It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Has CIT's Flyover Been Proven Impossible?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
It appears the folks at JREF have shown mathematically that the flyover theory is impossible. They used the witnesses that claim that they saw the plane on the North Side of the Citgo Station.

In part:


The aircraft did not crash into the impact point; it pulled up at the highway. Wow, that’s ~1086’ away from the position abeam the Citgo or 1.4 seconds to fly AND turn 20 Degrees. Since the aircraft needs to be on heading at this point, the turn must be complete or nearly complete by this time. Folks, Beachnut and I both do not believe that a 757 or any other large aircraft with a commensurate wing surface area has the roll authority to roll in and roll out of enough bank angle required to even establish this kind of turn in 1.4 seconds. An aircraft can not turn at a consistent turn rate until it reaches a bank angle with the commensurate G applied. In this case, we don’t believe the aircraft can even establish enough bank before a roll out is required to pull the vertical G’s necessary to climb. I don’t think an F-16 at 80-90 degrees of bank and 9+ G’s could do this. In fact, I don’t believe an F-22 could do it either.

It’s so stupid it can not be calculated….. Alien flying saucer anyone?

The CIT north of Citgo approach path scenario is a sad joke just as it’s always been…..

The witnesses are mistaken because this event as imagined DID NOT HAPPEN and it is aerodynamically proven to be impossible to accomplish by anything other than an alien flying saucer.

forums.randi.org...


Entire Thread :

forums.randi.org...


Perhaps Rob or Craig will be able to shed some light on these developments. I for one can't say if they are right or wrong.

So if this is accurate....are the witnesses mistaken? Or, are the folks at JREF wrong........




posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Yeah.

It's "impossible" for the most powerful country on earth to fly a plane north of the citgo station and away from the Pentagon.




posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


It's posted as a question Craig... i was hoping for some constructive feedback.

oh well, I'll have to settle for sarcasm.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Yeah.

It's "impossible" for the most powerful country on earth to fly a plane north of the citgo station and away from the Pentagon.



Oh.... now the so called decoy plane flew "away" from the Pentagon? That's new. I thought it was OVER the Pentagon



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Oh.... now the so called decoy plane flew "away" from the Pentagon? That's new. I thought it was OVER the Pentagon


Well the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it did one or the other or both.

Take your pick.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


It's posted as a question Craig... i was hoping for some constructive feedback.

oh well, I'll have to settle for sarcasm.


Since you specifically and nicely request a detailed reply to lame attempt at spin I will comply.

Reheat does not have any of the pertinent values to make his calculations most importantly speed and type of aircraft so his calculations can only be based on speculation.

Because of this FACT he is clearly doing nothing but fabricating a case to dismiss multiple lines of independently obtained verifiable evidence based on nothing but pure speculation.

Do you believe that it's logical to embrace faith and speculation over hard evidence and scientific reasoning?



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Furthermore.....Reheat is not only completely speculating the pertinent values, but he is removing the scenario from the context of the discussion so he can reduce real evidence to mere numbers that he can clearly skew particularly since he is completely making up the values for his computations.

How is that the least bit scientific?


In order to discuss the north side flight path one has to at least hypothetically accept that 9/11 was a military deception since everyone knows the north side claim proves it.

So if we are to discuss the data in this context we must accept that the covert craft used during such a complex operation would clearly have the benefit of unlimited resources and all the technology of the most advanced military on earth. Yet he's literally trying to argue that a maneuver similar to these graphics is "impossible" for them to accomplish.







Nonsense.

Out of context equations based off fabricated values do not refute evidence.

Reheat's claims amount to nothing but baseless exaggerated spin born out of pure desperation and a clear confirmation bias.

No true critical thinker would dismiss evidence in favor of speculation.

Official story supporters have ZERO independent verifiable evidence that a 757 hit that building yet we have multiple lines proving the plane could not have hit.

Do you embrace faith based claims over evidence?

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



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Well the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it did one or the other or both.

Take your pick.


Craig, you interviewed them. Doesn't their testimony state where the plane went?

And it cant be both. Your theory is the flyOVER not the flyAROUND.....

Are you now stating it can the Flyover and around?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


When did I say "flyaround"?

I said fly away.

Wouldn't a flyover necessitate the plane flying away from the Pentagon?

You see I only speak in absolutes if I have evidence to prove it.

I can not prove exactly where the flight path meets the building just as I can not prove exactly how far north of the former citgo station the plane really was.

But what I CAN prove with multiple lines of hard corroborated evidence is that the plane came from the east of the river and flew north of the former citgo station.

Dig?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Reheat uses CIT's witnesses for initial conditions, and CIT's own witnesses for the speed (verified by radar data and FDR, and other witness statements) to show CIT flight path is impossible, and the one CIT drew above is more impossible.

And no, gs do not drop off significantly in a decent to make the turns required (in pilot training, UPT, when we did a 2 g pitchout, and we lost attitude, we still pulled 2 gs, but our bank or entry to the turn was not correct; the IP would get upset, and you may flunk, but the gs did not significantly drop off, we still were pulling 2 gs; who would say such a wrong statement?). No gs, no turn. More witnesses who do not support the flyover and north flight path. wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

No one saw 70 plus degrees of bank (all the witnesses saw less than 11 degree of bank; check it out), and no one saw a fly over, or the north of the CITGO path; Reheat's work is based on math and how planes turn, and initial conditions supplied by CIT. Irony.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com... Here are a bunch of witnesses who make a flyover or other claims implied or made by CIT suspect. Not a single witness to a fly over.

The CIT flight path is busted by science and initial conditions supplied by CIT. Not a single scientific fact from CIT to support speed, bank angle and g force required to do the impossible flight path. See, that is what Reheat's work shows, it shows how much g force is required, which proves the CIT flight path impossible. Many people have told CIT over the past year the flight path required too many gs, but CIT ignored the posts and continued to post the impossible path. CIT has not used science, if they had, they would have detailed specifications for the turn.

Not any support here for the CIT flight path. I have tried to find support from the evidence and not a thing to support the flight path. pagesperso-orange.fr...

CIT should use Reheat to help them figure this out.
CIT flight path is impossible, and even more if you let them draw it. Reheat used the conditions that help CIT claims, and found it impossible and not a single specific error has been shown in his work. If you take the flight path above and check the turn radius, it makes CIT flight path more impossible to fly. BTW, now one saw the new fantasy covert plane that day, just flight 77. See the witness statements, and you will also see statements from the witnesses CIT uses and they do not support CIT assertions.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


Your response amounts to nothing but a bunch of convoluted and barely coherent sentences that fail to address the obvious fact that speed and type of aircraft are completely unknown rendering "reheat"'s calculations moot.

Why do you embrace speculation over hard evidence?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Reheat used your work as initial conditions, and science to show you, your path is impossible. Please specifically pick any number or initial condition Reheat picked to show him wrong. But beware, your depicted path in your post is even more impossible, higher G forces are needed; making it more impossible. Check with some pilots not in the truth movement to confirm this! Reheat did.

Darn, he used math and there are no errors in his work. He even used your initial conditions. And as stated by many around the internet, you have not shown a single specific error in his work.

So please post your rebuttal numbers. Reheat can help you with the math. (I can too, but I charge more)

Type of aircraft? Funny, all aircraft have the exact same turn physics. All pilots know this. A 60 degree level turn in a C-150, or an F-15 is 2 gs. If they are the same speed you get the same radius. Pilots know this, you need to check with pilots, they can tell you your flight paths are impossible at the speeds YOUR Witnesses said the plane was going. If you check the witness statements you can get a good idea the plane was going over 700 feet per second. I can do it, and any kid can do that kind of work.

For other people the FDR of 77 confirms the plane at the end was going in excess of 700 feet per second.

Plus the RADAR data show Flight 77 going very fast, 700 feet per second.

Three independent sources for speed; even the people who saw the plane on radar said it was going fast.

So what speed did you use to confirm your path was correct? What speed was your covert plane going?

[edit on 5-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


Some of the most pertinent values for the equation are speed and aircraft type.

Both were speculated.

Why do you accept speculation over hard evidence?



[edit on 5-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:07 AM
link   
If you're going to use the least reliable evidence to try and dismiss the most reliable evidence, it's best to have a theory that is physically possible Or maybe at least not use witnesses who don't also disprove your theory.

So we can choose to believe that physically impossible maneuvers were made that day or the common phenomenon of people not remembering things correctly, as happens in pretty much every dramatic event ever. hmmm, which could it be....



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by snoopy
 


1. Nothing we presented has been proven a "physically impossible maneuver".

2. There is ZERO independent verifiable evidence proving that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

Either present independent verifiable evidence or concede that you are relying on faith based claims in this debate.


[edit on 5-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Aircraft type is not a factor for turn radius. Speed, bank angle, and G force. A T-38 and a 757 have the same turn radius at 500 mph and 60 degrees of bank for a level turn. We should use pilots when you do this pilot stuff.

[edit on 5-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by snoopy
 


1. Nothing we presented has been "proven impossible".

2. There is ZERO independent verifiable evidence proving that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

Either present independent verifiable evidence or concede in this debate.



1. Except your little flyover which also has ZERO witnesses to back up.

2. Except your own witnesses.

Either grow up or stop making faulty arguments. Again, you are using unreliable evidence to dismiss reliable evidence. Everyone knows that eyewitness testimony is not reliable and studies have proven this. It's impossible regardless of what happens in these types of events for witnesses to not contradict each other. you are simply choosing the few who do and trying to pretend it proves everything else wrong. And then you do so by using conjecture and speculation. You then back that up by your unreliable evidence.

There is nothing to concede other than it's a flawed argument you are making and hence no one takes it serious. You could try taking this data to someone, but you don't. Why? Because it wouldn't hold up. No media is going to take it seriously because of these blatant flaws that you choose to ignore. You can't take it to court either because of these serious problems. So instead you stick to conspiracy forums where you can attempt to *act* intimidating so as to hide the fact that you don't really have an argument.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by snoopy
 


1. Nothing we presented has been proven a "physically impossible maneuver".

2. There is ZERO independent verifiable evidence proving that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

Either present independent verifiable evidence or concede that you are relying on faith based claims in this debate.


[edit on 5-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

pagesperso-orange.fr...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

oops



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


Perhaps you aren't paying attention to the conversation in which you are participating.

ALL values in the calculation were speculated most notably speed.

Why do you accept speculation over hard evidence?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by beachnut
 


Some of the most pertinent values for the equation are speed and aircraft type.

Both were speculated.

Why do you accept speculation over hard evidence?

[edit on 5-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

So give us your speed, bank angle, and g force to make the flight path possible.

Please remember to listen to your witnesses who verified the aircraft speed found on the FDR from 77 that was found in the Pentagon with all souls on board, some in their seats dead! All DNA found to confirm that the pax were there.

You must have the speed, bank angle and G force. You are the one proposing the impossible path, you must have some hard evidence like speed and bank angle to confirm your flight path. Because right now based on your witnesses the flight path is impossible. Do you have one witness who saw a 80 mph plane go over?

Give us your hard numbers. Please

Why do you give us speculation over hard evidence?

[edit on 5-4-2008 by beachnut]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join