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.

 

CIT's flight path can't be impossible because we never had one

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   
And we still don't.

The only thing we say we have proven is the very general claim that the plane came from east of the river and flew north of the citgo.

We have NEVER committed to an exact "flight path" and have only put out a couple of images with quickly drawn hypothetical estimates that were not meant to be taken as gospel.

The analysis of our detractors at the jref forum and their proclamation that the "CIT flight path is impossible" as referenced in this thread is a text book straw man argument and desperate attempt to cast doubt on real evidence with faulty logic.

They are simply taking a static hypothetical scenario that we have never stated is fact, attributing it to us as if we consider it fact, fabricating all the unknown variables, and falsely attributing everything to us while using all of these incorrect notions to suggest that we've been debunked.

It's complete nonsense and it's born out of pure desperation to avoid the implications of the evidence.

Here are a few more potential final banks that would still fit with the witnesses perfectly.



Remember...we don't know the speed. Even 200mph would seem "fast" to people at such an incredibly low altitude.

There is nothing impossible in regards to what all the witnesses saw and nobody could ever definitively say that it is impossible without knowing the dimensions/weight/type of plane, whether or not military modifications played a role, how fast the plane was traveling, how high it was, what its descent rate was (and it would HAVE to descend or be in descent due to the topography). Plus we are not aviation professionals and have never attempted to estimate a flight path with all that in full consideration.

But we know for a fact that the north of the citgo flight path in general is certainly possible.

We know this because it's what all the real people who were actually there saw and their accounts independently match.

It's easy for our detractors to call it "impossible" when they say that it's "CIT's" flight path.

But it is NOT our flight path. It is the eyewitnesses' flight path.

I'd like to see our detractors who have tried to spread this erroneous faulty logic as if they have finally "got" CIT tell all the witnesses to their faces that where they all saw the plane fly on 9/11 is "impossible".





posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Now as far as what happened to it AFTER it flew over the Pentagon....

Naturally we can't say for sure but these two important pieces of evidence show that it may have actually crossed the river into DC skies before making a steep and fast climb away and out of sight.

This incredible quote from Bob Hunt talks about a plane seen over DC at an altitude "lower" than the Washington Monument!



"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 check out this absolutely 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...


This is VERY important evidence people.

Please pay special attention.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
The calculations were based on where your eyewitnesses said the plane was. The calculations show that said flight path is impossible, therefore your eyewitnesses are wrong.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by nicepants
 


How can you rely on any single eyewitness for the EXACT placement of the plane?

All they can do is generalize and there are always perspective issues.

Nothing any single witness claims is "impossible".

You also can not accurately determine speed of the plane from any of the eyewitnesses.

Reheat completely fabricated ALL the value so he could create his own "impossible" flight path and used this completely false straw man to yell DEBUNKED!

It's really quite comical and shows the pure desperation and egregious faulty logic you have resorted to in order to dismiss hard evidence proving the official conspiracy fantasy false.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



Not a single witness, Craig. To validate the accounts of all of your witnesses would require the plane to have performed a maneuver it could not have performed. Speed can be estimated based on how long the plane took to get from the location at which a witness reported it to the Pentagon.

If Reheat got the wrong path, please correct him and illustrate the flight path that your eyewitnesses agree on.


[Mod Edit - Remove quote]

Mod note Please Review: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote

Quote the post immediately before yours: This makes no sense, and quoting the entire previous post above yours will result in a slight warning.

[edit on 8/4/2008 by Sauron]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants
Not a single witness, Craig. To validate the accounts of all of your witnesses would require the plane to have performed a maneuver it could not have performed.


There could be dozens of possibilities for the flight path. Reheat chose ONE that he could call impossible, attributed it to us, and claimed he won the argument.

That is a text book straw man.

Faulty logic does not refute hard evidence.



Speed can be estimated based on how long the plane took to get from the location at which a witness reported it to the Pentagon.


How does it make sense to expect a witness to be accurate about the much more difficult to judge and remember timing or speed while simultaneously suggesting that they were all completely wrong about the general placement of the plane in relation to the property they were standing which would would clearly be infinitely easier to determine?

The logic is so inherently hypocritical that it's ridiculous.



If Reheat got the wrong path, please correct him and illustrate the flight path that your eyewitnesses agree on.


As I said there could be dozens of possibilities but I already did post a few other POTENTIAL options in the OP.




[edit on 8-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by nicepants
Not a single witness, Craig. To validate the accounts of all of your witnesses would require the plane to have performed a maneuver it could not have performed.


There could be dozens of possibilities for the flight path. Reheat chose ONE that he could call impossible, attributed it to us, and claimed he won the argument.


hah...ok, so prove reheat wrong and show us the flight path that was possible...oh wait.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITHow does it make sense to expect a witness to be accurate about the much more difficult to judge and remember timing or speed while simultaneously suggesting that they were all completely wrong about the general placement of the plane in relation to the property they were standing which would would clearly be infinitely easier to determine?

The logic is so inherently hypocritical that it's ridiculous.



So, your witness was wrong about the timing?


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITAs I said there could be dozens of possibilities but I already did post a few other POTENTIAL options in the OP.


Reheat's calculations show that ANY flight path which supports all of your eyewitness statements would have been impossible.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by nicepants]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
So basically when it comes to proving a conspiracy, the witness accounts are 100% completely accurate. When those witnesses claims debunk a conspiracy, they are unreliable. I am getting the hang of this now.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
So basically when it comes to proving a conspiracy, the witness accounts are 100% completely accurate. When those witnesses claims debunk a conspiracy, they are unreliable. I am getting the hang of this now.


Yes, you are correct.

That is why Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and their buddy, Ray Balsamo, flatly refuse to provide the statements of over 1,000 people who saw and/or recovered the wreckage from inside the Pentagon. Not to speak of the all the other witnesses who saw AA77 hit the Pentagon and Ranke's inability to find anyone who saw AA77 fly beyond the Pentagon.

As Ranke, Aldo, and Ray Balsamo know full well, CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth are and dead and finished.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants

hah...ok, so prove reheat wrong and show us the flight path that was possible...oh wait.


How many times do I have to tell you that I already provided some POTENTIAL hypothetical versions that are perfectly possible?

Particularly when considering the plane may have been traveling 2 or 3 hundred mph.




So, your witness was wrong about the timing?


It's silly to expect witnesses to be mathematically accurate about ANY claims let alone something as arbitrary and difficult to gage as speed.

We don't have unreasonable expectations for the witnesses to be perfectly correct about anything.

In fact we only expect that they are correct about the extremely general claim regarding what side of the station it flew. Not the exact mathematical placement of the plane.

Like Lagasse said:




Perhaps it was closer, perhaps it was further away, but it HAD to be on the north side. There is NO WAY that plane was on the south side.


When it comes to eyewitnesses....the most generalized and corroborated claims are always the most accurate.

The more detailed and specific claims are typically the least accurate. Speed in particular would be very hard to judge and remember for a human.

Plus we know that Sean Boger watched the entire approach and he told us he saw the plane for at least 15 seconds. He wouldn't have been able to see it further back than the Sheraton.

Bottom line you can't accurately use eyewitnesses to get an exact mathematical value for speed but you certainly can to get a GENERALIZED placement of the plane. Particularly when they ALL corroborate each other in this regard.


This is all common sense that you guys are forced to ignore and be disingenuous about to continue to support your faith based belief in the official conspiracy theory.







Reheat's calculations show that ANY flight path which supports all of your eyewitness statements would have been impossible.


No they do not.

He doesn't consider the image in the OP that's for sure. He fully admitted that he made up his OWN flight path for the calculations.

It's a text book straw man. Attribute a claim to your opponent that he never made and scream DEBUNKED!



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
So basically when it comes to proving a conspiracy, the witness accounts are 100% completely accurate. When those witnesses claims debunk a conspiracy, they are unreliable. I am getting the hang of this now.


Wrong.

We use logic, reason, and the scientific method of corroboration to determine which claims are correct.

We don't require or expect ANY of the witnesses to be mathematically accurate about ANY claims and we simply cite the fact that their very general yet unanimous placement of the plane on the north side of Columbia Pike and the gas station proves this one extremely generalized and simple claim correct.

To suggest that this means they must be perfectly or mathematically correct about the exact placement of the plane or any other details is pure faulty logic and a rather disingenuous way to consider this evidence.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Wrong.

We use logic, reason, and the scientific method of corroboration to determine which claims are correct.

We don't require or expect ANY of the witnesses to be mathematically accurate about ANY claims and we simply cite the fact that their very general yet unanimous placement of the plane on the north side of Columbia Pike and the gas station proves this one extremely generalized and simple claim correct.

To suggest that this means they must be perfectly or mathematically correct about the exact placement of the plane or any other details is pure faulty logic and a rather disingenuous way to consider this evidence.



You do no such thing. How can you say that with a straight face? Your own threads prove you wrong over and over. Your own claims prove you wrong. your own witnesses prove you wrong.

Please don't pretend to be using logic of any sort.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy

You do no such thing. How can you say that with a straight face? Your own threads prove you wrong over and over. Your own claims prove you wrong. your own witnesses prove you wrong.

Please don't pretend to be using logic of any sort.


This is not an intellectual response to my post.

You ignored everything I said and resorted to blanket denial.

Just like a little kid whose only retort is NU UH!



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


This is not an intellectual response to my post.

You ignored everything I said and resorted to blanket denial.

Just like a little kid whose only retort is NU UH!


It was on par with your post. You simply resorted to blanket denial so how can I do anything but point it out? Simply running around and saying you are factual and logical is not an argument. So what are you expecting? We have already shown you over and over why this is so, but you keep coming back with the same blanket denial.

Just like you cherry pick your witness testimony. If they think the plane may have been to the north you claim they have to be correct. When they claim to have literally seen the plane hit the building, you claim they are incorrect. When you use their testimony of the plane locations to claim you have factual proof the military created an inside job, then they are 100% accurate. but when those positions they put the plane in requires the plane make impossible maneuvers, you change your tune.

And again, this still doesnt change the most important fact that you are using the weakest form of evidence that even accident investigators would not touch to dismiss all the more credible evidence. And you do it by making conjecture that all the more credible and reliable evidence is all planted and what not. And you make claims of a fly over which have absolutely no witnesses or evidence, while trying to claim other people have no witnesses of a plane impact when your OWN witnesses verify it.

I mean that's as hypocritical as it gets.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by nicepants

hah...ok, so prove reheat wrong and show us the flight path that was possible...oh wait.


How many times do I have to tell you that I already provided some POTENTIAL hypothetical versions that are perfectly possible?

Particularly when considering the plane may have been traveling 2 or 3 hundred mph.



It would have had to have been going approx. 80 mph to perform the maneuver you're claiming it did.



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So, your witness was wrong about the timing?


It's silly to expect witnesses to be mathematically accurate about ANY claims let alone something as arbitrary and difficult to gage as speed.

We don't have unreasonable expectations for the witnesses to be perfectly correct about anything.

In fact we only expect that they are correct about the extremely general claim regarding what side of the station it flew. Not the exact mathematical placement of the plane.


LOL. So again, they're wrong about everything except that it was north of the citgo.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
When it comes to eyewitnesses....the most generalized and corroborated claims are always the most accurate.

The more detailed and specific claims are typically the least accurate. Speed in particular would be very hard to judge and remember for a human.


Impact is a more generalized claim than the location of the plane as it passed overhead at xhundred miles per hour.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Plus we know that Sean Boger watched the entire approach and he told us he saw the plane for at least 15 seconds. He wouldn't have been able to see it further back than the Sheraton.


That doesn't agree with what your other witnesses said.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Bottom line you can't accurately use eyewitnesses to get an exact mathematical value for speed but you certainly can to get a GENERALIZED placement of the plane. Particularly when they ALL corroborate each other in this regard.


If you can get the location of the plane, and you know how long it takes to get from that location to another location, you can get an estimate of the speed.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Reheat's calculations show that ANY flight path which supports all of your eyewitness statements would have been impossible.


No they do not.

He doesn't consider the image in the OP that's for sure. He fully admitted that he made up his OWN flight path for the calculations.

It's a text book straw man. Attribute a claim to your opponent that he never made and scream DEBUNKED!


All of the flight paths in your photo would have required the plane to perform an impossible maneuver.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy

I mean that's as hypocritical as it gets.


Craig Ranke does not dissemble well.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by snoopy
So basically when it comes to proving a conspiracy, the witness accounts are 100% completely accurate. When those witnesses claims debunk a conspiracy, they are unreliable. I am getting the hang of this now.


Wrong.

We use logic, reason, and the scientific method of corroboration to determine which claims are correct.

We don't require or expect ANY of the witnesses to be mathematically accurate about ANY claims and we simply cite the fact that their very general yet unanimous placement of the plane on the north side of Columbia Pike and the gas station proves this one extremely generalized and simple claim correct.

To suggest that this means they must be perfectly or mathematically correct about the exact placement of the plane or any other details is pure faulty logic and a rather disingenuous way to consider this evidence.

Why are all your flight paths impossible? What did you make a mistake doing? The bank angles and G force are not possible to make the path. How did your incontrovertible witness statements fail? Why do your own witnesses say 77 hit the Pentagon?

Why are you unable to use logic and reason to present the bank angles and G force in your turns or even the speeds, so we can see how you made the errors? You have to have numbers, you have hard evidence you said, that must mean you have some hard numbers, right?

Which is your present best guess for a flight path? Is it possible with the bank angles your witnesses said they saw? What was that one guy said, "wings level", you know that is 0 degrees of bank right?

What do you have in terms of real numbers for those turns, and which incontrovertible path or video of yours shows the real path that is backed by the hard evidence? And can you label that hard evidence to the path, or something?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CITCIT's flight path can't be impossible because we never had one
 


The yellow line! It has a ridiculous small radius of turn. At stall speed of 160 KIAS, that needs 85 degrees of bank and 11.47 Gs. At 200 KIAS 86.5 degrees of bank and 16 Gs. At 300 KIAS (a speed the 757 loves) over 88 degree of bank and more than 28 Gs. Note: all of these turns at any speed would stall the plane and it crashes right there NoC End of Story.

Take any of the other lines, they are all worse than the work Reheat gave you to help you out. They are all impossible, and there is no path you can make up that is possible with your hard evidence witnesses you have and cherry pick and twist to fit your "I don't have a path or theory" stuff.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I have a question that may be a bit off topic here but the people in this thread may be the best to answer it.
When a plane crashes, is it not the resposability (spelling) of the FAA to completely reconstruct the wreckage? Regardless of how many pieces are recovered.
I have not heard of ANY reconstruction of the planes from 9-11. WHY?
Thanks for any answers.
Please post elsewhere if not appropriate here. Thanks



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Muundoggie
 


Hi Muun... good,fair question. Most of the times, a recreation of the plane is necessary to determine what caused the crash. In the case of the 4 hijacked planes, we know what happened. Thats not to say plane parts were not gathered at all 4 sites. (counting GZ as two)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join