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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Hmmm.... independent? I think I'm a bit confused about what exactly was shown in that article. I guess I'll need to read it now. Props to Beachnut + Reheat for doing whatever it is exactly they did, and to CO for bringing it to our attention here. I'll report back later when I'm more informed.

so we're all clear, the flight path we're discussing here is this:

To scale with the final loop as shown on radar and FDR:


However possible this path is (I'm not versed in the science of it and still skeptical of the OP claim) I've cited Beachnut before of the issue in my post Bank Notes. I don't have time now to re-hash in full, but essentially it's this: this path WOULD require a sharp left turn/wing bank over the Driving Range, a quick straightening and near northward stretch, then a very sharp right turn/bank over the Annex. NONE of their own witnesses used in construction of this flight path (eight main ones, 4 per vid) reports the northward direction OR any turn or significant, matching wing bank.

That is, the swerve they made by connecting accounts is not directly supported by any evidence it all. It's a mental construct with no backing, implied and 'must be so' just like the implied fly-over there's still no evidence of.

Go ahead anyone and ask Craig for the direct evidence for any part of this flight path prior to the Citgo. A literal reading of el Kournayti's erred but honest account, a distortion of Paik's erred but honest account, a blatant dismissal of direction clues from Hubbard, Reyes, and Veronica. Before the Citgo and the 3 NoC witnesses this is all there is.




[edit on 7-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]




posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
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...

For the government to confiscate all video tapes in the area and then release only five frames from ONE tape, that shows an explosion - impossible!

Oh, wait... that's what they did. Maybe the impossible is possible afterall.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by snoopy
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...

For the government to confiscate all video tapes in the area and then release only five frames from ONE tape, that shows an explosion - impossible!

Oh, wait... that's what they did. Maybe the impossible is possible afterall.


So you are saying that there is something odd about the FBI taking tapes of local cameras while trying to investigate the biggest attack on american soil ever? Are you suggesting that the normal course of action would have been to avoid looking at any video evidence? Please explain this to me.


And are you also saying that because they took the video, that that means that the attack was captured on them despite them saying otherwise? I mean if it were me, i would want to gather up every piece of video in the area regardless of it pointing at the event or not, go through it and see if I can find any clues. That process would mean having a lot of footage that ha nothing usable on it.

So how do you know there is anything usable on it? And if there was, don't you think the owners who provided the videos would say something? If you are going to claim that they were threatened or something, do you have any such evidence to back that up?

And also, we keep hearing these complaints saying that the reason they don't provide them is because they are incriminating. And then one turns up proving what they said was indeed true after all. So then the argument moves to the next video and claims that it will answer all questions. So that video shows up and shows once again that there was nothing useful on it. And so the endless cycle continues.


So I really don't see the point in your argument because it's definitely impossible for the3 events that CIT is claiming to happen. There is no question. But to argue it by tapes of whcih you have no idea is what is on? That's conjecture at its finest.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
What is the goal of CITt? They are trying to promote a flight path, impossible to fly unless they make up the parameters, that so they can prove a fly over of the Pentagon, and who knows what caused the damage in their scenario.

But the flight path is just one of their impossible problems. If you have seen their videos, the witnesses they used give clues that does not support the NoC path. And if you research their witnesses statements from 2001, it impeaches the implied conclusion CIT tries to make. It takes time to listen and read all the statements, but they all have evidence to show the NoC and fly over are wrong. When you take the hundreds of witnesses, you see, there was no fly over, but a confirmed impact by flight 77.



Dobbs, Mike
"... we saw a plane coming toward us, for about 10 seconds ... It was like watching a train wreck. I was mesmerized.... At first I thought it was trying to crash land, but it was coming in so deliberately, so level ... Everyone said there was a deafening explosion, but with the adrenaline, we didn’t hear it.
Marine Corps officer Mike Dobbs was standing on one of the upper levels of the outer ring of the Pentagon looking out the window when he saw an American Airlines 737 twin-engine airliner strike the building.

"It seemed to be almost coming in slow motion," he said later Tuesday. "I didn’t actually feel it hit, but I saw it and then we all started running.



"A plane just flew into the Pentagon," Boger responded.

These are just two more, and one CIT will use to support the fly over. Ironic at best.

CIT evidence was used to show the NoC flight path wrong, using CIT work, and physics, the NoC flight path is impossible.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Aviation Experts Please Help!!!

On my way home from Boston, while in a little traffic I was watching planes take off and land at Logan airport. (from quite a distance)

I was curious at how long it took for the planes to make their turns. This got me thinking.....

I was looking at CIT's witness that was getting gas at the Citgo Station. He claims to have witnessed a North of the Citgo pass. He also claims to have seen the impact. CIT points out that this was impossible due to a mound of dirt that would obstruct his view.

I would like to point out what Craig and Co. post over and over...then I will ask a question...to those that know how to come to an answer...


Here is Lagassee pointing in the direction that he recalls seeing the plane.



CIT did some computer graphics to represent the flight path that is theorized by him and Also.

Here:




And then it concludes here:



A couple things really.

1. here is a post Craig made recently at the Loose Change Forum. Where he posted possible flight paths:


I think the landing at Reagan is not feasible because it would be an incredible spectacle to 100's of people on the highway while the flyaway would have a MUCH better chance of getting away unnoticed by most.

Here are potential flyaway paths....




s1.zetaboards.com...

Craig has changed his mind on the flight path..... but thats not what concerns ,e.


What I would like to know... When would the plane have to start to bank to make it over the Pentagon per Craigs possible flight paths?

AND ...would it make sense that Sgt. Lagasse who's view is obstructed...see this bank?

IS there anyone that can draw a map to show how and where this bank could take place?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 

A turn takes 3 degrees a second for a standard rate turn, used by pilots for instrument work and unless your pilot is a cowboy, on most commercial flight that rate or less is used. That means if you are heading east, and do turn all the way around, it takes you 2 minutes. A 90 degree pattern turn takes 30 seconds. Turn to go the other direction takes 60 seconds. Add some roll in and roll out time of a few seconds.

Roll rates (for bank angles) are about 15 degree per second with half control wheel inputs. That makes for a about 2 second to roll into a standard rate turn. Speed does affect roll rates but when the flaps are down, you get extra ailerons to help turn at a good rate since you have less speed. But then you get about 10 degree per second of roll rate to achieve a bank angle to turn. It all works out since you need to be more precise landing not faster making the turns.

The 757/767 are very good planes, they handle much better than previous planes (at least 757/767 pilots say so; notice only one or two 757/767 pilots have fallen for the false information about 9/11)! If you had to choose a plane to fly with no experience, you should choose the 757/767.

Based on his new path, and the indisputable fact held by Craig, Paik said that 77 passed over him at the road near his work, the new turn is more impossible than letting Reheat give him a break doing it conservatively.

The new turn needs 83.18 degrees of bank at 522 mph and that is 8.4 g. Snap goes the wing. (the wings would be bending so far all the witnesses would be talking about it like a birds wings raised 50 feet as the wings fail past 6 to 7 gs and the plane hits the ground early. BANG; oh-noes, the witnesses would be talking about a big boom (the wings breaking) and how a bomb blew up the over G-ed 77. 83.18 degrees would look like 77 was on its side.

Now to do the turn to that heading and go straight into the Pentagon as Craig posted the photo, I will give him 11 digress of bank, the maximum bank seen in the final seconds, and this is conservative giving Craig the break. If the speed was fast at 522 mph as back confirmed by the FDR and RADAR data, and witnesses, you will miss the Pentagon well to the south. If you do 80 mph, you can make the turn with the path you have from Craig.

80 mph! Now who saw the plane doing 80 mph?

Guess what, flight 77 could not even do the turn at 45 degrees, because the 160 knots is stall speed and it would stall at 45 degrees and crash. No bank, no turn.

By lining up 77 as seen by most witnesses (they all said 77 was kind of straight for 10 seconds as it rushed in. This path becomes more impossible than the parameters Reheat used, also from Craig's work.

I used the prior flight path from Paik's work on the Pike, and used a smooth curve to rollout as Craig drew with a straight attack to the Pentagon. If you do not use a smooth curve path from Paik's position over the street, you need more drastic maneuvers no matter which way you go! Catch22 is alive an well in the reality world where the laws of physics are not waived due to saying it is so.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

I was looking at CIT's witness that was getting gas at the Citgo Station. He claims to have witnessed a North of the Citgo pass.



He sure does! And so do ALL the other witnesses.

That can only mean one thing which is.....





He also claims to have seen the impact.


....that this is impossible.



CIT points out that this was impossible due to a mound of dirt that would obstruct his view.


I don't recall saying this.

Why are you telling people what I think or said without quoting me?

He would not have seen the plane on the official flight path at all due to the citgo station itself.

The only reason he saw it is because it was on the north side.

In order to accept the official story you have to believe that Lagasse did not see the plane at all and that all the witnesses simultaneously hallucinated the same thing.



I would like to point out what Craig and Co. post over and over...then I will ask a question...to those that know how to come to an answer...




1. here is a post Craig made recently at the Loose Change Forum. Where he posted possible flight paths:


I think the landing at Reagan is not feasible because it would be an incredible spectacle to 100's of people on the highway while the flyaway would have a MUCH better chance of getting away unnoticed by most.

Here are potential flyaway paths....




Pay attention to the context of my claims and note this key word.....POTENTIAL.

Not for sure.

At that time in that forum when I made that post my main point was that banking upriver would be MORE likely than landing at Reagan.

THAT is the true context of that statement and image.






Craig has changed his mind on the flight path..... but thats not what concerns ,e.


I'm not sure what you mean by "changed his mind" since it's never been completely made up other than the very general claim that it came from east of the river and flew north of the citgo.

I'm allowed to consider possibilities which is all I have ever done about ANY specific flight path.

Certainly where the plane went after the Pentagon will forever be up for debate.

But to be honest we actually believe that it probably flew further across the river and even over DC. Since we have these two incredible pieces of evidence that strongly support this notion:



"About a third of the sky was blacked with smoke", He said. Hunt was in contact with this office via e-mail on September 11 until he left work and decided to walk, rather than catch a crowded subway. "I talked to a number of average people in route who said they saw the plane hovering over the Washington Mall Area at an altitude lower that the height of the Washington Monument" Hunt stated. He said they reported to him they could clearly see the markings of an American Airlines airliner and some even said they could make out faces of passengers in the aircraft windows. Again, this is what Bob Hunt heard from witnesses on the street in Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001.
www.911-strike.com...




And this amazing official report that we know could NOT have really been a departure out of Reagan at 9:37 since national ground stop was at 9:25!


There’s a plane coming in!”
Fortunately, no plane crashed into the
White House. One reason for this false alarm
may have been a split-second decision by an
air-traffic controller. When the hijacked
plane turned into the Pentagon, it was on a
collision course with an airliner leaving Reagan
National Airport as scheduled
. Without
the data from Flight 77’s transponder and
not knowing the intention of the hijacked
plane, the controller ordered the departing
aircraft to take a hard right, into the protected
airspace above the White House
.
!!!!!!!

info.jems.com...


Both of these reports are likely regarding the decoy jet after it flew over the Pentagon.

So please stop talking for me and misrepresenting my claims as you clearly have no idea what I believe.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
If you had to choose a plane to fly with no experience, you should choose the 757/767.

I'm not sure what you mean by that statement?

How can you fly at all, if you have no experience?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by beachnut
If you had to choose a plane to fly with no experience, you should choose the 757/767.

I'm not sure what you mean by that statement?

How can you fly at all, if you have no experience?

People may have great problems getting a plane underway without experience, or some knowledge. But given a jet in flight, flying in good conditions is easy in modern jets. Some older model planes may give some problems only experienced pilots in type could handle.

Sit in seat, hold control column, hope your bicycle riding is like flying for real. Push forward earth gets big, you go faster, pull back earth get smaller, you go slower, then earth gets real big faster, maybe turning rapidly before impact and fire. Push throttle forward go up, pull throttle back you go down. Do you want to turn?

I have flown orientation flights with kids. The kids had never flown, and they flew great having no experience. Many of the kids are natural, need no help at all. How can you fly with no experience? The first time you sit behind the controls you have no experience, your first flight. All pilots have done it once.

Take money to airport, sign up for an orientation flight. They take you up and let you do some flying. You just flew without experience.

If you have no experience, flying the 757/767 is a good choice duie to great handling qualities. Based on the people I have let people fly the KC-135 and smaller planes who had no experience, the flying on 9/11 could be done by a person with no flying experience.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig...

Was it you that stated that said one of your witnesses at the Citgo station said there was a mound of dirt that would have blocked Sgt. Lagasses vision to the Pentagon?

Either way, it does not matter. There is no way your flyover theory is doable.

Now, as far as changing your mind. Your computer graphics show the plane flying straight across the Pentagon. Your drawing shows it going off toward the left.



[edit on 8-4-2008 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig...

Was it you that stated that said one of your witnesses at the Citgo station said there was a mound of dirt that would have blocked Sgt. Lagasses vision to the Pentagon?

Either way, it does not matter. There is no way your flyover theory is doable.

Now, as far as changing your mind. Your computer graphics show the plane flying straight across the Pentagon. Your drawing shows it going off toward the left.



[edit on 8-4-2008 by CaptainObvious]
I thought they had a path, but have started another thread saying they have no path, but present a new "we don't have path but here one is" path that needs 77 degree of bank and misses the impact zone at the Pentagon, right next to window were people would have seen it do who knows what.

As you have pointed out problems with their witnesses; many of their witnesses have statements from 2001 that do not support the flight paths they now never had (and not their implied conclusion). Their solution to the witness statements will be to call them government plants, but their expert questioning has broken the case so they can blame the military, oops, they have blamed the military for the Pentagon, I am now accused by CIT of murder.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 04:42 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.

So on this post you stood by your flight path, but when proven impossible, you start a new thread to say you never had the flight-paths you defended in this thread?

What is going on. One day you have irrefutable evidence, albeit from witnesses that you then massage testimony to come up with impossible flight paths. Then you agree the paths are wrong, so you change them, and finally you abandon the flight-paths for a new thread where you say you never had the flight paths you were defending in the first place.

Do I have this straight?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join