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: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Yes, Muun has a good question about the reconstruction of the planes. To me I would think they would have had to have done some form of reconstruction. The planes did crash, that's obvious enough, but we also must remember that there were reported bombs on 3 of the planes. And I do think it would be important to know if they actually did smuggle bombs aboard, maybe as a fail safe if they were caught or to increase the damage on impact. The 911 report states the FBI found no trace of explosives at the crash sites, but without some form of reconstruction how would they know which scraps to test (cockpit pieces as compared to wing pieces)? Or did they test every scrap? Or did they take a large random sampling? Anybody have any information on their procedure? I haven't found much.....




posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
In the case of the 4 hijacked planes, we know what happened.


Does everyone understand the importance of the psychology behind this statement?

In essence C.O. is underscoring how strong his pure faith is in the official conspiracy theory by flat out admitting that he believes no investigation was necessary at all to the point that he is perfectly ok with the fact that standard procedures were ignored because in his opinion, they would have been a waste of time.

The notion that anyone could have such unyielding faith and crass disregard for transparency in a free nation despite the fact that this crime was the largest on American soil and was instantly used as a pretext for permanent global war is utterly mind boggling to me.

There is no way this guy can consider himself a skeptic or critical thinker.

NO WAY.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
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.


Craig? Response to above?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants

Craig? Response to above?


He is wrong. (At least the sentences that are somewhat coherent. Can someone please teach that guy how to use the English language properly?)

Basically he is saying that ANY bank is "impossible" at any speed which is obviously sheer lunacy.




[edit on 9-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by nicepants

Craig? Response to above?


He wrong. (At least the sentences that are somewhat coherent. Can someone please teach that guy how to use the English language properly?)

Basically he is saying that ANY bank is "impossible" at any speed which is obviously sheer lunacy.




The flight paths you drew have a zero turn-radius..... = Impossible



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants


The flight paths you drew have a zero turn-radius..... = Impossible


You can choose to be disingenuous or you can choose to use your brain and be intellectually honest.

Clearly you choose the former.

The yellow alternative POTENTIAL flight path was created with ms paint for god's sake which obviously has limited capabilities when trying to create a turn radius.

The entire point of this thread is that NONE of these estimations should be taken 100% literally.

Take the same example and imagine the bank as more gradual and it's entirely possible.

The point here is that the evidence proves the plane flew north of the citgo and that we have never committed to an EXACT flight path as we should not have to.

We can only estimate based on the estimations of the eyewitnesses who are certainly not infallible and subject to perception issues etc.

We merely assert that the witnesses are correct about the GENERAL placement of the plane and we do not unreasonably expect them to be mathematically accurate as to the exact placement.

The evidence proves the plane was north of the citgo so whatever IS possible to be pulled off by the richest most powerful military on earth that entails a craft flying north of the citgo is what happened.

To suggest otherwise is merely a means to dismiss evidence based on speculation or to use the straw man argument of attributing an exact flight path to us that we have never committed to.

Faulty logic does not refute hard evidence and the notion that it's impossible to fly a plane north of the citgo is plain old silly.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by nicepants


The flight paths you drew have a zero turn-radius..... = Impossible


You can choose to be disingenuous or you can choose to use your brain and be intellectually honest.

Clearly you choose the former.

The yellow alternative POTENTIAL flight path was created with ms paint for god's sake which obviously has limited capabilities when trying to create a turn radius.


So you draw a flight path and say "it could have been this" and when I point out that the path was impossible I"m being "disingenuous"?

It's not my fault you don't know how to use MS paint.

Draw your flight paths with appropriate turn radii and see what you get.

It is impossible to fly a plane along the path reported by all of your eyewitnesses. There is NO possible flight path which can corroborate all of their claims.



[edit on 9-4-2008 by nicepants]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants


So you draw a flight path and say "it could have been this" and when I point out that the path was impossible I"m being "disingenuous"?

It's not my fault you don't know how to use MS paint.

Draw your flight paths with appropriate turn radii and see what you get.


We have not committed to an exact flight path nor do we need to to validate the evidence.

The notion that it's impossible for the most powerful military on earth to fly a plane north of the citgo is plain old silly and such a suggestion is merely the result of you choosing to dismiss evidence based on speculation and unyielding faith in the official conspiracy theory.

You can't honestly attribute a mathematical flight path to a general claim and you can not logically dismiss a unanimously corroborated general claim based on a specific and speculated exact flight path that nobody has cited.



It is impossible to fly a plane along the path reported by all of your eyewitnesses. There is NO possible flight path which can corroborate all of their claims.


Of course this statement proves your confirmation bias and propensity to spin the facts in order to dismiss evidence.

What's impossible is for any eyewitness to be mathematically perfect in regards to their placement of the plane and we have never expected them to be.

Your expectations in this regard are unreasonable and hypocritical since you are willing to suggest that their unanimous and very GENERAL placement of the plane is drastically and ridiculously incorrect to the point that they would all have had to simultaneously hallucinate the same thing for YOUR theory to be true.

THAT is what is impossible and is what proves the plane was NOT on the south side of the citgo.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
What's particularly funny about this "debate" is that you guys are obsessing over a text book straw man argument in a desperate attempt to spin away the north side evidence all the while completely ignoring the fact that we have STILL proven a military deception on 9/11 anyway with the completely separate east side claim!



Google Video Link

higher quality version on megavideo here

Is it "impossible" for a plane to come from east of the river?

No matter how you look at it we have proven your official conspiracy fantasy false with multiple lines of hard evidence forcing you to wallow in faulty logic and denial in a desperate effort to cling to your unyielding faith.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by nicepants


So you draw a flight path and say "it could have been this" and when I point out that the path was impossible I"m being "disingenuous"?

It's not my fault you don't know how to use MS paint.

Draw your flight paths with appropriate turn radii and see what you get.


We have not committed to an exact flight path nor do we need to to validate the evidence.

The notion that it's impossible for the most powerful military on earth to fly a plane north of the citgo is plain old silly and such a suggestion is merely the result of you choosing to dismiss evidence based on speculation and unyielding faith in the official conspiracy theory.


Strawman again.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


It is impossible to fly a plane along the path reported by all of your eyewitnesses. There is NO possible flight path which can corroborate all of their claims.


Of course this statement proves your confirmation bias and propensity to spin the facts in order to dismiss evidence.


Ok. I'll make this real easy for you, craig. Draw a flight path that's not physically impossible which lines up with all of your eyewitness statements. If you can do that, you'll prove me, ReHeat, and everyone else wrong. I know you won't do it, because you can't.


[edit on 9-4-2008 by nicepants]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Here is another POTENTIAL flight path:



Fits perfectly fine with all the witnesses.

Clearly this is quite possible for an aircraft with all the technology of the US military behind it.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Here is another POTENTIAL flight path:



Fits perfectly fine with all the witnesses.

Clearly this is quite possible for an aircraft with all the technology of the US military behind it.



The path above requires the plane to be in a bank when it flies past the citgo, but your witnesses report that the wings were level. Not only that, look at how many Gs you're pulling. Then, of course, the fact that when it reaches the Pentagon it's too far north.

Try again, but check your work next time.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by nicepants]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by nicepants

Craig? Response to above?


He is wrong. (At least the sentences that are somewhat coherent. Can someone please teach that guy how to use the English language properly?)

Basically he is saying that ANY bank is "impossible" at any speed which is obviously sheer lunacy.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Based on the hard evidence of your witness, the turns are impossible. Bank angle, speed, and G force. It is simple physics of flight, and aircraft independent. Based on your hard evidence from your witness testimony. Who saw small banks (less than 10 degrees). Go ahead plug in 10 degrees of bank (even thought the witnesses said basically level wings, back and forth rocking), and show us the path and G force.

You will offer no numbers or scientific proof, just posts like this now claiming you have no conclusions after implying false path after false path based on the incontrovertible hard evidence from multiple witnesses. Sound like you do not have any evidence to support any path.

No flight path? , you have the incontrovertible hard evidence from multiple witnesses because you were in the orchard and you did the cherry picking yourself, but you have no viable flight path to post.

Your witnesses really do not support any NoC. And as you go through more witnesses you have to discard or discredit more people to find anything to support your NoC. If the NIST working copy had not given you the NoC idea you would not be so lost on a path that is impossible, and stuck with your present list of witnesses that discredit your own work, in your own work.

Who will you discredit next as a government agent. Paik, as a CIA covert ops to seed your story. I saw your video of him, and he supports only a path straight to impact, and he past the buildings blocking his view to draw the lines you did for him.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Here is another POTENTIAL flight path:



Fits perfectly fine with all the witnesses.

Clearly this is quite possible for an aircraft with all the technology of the US military behind it.

Good job, blame the US military. Calling the US military killers at the Pentagon. How do you make up such stuff, blaming me and my fellow USAF members of murder. No evidence just false statements against the US military. Where is your evidence? Prove it.

Blaming the military is this like your path, just a fake statement. You have no real path now after all the hard evidence from those witnesses? Why is that? Where do your keep your real path? Is this military statement no a real allegation yet? Pending the evidence you are making up or did you have evidence but lost it?

Get out your dividers and physics books. Your new non path, backed up with hard evidence based solely on witness statements cherry picked by you in the orchard of truth, gives you 77 degrees of bank and 4.44 Gs. A feat not seen on 9/11 by your witnesses. One of them was right below this 4.44 g turn which would have had him saying the wings were bent way up!

Why does your new non-path totally miss the impact point? The witnesses on 9/11 were talking about the angle the plane hit the building as if the plane was trying to miss the building. Not that it was flying past the impact point by the side of the building. But the fact the plane was not 90 degrees at the impact point but exactly lines up to 61 degree north which places not at 90 degrees to the side. Gee, your own witnesses saw the plane come in and hit, he was right next to the impact point. But you will ignore his full statement. You are confusing what your witnesses are saying and not properly analyzing the data.

Another silly path that was not seen on 9/11. What numbers did you get, SPreston at lcf and p4tf has the speed at over 600 mph. He was so excited Reheat used 770 for the speed of sound in mph instead of fps (which was corrected), but SPreston jumped on Reheats work and confirmed the timing of your witness. But his math error mislead his numbers, and his work really means the plane was going over 530 mph. He forgot to subtract the time of sound to travel after the impact from his excellent scenario. So the high speed is confirmed, and no 200 mph is not fast for a plane. BTW, this area where you witnesses are, is subject to standard traffic everyday, they know fast and slow. So one of your hard evidence witnesses confirms the speed as all the studies confirm too.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


I'm sorry "beachnut" but your sentences are not complete, barely coherent, and filled with strange irrelevant references, pointless accusations, and incorrect claims.

It's virtually impossible to get through one of your convoluted paragraphs that really don't seem to say much at all.

First off....I am not accusing any individual or low level members of the military like you of this crime.

But the suspect in question most certainly does have control of the military and full access to their resources and technology which is all that I said.

Spare me the empty flag waving McCarthy era demonization attempts.

Second off....nothing was "cherry picked". We are the ONLY people who have canvassed the area for previously unknown witnesses and that is mostly who we are referencing. You can not provide ANY witnesses who place the plane south of the citgo so I have no idea why you would say we "cherry picked". Particularly since we have presented ALL known witnesses who were at the citgo ON TOP of the ones we found who were previously unknown.

Third off nobody can possibly know the speed of the craft so you can fabricate that value all day long but there is no reason to suggest it had to be traveling over 300mph.

There is nothing impossible about a plane flying north of the citgo.

Fourth off I have no idea what you are rambling about Edward Paik being a government operative. Are you out of your mind? Just because he didn't notice or report the plane banking doesn't mean that it wasn't.

It's unreasonable to expect any of the witnesses to be mathematically accurate about everything they saw.

Sean Boger most certainly DID notice the plane banking over the Navy Annex so that not only supports the NOC flight path but also DESTROYS the official flight path which would not have a visible bank AT ALL.

Now please learn to keep your sentences complete, coherent, and concise if you expect anyone to actually read let alone comprehend what you have yourself all worked up in a lather about.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants

The path above requires the plane to be in a bank when it flies past the citgo, but your witnesses report that the wings were level. Not only that, look at how many Gs you're pulling. Then, of course, the fact that when it reaches the Pentagon it's too far north.



Actually you are wrong.

ATC Sean Boger was in the heliport tower and is the only one who had a view of the plane AS it approached and continued past the citgo on the north side and he most certainly DOES report the plane as banking over the Navy Annex.



"As he was coming towards me it just seemed like he was tilting the aircraft to his right. It was almost like....not really going in nose first...it's just like almost like at an angle."


He also reports it on the north side of the station just like everyone else.



"It would be on my right or the gas station's left. If I'm looking out my window cause I'm looking toward the gas station.....it would be on my right hand side."


The fact that the others were not able to see the bank or did not happen to notice it does not prove Sean Boger incorrect in this notion.

The fact that ALL of them saw the plane north of the citgo proves that they were ALL deliberately deceived in regards to the alleged impact.


Oh and please tell me how to "look" at "G's".

There is nothing unreasonable about that flight path at say 2 or 300mph which would still seem quite fast at such a low altitude.





[edit on 9-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craige Ranke, tell us more about this gasoline station, the Citgo. Do you actually know where it is/(was)...name's been changed, maybe YOU had something to do with it!! Yup! That's the conspiracy, folks!

Just a little joke....I know exactly where this gas station is, have driven past, while following directions to join up with Columbia Pike, West....anyone can drive by it. I was startled, last month, to see the name changed, can't remember what it's called now....

Try this, Mr. Ranke.....post some more GoogleMap images, but zoom in a little more, and perhaps add the street names (Google does it for you, just click the option) for the benefit of those on ATS who don't live here....



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Ok I will admit that Mike Walter is the ONE witness who specifically placed the plane south of the citgo on ONE occasion.

However he invalidates this claim by describing the same bank/turn on the approach that Sean Boger described.



This bank supports the NOC flight path 100% and Walter repeated this claim many times on 9/11, the very next morning in this news broadcast, and in the subsequent days and years after the event.

Apparently he wasn't aware of how bad this detail destroys the official deception that he otherwise has worked so hard to promote.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Craige Ranke, tell us more about this gasoline station, the Citgo. Do you actually know where it is/(was)...name's been changed, maybe YOU had something to do with it!! Yup! That's the conspiracy, folks!

Just a little joke....I know exactly where this gas station is, have driven past, while following directions to join up with Columbia Pike, West....anyone can drive by it. I was startled, last month, to see the name changed, can't remember what it's called now....


Actually it has always been the "Navy Exchange" which is a military exchange. You can only buy gas, bottled water, or ANYTHING there if you work for the government.

They removed all reference to CITGO and repainted the place at the end of 2006 only a mere few weeks after our first visit and near the same time that the security video tape from 9/11 was quietly released even though they illegally tampered with the evidence to remove all views of the Pentagon/plane.

So both of these actions happened within days after we first announced that Robert Turcios confirmed seeing the plane on the north side and a couple of months BEFORE I went back and obtained all of their testimony on video tape.

So you may not be that far off in your "joke".

Conveniently......Hugo Chavez had just called Bush "the devil" at the United Nations. CITGO gas is provided for by Venezuela.

Robert Turcios was cited by The Washington Post regarding this for an article:

At the Pentagon Citgo, Price Trumps Patriotism

So when we followed up with him trying to book our on camera interview he said "I can't talk to the media anymore" because that article didn't bode to well with his higher ups.

Soon after they removed the CITGO sign and painted the place.

When I showed up in November I had Brooks and Lagasse booked for the interview but I had to convince Robert in person to talk to me.

He was reluctant but thank god he ended up agreeing.



Here is the new paint job:





Try this, Mr. Ranke.....post some more GoogleMap images, but zoom in a little more, and perhaps add the street names (Google does it for you, just click the option) for the benefit of those on ATS who don't live here....


Oh come on buddy.

You can do some work too! Hook it up!


[edit on 9-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


77 degrees of bank?

Your witnesses all support less than 10 degrees of bank. Your non-paths did not happen, NoC did not happen. You can not even do some numbers for us. You make up planes flown by the military to commit murder without even thinking about it.

All your witnesses support a plane impacting the Pentagon, and not one person saw a fly over. No science needed to show that.

You better check your witness statements made in 2001. They support the 61 degree true heading impact, with only a variation of 1 or 2 degrees in the flight path. Your own hard evidence witnesses confirm it. Did you really listen to them? Statements from your witnesses make your story false, and other witnesses you ignore make your story false.

Can you say 77 degrees of bank? Do you know what that looks like? Can you say 4.44 Gs? Why are you absent numbers, and only talk about it?

You blamed the military for the murder of those at the Pentagon without proof; you present a non-path shown to be false with physics. Now you will talk it all away with your hard evidence witness statements now messed up by your new investigation with false non-paths, made from the hard evidence from your witness statements.

77 degrees. Who saw 77 degrees. Did you correct SPreston's timing errors?

Having problems translating my poor writing? That must be indicative of your understanding your own witnesses, who debunk your own work in your presentations, and you missed it.

Please feel free to ask me what I mean. Hint: I mean your NoC is a fantasy.

Paik being a CIA agent; Good example of you not being able to provide meaning to what you read from me the poor writer. Paik being a CIA agent was alluding to you saying he was (in the future), after you figure out he did not see your 77 degree banked turn! And after you see the testimony you got from him, supports a speed of 530 mph (or around that). You now have a hint at why you are messing up the testimony of witnesses and not understanding 9/11. Like my poor writing abilities do you have poor analysis of witness statements? I gave you a statement, and you know my problem, but failed to gain the real meaning. Is this what you do with witness statements? Fail to gain the meaning? We can help you with the numbers to show you the paths you derive do not fit your own witnesses statements. Do you need help?


[edit on 9-4-2008 by beachnut]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join