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: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut

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

oops


Sorry but I am aware of both of those links...(one of them is an early source for the Lagasse's north side claim pagesperso-orange.fr...)

Neither provides independent verifiable evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon.




posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut


Give us your hard numbers. Please


Sorry but I refuse to speculate and only provide hard evidence.

Why do you embrace speculation in favor of hard evidence?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:32 AM
link   
ou refuse to speculate? What do you call claiming the plane flew over the building? What do you call claiming that the DNA evidence was faked? What do you call claiming the FDR was faked? How many witnesses for your little fly over?

And all based on the weakest form of evidence. You don't speculate?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by snoopy
 


You admit it's based on "evidence" while simultaneously calling it "speculation"!

That is a blatant contradiction proving your logic bankrupt.

1 eyewitness claim is still perfectly legitimate evidence even if it can be considered "weak".

A claim that is independently corroborated 6 times is far from weak....it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Goodnight.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by beachnut


Give us your hard numbers. Please


Sorry but I refuse to speculate and only provide hard evidence.

Why do you embrace speculation in favor of hard evidence?

Okay, the hard evidence of speed, bank angle, and g force. Or are you saying you have no hard evidence (numbers) to present?

Your witness and others can be used to verify the speed above 700 feet per second. You have it on tape. There are many witnesses, FDR, and RADAR data; the later being hard evidence to prove the speed, and since not one witness said the aircraft pulled back it engines, (verified by FDR) the plane had to be accelerating.

So you have to have speed to verify you path, or we must assume you have zero hard evidence. Got some evidence like math and stuff to verify anything you say?

So far I have not seen a single piece of hard evidence from you on your flight path now shown to be impossible.

Did you retract the type of aircraft statement?

Can you review your hard evidence, like speed, bank angle, and g force needed to complete your flight path? Or are you saying you have zero hard evidence at this time to share with anyone?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by beachnut

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

oops


Sorry but I am aware of both of those links...(one of them is an early source for the Lagasse's north side claim pagesperso-orange.fr...)

Neither provides independent verifiable evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

Can you review your hard evidence, like speed, bank angle, and g force needed to complete your flight path? Or are you saying you have zero hard evidence at this time to share with anyone?

A witness changed his story? I never heard Lagasse take away his earlier testimony on tape for history, or the statements posted in the link. The other witnesses do not support a fly over, in fact 104 witnesses saw 77 impact the Pentagon. Must have been the screaming engines at full throttle and the high speed at over 700 feet per second that got their attention on 9/11.

Anyone who reads the witness statements in the those links will have more evidence than the hard evidence you have not produced. So you have no speed of the plane, not even an estimate, no bank angle, not even an estimate, and no g force calculation, not even an estimate which you could do base on all your hard evidence. Is your hard evidence really opinion based on a few witnesses you used?

Most those witnesses do not support your story, even your own witnesses do not. Are you sure you read all the witnesses. There are hundreds.


You could estimate the speed using a witness since you ignore the FDR and RADAR data.

You could also specify a type of aircraft and the fact it had jet engines (remember the turn radius is independent of aircraft type); Some witnesses said they saw a 757. How can you use some witnesses and not use others? Have you had training like a trained accident investigator with witnesses?

[edit on 5-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Craig,

I'm sorry but Beachnut is showing facts that CAN NOT be refuted .. Remember it was three weeks ago that you presented the PFT bunk piece where you speculated about where the plane was and how fast it was going.

It is a fact that witnesses memories FADE over time. It does not get better. Things don't become more vivid. Your theory is on life support.....time to pull the plug.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Craig,

I'm sorry but Beachnut is showing facts that CAN NOT be refuted .. Remember it was three weeks ago that you presented the PFT bunk piece where you speculated about where the plane was and how fast it was going.




Are you really this clueless about the context of this discussion?

NOTHING is speculated in regards to the alleged official speed, flight path, and type of craft.

Apparently you forgot that the NTSB released the black box data and everyone knows that it was supposed to be Flight 77, tail number N644AA, a stock Boeing 757.




It is a fact that witnesses memories FADE over time. It does not get better. Things don't become more vivid. Your theory is on life support.....time to pull the plug.




Empty hollow posturing devoid of all logic and reason.

What's so ironically hilarious about this hollow statement is that it COMPLETELY contradicts your other absurd claim that Beachnut is "showing facts". He just posted an eyewitness who barely speaks English as a source for the exact value of the SPEED of the aircraft! As if ANY eyewitness could EVER be mathematically accurate about such a thing.

We have never denied that witness testimony is fallible and that even the witnesses we spoke with made mistakes about very specific and minor details such as exact color. We know this because their accounts DIFFERED in this regard.

However they all unanimously and independently corroborated each other in regards to the extremely simple and general claim that the plane was on the north side scientifically proving this particular detail correct.


Corroboration is a scientific process.

So while we have provided multiple lines of independent verifiable hard evidence proving the official story false you have provided ZERO independent verifiable evidence that a 757 hit the building proving your claims are merely faith based.

Why do you dismiss hard evidence and scientific reasoning in favor of faith?






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



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Why do YOU dismiss ALL evidence. Your theory is in FATAL jeopardy and you know it. You can post the photographs all you want.

None saw a fly over.

Many saw the impact.

Passenger articles were found

Firefighters found bodies

Civilian witness seeing a body strapped in its seat.

Civilian witnesses seeing fuselage ..... it goes on and on and you know it.



The folks at Jref proved your witness statements to be inaccurate. Actually from what I have read, it would have been impossible for the plane to do what you said it did.

Spin and twist all you want. I see a flat line soon followed by a long beep....then..... silence.

R.I.P. Flyover Theory



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
He's like a Catty Chan doll, just keeps repeating the same argument no matter what the discussion is. So I can only repeat that Craig is simply using the weakest form of evidence to attempt to dismiss the strongest forms of evidence. He is using the few disagreeing accounts to dismiss the accounts that are also backed up by all the rest of the evidence as well as his own accounts that disprove his own claims.

I suggest Craig do something with his findings such as take this to court and see how far he gets. Obviously it wouldn't even be able to get to court, but at least it might provide some reality for him. Then he can pretend the courts are all in it too, like everyone else.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


I have not dismissed any evidence which is why you provided no examples while throwing out that baseless accusation.

All you have are false blanket statements and denial.

You have provided ZERO independent verifiable evidence while we have provided multiple lines of corroborated evidence proving the official story false on multiple fronts.

Why do you dismiss evidence in favor of faith based claims?

Why do you have so much faith in the government?

Once again I challenge you to create a thread that provides independent verifiable evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

My challenge was greeted with "crickets" last time as I am quite certain it will again because you can not provide one single piece.

If you can not you must concede that you have chosen to reject scientific reasoning and evidence in favor of pure unadulterated faith.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
So the plane didn't fly over the Pentagon?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
So I can only repeat that Craig is simply using the weakest form of evidence to attempt to dismiss the strongest forms of evidence. He is using the few disagreeing accounts to dismiss the accounts that are also backed up by all the rest of the evidence as well as his own accounts that disprove his own claims.


Corroboration is scientific and causes eyewitness testimony to become PROOF.

You have provided ZERO independent verifiable evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

Why do you reject evidence in favor of faith?

The same challenge I posed to C.O. is open to you and ALL official story supporters.

Watch you scatter like rats.



I suggest Craig do something with his findings such as take this to court and see how far he gets. Obviously it wouldn't even be able to get to court, but at least it might provide some reality for him. Then he can pretend the courts are all in it too, like everyone else.


I never said I can prove who ordered the attacks or exactly who to charge.

I simply have evidence that proves the official story a lie.

This is an unprecedented world wide crime that would require grand juries and congressional hearings to figure out who to indict.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig,

you are the one ignoring evidence that was placed in front of you. Reheat used real numbers based on conditions YOUR witnesses specified!

IF you are following along with the Reheat, and others...


Reheat used CIT's work, CIT's path, CIT's witnesses, and shows CIT is wrong. Using science and CIT's work. BUSTED CIT flight path.

Now if you slow the plane down to 80 mph, you could do the turns, but a 757 would crash at 120 to 80 mph. OH, it was a covert plane, invisible to the eye! Wonder Woman's plane?
At 11.2 g, Rob is too busy to help give CIT some super pilot numbers for their failed flight path of the plane stolen from Wonder Woman!


forums.randi.org...

And from Reheat himself:


This is all terribly funny! In fact, it's absolutely hilarious!

Where is the speculation in my work? What was speculated?

The speed I used is actually 1 fps slower than the speed Balsamo used for the DME video. He used 781 fps, I used 780 fps.

The flight path is from CIT's own diagrams. In fact, it's a more favorable path to their theory if we examine Paik's testimony. I have the aircraft already on heading passing over Paik, but he indicated a few degrees further toward the South making the turn to impact EVEN MORE DIFFICULT than my numbers show.

Where is the bias? Where is the speculation?

Post the numbers for everyone to see and examine, just as I did. We don't need words at all, just numbers.

What's this about a descent requiring less G to turn that Beachnut posted on ATS. Can someone expand on that.

I know it's been said at ATS, but someone needs to beat into Ranke's head that ALL of the numbers are aircraft type INDEPENDENT. For other than roll rate (fighter versus large aircraft) I did not speculate on type of aircraft at all, it doesn't matter.

forums.randi.org...



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Did the plane fly over the Pentagon or did it hit the Pentagon?

Forget about your cute little tactics to pretend that if the FBI doesn't come to your house and let you hand inspect everything they have or anyone else, then it's not acceptable to you. Because the world doesn't care about what you think, they care about the actual evidence, not about whether some kid who touts absurd conspiracies gets to touch it himself. You can't play those games outside of the conspiracy web sites.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


I am not scattering anywhere. Your silly challenges are absurd. Because we don't have the plane on video hitting the Pentagon it flew over it?

There are videos that debunk your theory.
There are witnesses that debunk your theory.
Your own witnesses debunk your theory.
DNA evidence that debunk your theory....

I don't want to sound like a broken record. You Craig, know the drill.

I would guess the majority of truthers in here flat out deny this theory or are VERY skeptical about it.

I want to post part of a newspaper article on my next post that I am sure MANY will find interesting.....



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


What does the alleged FDR for Flight 77 have to do with the decoy north side flight path?

All pertinent values are unknown and were therefore completely fabricated by Reheat.

How do you not understand this?

Why do you dismiss hard evidence and scientific reasoning in favor of speculation and pure faith?

Time to step up to the plate C.O.....I have formally issued the challenge.

Good luck!



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
How reliable are eye witnesses?

Ideas & Trends; For Air Crash Detectives, Seeing Isn't Believing



HUNDREDS of people watched the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 near Kennedy International Airport in New York on Nov. 12, and in the course of 93 seconds they apparently saw hundreds of different things.

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, which announced this month that it had gathered 349 eyewitness accounts through interviews or written statements, 52 percent said they saw a fire while the plane was in the air. The largest number (22 percent) said the fire was in the fuselage, but a majority cited other locations, including the left engine, the right engine, the left wing, the right wing or an unspecified engine or wing.

Nearly one of five witnesses said they saw the plane make a right turn; an equal number said it was a left turn. Nearly 60 percent said they saw something fall off the plane; of these, 13 percent said it was a wing. (In fact, it was the vertical portion of the tail.)

The investigators say there is no evidence in the wreckage or on the flight recorders of an in-flight fire or explosion. A plane breaking up in flight, as this one did, might in its last moments produce flashes of fire from engines ripping loose, but the idea that the plane caught fire is a trick of memory, they say.

Dr. Charles R. Honts, a professor of psychology at Boise State University and the editor of the Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology. ''Eyewitness memory is reconstructive,'' said Dr. Honts, who is not associated with the safety board. ''The biggest mistake you can make is to think about a memory like it's a videotape; there's not a permanent record there.''

As a result, the safety board generally doesn't place much value on eyewitness reports if data and voice recorders are available. For many investigators, the only infallible witness is a twisted piece of metal.Mr. Loeb said his experience with witnesses had led him to question the reliability of criminal convictions based on eyewitness identifications. In Illinois, he noted, a commission appointed by the governor recommended in April that the death penalty not be applied to murder convictions based on a single eyewitness identification.

Mr. Loeb said his personal experience also played into his skepticism. Recently he and his wife saw a two-vehicle collision, and unlike plane crash witnesses, they both saw it from the same angle. Within moments, they disagreed about what they had seen. Among other key details, Mr. Loeb said he could not recall whether one of the vehicles had been a truck or an S.U.V.


query.nytimes.com...

This is not the entire article, but I encourage you all to take a look at it. VERY informative!!



Thank you Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man!





[edit on 5-4-2008 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

Craig... first of all read my above post about witnesses during a plane crash.

Then, try once again to read Reheats post. They are using information your witnesses gave them. They are showing that it would have been impossible for it to happen the way you say it did. They even used the best scenario for your theory to work.... and it still didn't.

I don't understand what YOU don't get. You continue to say that me belief is "faith" based. Unless Beachnut and Reheat are indeed undercover agents.... I will believe in what they posted until they are proven otherwise.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


I am not scattering anywhere. Your silly challenges are absurd. Because we don't have the plane on video hitting the Pentagon it flew over it?




Who said anything about a video?

I am simply requesting ANY independent verifiable evidence at all!

You can provide none and the thread now exists to prove it.

Funny how now it's all of the sudden "absurd" to require scientific reasoning and demand evidence.

It's ok C.O.

Most people are perfectly fine with wallowing in faith.

Very few are true critical thinking skeptics who strictly adhere to scientific reasoning.

You are simply demonstrating how you are just another typical conspiracy theorist who is prone to believe what he is told.

There have been many studies regarding this mentality and it is believed that you find a psychological comfort in the notion that you KNOW how significant or cataclysmic events were controlled.

It's all very completely understandable and rather typical.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join