the noise abatement policies around Washington, DC. Departing aircraft are allowed to climb to 1500 feet and then they are required to reduce power that allows a maximum of 500 feet per minute climb.

That would make the C-130 more likely to have conflicts with departing aircraft than it would with aircraft landing from the south on a probable 3° glide slope from several miles out.

Besides that, why would it be a standard procedure if you're not going to use it?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
[Yes beachnut.

The direction of the wind determines which direction the planes approach and depart Reagan.

You didn't know this?

Planes land into the winds and depart with the winds.

The winds on 9/11 were coming from the north so planes were approaching from the south which would make it extremely unlikely that ATC would direct traffic out of Andrews right into that approach corridor.

Do you feel good that you have me now? LOL

OOPS, pilot STUFF!

Why is the BE LEVEL at 3000 FEET by 8 DME on the departure procedure I am posting? Pilots STUFF. Do some of that pilot stuff Mav…

Wowzer, you are calling out a pilot, with 35 years experience on a procedure he can design. Yeppers, the USAF sent me to TERPS school. Darn, you get a return on yours or yours parents DOLLARS. TAX that is.

The 3000 feet, being higher, was to be over the planes on the approach, lower, below the C-130. Darn, that was elementary. Who does your research?

In addition. Planes land into the wind and take off into the wind. Otherwise the higher ground speed can cause big problems, over shooting and landing long. So when they take off the north, they land going north. Some planes can handle some tail wind. But the safety margin goes down.
So planes depart into the winds, not with the winds (into the winds, takeoff and landing; did jdx mess this up?). Darn, you should have asked a pilot first before going down inflames. Wrong on all counts. Research would help.

Nice post. Thank you. Next time ask me for help, I did this for a living, aircraft accident investigation, designing approaches and departures (for war and peace time), flying, engineering...

[edit on 19-4-2008 by beachnut]