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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

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


Your article is a straw man.

An irrelevant analogy.

Faulty logic does not refute hard evidence.

It is however a typical tactic in debate for those who can not provide independent verifiable evidence or adhere to scientific reasoning.

Let me know when you are willing to let go of your faith based claims and come to the table with real evidence.

The thread will be there forever so you have plenty of time to produce.

Good luck!




posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

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.



Yes well since it's is a fact that pertinent values such as speed , type of aircraft, and even the bank itself in their equation were completely speculated that means you are dismissing evidence based on speculation.

It's not surprising as that is what you have always done to maintain the official story fantasy since you can not provide ANY independent verifiable evidence.

I'm simply the first one to point it out to you.

None of the witnesses could possibly have known or reported these details accurately. Most (except Sean Boger) were not even in a position to see the bank at all.

Funny how you don't see the irony in the notion that you refuse the perfectly unanimously corroborated and VERY general north side claim from the witnesses but at the same time suggest you can accurately determine mathematical values such as SPEED and bank angle from their accounts!









posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



Your obvious tactic of moving the goal posts is not going to work. You need to get some math and physics to account for your witnesses statements. The way it stands NOW is that it was not possible.

How are the statements from Dr. Charles R. Honts irrelevant? How are they strawman? Dr. Honts is the the editor of the Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology. I would say that it's VERY relevant in assessing the validity of your witness statements. Even more so now, due to the recent events at the JREF forum that show them as inaccurate.

The article I posted shows that there were HUNDREDS of variations in what the witnesses of the flight 587 crash. These interviews were made very soon after the crash. As you know, memories fade. Your witnesses were between I believe 3-6 YEARS after the attack.






[edit on 5-4-2008 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 



It's a straw man because it has nothing to do with the evidence we present.

In fact it's the opposite.

You are suggesting that the scenario in that article is somehow applicable to the north side evidence.

The fact that scenarios exist where many eyewitness accounts differ in regards to an event does not demonstrate that eyewitnesses are wrong when they all perfectly corroborate each other!

For your article to be a valid analogy the plane in question would have to have flown 10's of feet away from the property on which they were all standing and they would have to unanimously agree about the extremely general claim about what side of the property it flew.



Did you miss your morning coffee?

You aren't making much sense today.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


You are once again missing the point.

Did ya read the article?

Nearly one of five witnesses said they saw the plane make a right turn; an equal number said it was a left turn.

AND:

52 percent said they saw a fire while the plane was in the air Thats roughly 180 people.

The plane was NOT on fire at all!

I am basing the simple argument that witness statements are not accurate.

Your 7 or so witnesses claimed the North Side stuff. None of them saw this jet fly over the Pentagon.

Let me ask you this...

IS it possible to determine a flight speed without the use of the FDR? (only using your witnesses)

Is it possible to determine the BEST case scenario for the flight path?

THEN we get Reheat to determine if that is possible?

you use your numbers...they do the math?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
The obvious point being made is that eyewitness testimony on its own is unreliable and thus must be factored in with all evidence. What Craig continues to do it try to find only the witness testimony that disagrees with everything else and attempt to discredit everyone and everything else.

I think the term for this is simply 'very very VERY bad research'. No different than those who use Mineta's testimony to claim that the testimony of everyone else in the room was wrong as well as all the phone records and security logs, etc etc.

Again, using the weakest evidence to attempt to dismiss the strongest evidence and then further pushing it by using unrealistic requirements and using conjecture.

There is no doubt that his witnesses are recalling the events wrong as happens in every event. This can be verified by ALL other evidence. And it can be further verified by the obviously absurd outcome that can only be the result of his claims. Such as light poles being broken and planted in front of thousands of people. Something pretty much impossible. The plane debris being planted at the exact moment of impact, impossible. Everyone in the chain of command from witnesses, to responders, to testers, etc all being in on the plot to manufacture evidence. Aside from being complete conjecture, pretty much impossible. For the plane to have flown over the building and yet no one see it, impossible. For them to have planted explosives without anyone knowing or seeing, pretty much impossible. For the explosives to have actually sucked debris inwards, impossible. For thousands of people to witness the plane and none see it pass the Pentagon or for there to have been a perfectly timed explosion as the plane passed over and not destroy the plane or the plane not even create a vortex, impossible.

The reason these guys won't go into detail about the results of their claims is because every situation becomes pretty much impossible. But when one looks at the records of eyewitnesses mis-remembering, everything fits into place. Oe thing these kids will never be able to do is anything more than attempt to try and poke holes. They will NEVER be able to do what real experts do and provide a sscenario of events that account for everything. This has nothing to do with what really happened and has only to do with debate techniques. Craig won't go into what happened because it will prove him a fraud. Instead he will position himself where he is only attacking someone else's work as revealing his own will prove him to be a fraud.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


You are once again missing the point.

Did ya read the article?

Nearly one of five witnesses said they saw the plane make a right turn; an equal number said it was a left turn.

AND:

52 percent said they saw a fire while the plane was in the air Thats roughly 180 people.

The plane was NOT on fire at all!


Yeah so?

Regarding the north side evidence ALL the witnesses unanimously agree!

In your example....what do you think the odds would be that the plane made a right turn if ALL of the witnesses unanimously said it made a left turn?



I am basing the simple argument that witness statements are not accurate.


But you are basing it on a completely faulty analogy that has NOTHING to do with the evidence presented.



Your 7 or so witnesses claimed the North Side stuff. None of them saw this jet fly over the Pentagon.


Yea so?

How is that relevant to the article? The north side claim proves a deliberate military deception in regards to the impact.

The people in your article who thought the plane was on fire were not deliberately deceived into thinking this via military deception.



Let me ask you this...

IS it possible to determine a flight speed without the use of the FDR? (only using your witnesses)


Of course not.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you would dismiss their perfectly corroborated claim of where the plane flew right by them 10's of feet away but think you can accurately determine speed from their accounts!

This is an EXTREMELY important value in determining G's as it can greatly change the results.

A plane at that ridiculously low altitude would still seem "fast" to someone on the ground even at 200mph.



Is it possible to determine the BEST case scenario for the flight path?

THEN we get Reheat to determine if that is possible?

you use your numbers...they do the math?



No it's not possible because there are many other unknown factors that affect the situation such as arc of descent , type of aircraft, exact bank and many other values that must be completely speculated.

Speculation does not refute hard evidence.

Furthermore the method they are using is simplistically inadequate and irrelevant to the postulated scenario.

It is calculating the bank as if it were linear and perfectly level when we know the plane was on a descent which would reduce the G's.

They aren't even using the proper formula!

You'll see soon enough but right now you are blindly accepting this faulty speculative argument based on nothing but FAITH just like you do the official story.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
ALL witnesses claim it flew north of the Citgo sign? Everyone there on the scene? That's quite a claim.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Craig,

So CIT hard evidence is really people talking which Craig said:

… an eyewitness who barely speaks English…
His witness. Oops. It is not hard evidence, your other witnesses said that 77 hit the Pentagon. I said you can use witnesses to estimate a speed. You say testimony is hard facts, then show us the hard numbers you used to confirm your story which has shown an impossible turn since you fires showed it.

How is it possible to ignore hundreds of other witnesses who counter your story. Just your story? (why leave out the DNA and 757 parts, and RADAR, and FDR,…)

How is it possible to ignore your own witness fresh testimony in 2001 and 2002, for sound clips you manufactured into a story that is physically impossible show with math and physics. Take the hard numbers from the FDR, and the RADAR data and you can confirm witness statements. Why are you unable to present the hundreds of other witness information to confirm your story, or the flyover no one saw. These links shows 77 hitting the Pentagon with more "hard evidence" than you have.

pagesperso-orange.fr...
Witnesses who do not confirm your story.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...
More witnesses who do not confirm your story

So read all the stuff in the links and it is more "hard evidence" than your hand picked sound clips and not fresh witness statements you turned into "scientific hard evidence" with the wave of a hand. You call your witness made up story hard evidence, please take time to explain the hundreds of witnesses who make 77 hitting the Pentagon and light posts not so hard evidence since you use a subset of them to make up your flight path.

Your "hard evidence does not begin to show your path to be possible. The path you drew is even more impossible than the work done by Reheat. All a person has to do is take the radius of your turns, you posted and they can calculate the g force and bank angles for any speed you want to settle on. But it better be a jet with the engines at full throttle like all your "hard evidence" people said was going on. They all said it was going FAST. Then you can take the hard numbers from the FDR, and RADAR data, and come up with speeds greater than 700 fps.

Paik could not see the line your drew for him. It was on video, you drawing his line. The line he agrees with was south of the CITGO, and he will not appreciate the comment you made of him.


… 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.
This witness is one of yours which you said gives you "hard evidence" the "scientific" witness statements of CIT.

The science is found with Reheat's work, and it will be see to be correct as kids will have to figure out the level bank flying object even Paik saw did not do the turn you stated even at 120 mph.

So the only thing you can say is your path is speculation you made up by using witness statements as you feel fit to use, since you now exclude stuff said by your own witness making his "hard evince" now soft not so hard stuff, which you have base your whole path on. In fact it is Paik and other witnesses who 77 flew over that doom your flight path.

The not fresh information you have now, is not supported by your own witnesses fresh statements in 2001 and 2002.

So when will you publish your best guess at the speed since you can not seem to use your witness statements to make up numbers but you can to make up a very precise flight path. ?? hard evidence is from witnesses?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
craig...

you repeat over and over my "blind faith" in the "government story".

Should i believe you? How do I know how many people you have interviewed that did NOT go along with your story?

You and Aldo can jump and scream all you want that you have shown ALL of the witnesses. How are we to be sure?

To go along with your story, and your theory, we would trusting in YOU the same way you claim myself and others are doing with official reports.


Another question...how many of your witnesses were under the canopy at the Citgo station? (besides the cop).



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


I'm not asking you to believe me.

I am asking you to accept the evidence or provide evidence to refute it.

It's called scientific reasoning.

You ought to try it some time.



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

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It is calculating the bank as if it were linear and perfectly level when we know the plane was on a descent which would reduce the G's.

Please give me an example and how much the G reduced in a decent when turning to the same heading. You may want to retract this because to get to the same heading it will now take more G to finish the turn and level out in a descent.

So I am going heading 360 and I turn with 2 gs to 090 heading. I lost 100 feet I pulled how much less g than the 2 g turn when I lost no altitude?

Same turn, I do it level, what is the G? Funny stuff. Next time ask Reheat to help you out, or another pilot who has pulled 2 to 5 g on a regular basis.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


I'm not asking you to believe me.

I am asking you to accept the evidence or provide evidence to refute it.

It's called scientific reasoning.

You ought to try it some time.
Reheat did that. forums.randi.org...
He used your "evidence" and showed your path to be impossible.

And you have said a few time it depends on the type of aircraft. That is not correct, the equations for the work Reheat did are independent of aircraft type. So a 757, a fighter, or even a training aircraft like a Cessna 150 would all have the same math and physics used to calculate the turn banks, G force.

A 757 will not be going 200 mph at the descent angles observed on 9/11. A clean 757 would be over 300 KIAS (340 mph). So forget the 200 mph statement with a clean 757 as seen by a lot of the "hard evidence" type of witnesses that have been ignored by CIT, yet even the ones they used said FAST.

For those who are from MO, here are the calculators you can use and formulas to check CIT work and find the flight path is impossible. Or check Reheats work and see it is correct unless we make some errors in inputs of speed at the wrong mph vs KIAS.
www.csgnetwork.com...
www.tscm.com...

Over a year ago I warned CIT the flight path they had was impossible. Taking witness statements from witnesses who said something different over 6 years ago, and not having a physically possible flight path is what? Math? Physics? Science? No it is made up without worrying about reality. I made the following statement last year in Feb, based on the work and witness statements used by CIT.

23rd February 2007, 12:01 PM Posted by beachnut
You can also debunk the video when they said the plane path turning into the impact zone and flying over from north of the CITGO after being where their other witnesses say the plane was. That turn radius is 3187 feet. Sounds real big but the only plane using 10 degrees of bank or less would be going 80 KIAS.

Darn at 463 KIAS the turn radius for 10 degrees of bank would be 107,000 feet. To make the turn 77 would have to bank to 81 degrees and pull about 6g or 7g. Impossible, the plane did not do a 80 degree bank, and the wings may fail at 6 to 7g.

I based my statements solely on scientific reasoning with initial conditions based on CIT work and witness statements. Please see Reheat's work, it is solely based on scientific reasoning. forums.randi.org...



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut


A 757 will not be going 200 mph at the descent angles observed on 9/11. A clean 757 would be over 300 KIAS (340 mph). So forget the 200 mph statement with a clean 757 as seen by a lot of the "hard evidence" type of witnesses that have been ignored by CIT, yet even the ones they used said FAST.



Why do you keep calling it a 757?

How do you know what type of aircraft it was.

You are speculating ALL the values.

You have no evidence that the plane in question was a 757 or what speed it was traveling.

The north side evidence PROVES that the plane could have been any sort of disguised modified drone with all the technology and resources of the most powerful and richest military on earth.

A plane that low would seem "fast" at virtually any speed.

You are doing NOTHING but using speculation to dismiss evidence.

That is not scientific reasoning.

Plus...the formula you are using is inadequate.

Funny how you guys are oblivious to this.

You'll see.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by beachnut


A 757 will not be going 200 mph at the descent angles observed on 9/11. A clean 757 would be over 300 KIAS (340 mph). So forget the 200 mph statement with a clean 757 as seen by a lot of the "hard evidence" type of witnesses that have been ignored by CIT, yet even the ones they used said FAST.



Why do you keep calling it a 757?

How do you know what type of aircraft it was.

You are speculating ALL the values.

You have no evidence that the plane in question was a 757 or what speed it was traveling.

The north side evidence PROVES that the plane could have been any sort of disguised modified drone with all the technology and resources of the most powerful and richest military on earth.

A plane that low would seem "fast" at virtually any speed.

You are doing NOTHING but using speculation to dismiss evidence.

That is not scientific reasoning.

Plus...the formula you are using is inadequate.

Funny how you guys are oblivious to this.

You'll see.
When? What plane did you use to figure out the turn. The turn is plane independent. Use any plane you want, it is the same impossible path.

The scientific approach (aircraft independent) shows the flight path wrong, and the witnesses do not support your flight path when you apply logic, knowledge and scientific reasoning.

www.geocities.com...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...
forums.randi.org...

Please show how the formulas are wrong? The formulas are based on physics of flight and they are correct.

www.aerospaceweb.org... Some more information on turns. Plus forums.randi.org... includes how you can check Reheat's work, or you own.

People can get confirmation that turns are independent of aircraft type, you do not want to use the 757 seen on 9/11, just make up any plane you want, the path is still impossible for what was seen by your own witnesses and the hundreds others you failed to use in your scientific analysis which failed to use all the available data, and no math or physics to back up your own path.

Now how are these formulas wrong?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:50 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.

That is true. It is impossible with the flight paths you posted to fly north of the CITGO station based on witness statements. The witnesses, even your witnesses saw a 757, large aircraft going very fast, full throttle.

Why did the most powerful country on earth (is that India or China?) miss the light post and fly an impossible flight path you drew up by ignoring evidence?



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You'll see.
When? Any progress yet?



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 02:13 AM
link   
To answer the OP - nothing apparently is ever proven or disproven in the universal sense. The qustion is proven to who, and it's never to everyone.

A reasonable person shouldn't even need these flight path calculations to realize how incredibly UNLIKELY a flyover no one saw after the low-level impact they did see really is. Add to this pre-severed light poles, bowed columns, planted parts, fireball fakery, etc...

And when you try to prove anything you get drivel like this:


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
...since it's is a fact that pertinent values such as speed , type of aircraft, and even the bank itself in their equation were completely speculated that means you are dismissing evidence based on speculation.


So Craig... given that these factors are necessary to calculate anything with precision, do you ever plan to decide on a model, or at least narrow it down, and the speed, or at least offer a range? I believe I've heard you say it was going 3-400 mph? Or will these factors forever remain vague so no one can ever do any less-speculative calculations? That's probably your better option there...



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
They aren't even using the proper formula!
Not very specific, are you. Why not? Why are you unable to produce a scientific product from the witness testimony you say is scientific for your uses but hearsay for other people's uses?


I have asked time and time again, to specify the calculations you think wrong used in proving the NoC is impossible. All I get is smoke and mirrors to distract from the question, alluding to some covert secret craft the gobermint has. Is this a contest to see how much fantasy can be introduce into a made up paranoid conspiracy?

The AIRCRAFT TYPE is NOT SPECIFIED and is INDEPENDENT of the calculations. It is not necessary to know the aircraft type at for the calculations.

The speed is the same speed used by Rob Balsamo in showing whatever it is he thinks he shows with the OCT calculations. In fact, in his DME video he preferred the NoC flight path, but he didn't think to determine the turn calculations. It has already been proven by proper math formulas that the flight path Balsamo says is impossible is, in fact, possible. If the FDR data is fake, then specify the speed for both paths as it then DOES become speculation and then we'll see which one is possible.

The heading change, angle of bank, and G forces required are INDEPENDENT of AIRCRAFT TYPE. The type of aircraft doesn't matter for these calculations.

What else is there to speculate about? = zip

All CIT needs to do to support their fantasy is to post verifiable calculations that permit the NoC to be possible. When will it happen? Can they do it?

It appears that CIT has to "throw out" all of their "Star" witnesses because what they described is NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE except on Planet X. Results = goose egg



Could it be, is Sir Issac Newton in on teh PentaCONSPiRaCy?



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
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?

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

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

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

No real specific problems have been noted in Reheat's work. I thought you would have something soon. When will it be?




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join