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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
… an eyewitness who barely speaks English…
This witness is one of yours which you said gives you "hard evidence" the "scientific" witness statements of CIT.
… 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.
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.
Reheat did that. forums.randi.org...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When? Any progress yet?
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You'll see.
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.
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?
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
They aren't even using the proper formula!
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]