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: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.




posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


How much money do I bring?



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


How much money do I bring?


LOL beach!

Well...I need some research....my feeling is that a Sim costs a couple thousand an hour, so two hours, is $4000. Plus the two Instructors, let's say $200/hour....(each) that is another ...let's say, $1000. So, it's about (and this is just off the top of my head) about $5000, divided by 7 (myself, plus six others)....that's about $419 each, before travel and lodging, of course.

AND, I really don't know the actual rate for a Sim today, could be out of date on costs...so say the Sim is $3000/hour, and adjust accordingly...
WW



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Craig-

We're all still waiting for you to connect the dots to form an aerodynamically possible flight path. So far you have failed to do so.

I think it's clear that you know the flight path your witnesses describe (requiring a 77 degree bank) was impossible.

Your hypothesis is wrong, time to formulate a new one.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by nicepants
 


No you are wrong and so is Reheat and I already did post a possible flight path.

Reheat's calculations are completely out of context and perfectly linear.

They have NOTHING to do with the evidence we present primarily the account of Steve Chaconas.

It is a textbook straw man argument.

The plane wasn't perfectly level and it didn't all of the sudden make the final bank over the Navy Annex as reported by Sean Boger and Mike Walter out of nowhere.

It was a constant gradual descending loop similar to what we saw in the NTSB animation only it looped around the airport just as Steve Chaconas described.

Something similar to this ESTIMATE:


This means that Reheat's "calculations" mean nothing.

Are you suggesting that Steve Chaconas also hallucinated what he saw on 9/11 and that no plane looped around the airport like this just before the smoke rose from the Pentagon? Is it "impossible" for a plane to bank around the airport like he reported?

You need for A LOT of credible individuals to have hallucinated on that day for your official conspiracy fantasy to be true.

Why do you dismiss independent evidence in favor of pure faith in the government story?

Why are you ashamed to admit that you believe the government story?

Do you believe in a conspiracy?



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by nicepants
 


No you are wrong and so is Reheat and I already did post a possible flight path.

Reheat's calculations are completely out of context and perfectly linear.

They have NOTHING to do with the evidence we present primarily the account of Steve Chaconas.


They take into account the statements of Paik, Turcios, Lagasse & Brooks, and show that their statements require the plane to perform an impossible maneuver involving a 77 degree bank, which none of them reported.



[PERSONAL ATTACK REMOVED]



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITAre you suggesting that Steve Chaconas also hallucinated what he saw on 9/11 and that no plane looped around the airport like this just before the smoke rose from the Pentagon? Is it "impossible" for a plane to bank around the airport like he reported?

You need for A LOT of credible individuals to have hallucinated on that day for your official conspiracy fantasy to be true.


No, they just have to be wrong.
Your theory requires the laws of physics and aeronymics to be broken.


[PERSONAL ATTACK REMOVED]


You have yet provided a physically-possible flight path that corroborates the statements of Paik, Turcios, Lagasse & Brooks, because there IS NO physically-possible flight path that can be flown based on their statements of where the plane was.



 

Please review this link: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Focus on the issues and not each other.


[edit on 11-4-2008 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants


They take into account the statements of Paik, Turcios, Lagasse & Brooks, and show that their statements require the plane to perform an impossible maneuver involving a 77 degree bank, which none of them reported.


The calculations to reach this false "77 degree bank" conclusion are fabricated, out of context, and completely irrelevant to the loop that Steve Chaconas reported which proves the plane was already descending in a bank the entire time before it ever reached Paik.

"Reheat's" calculations have nothing to do with this scenario.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?






No, they just have to be wrong.
Your theory requires the laws of physics and aeronymics to be broken.


No they don't. You are erroneously claiming this based on nothing but fabricated, irrelevant, out of context equations.



You have yet provided a physically-possible flight path that corroborates the statements of Paik, Turcios, Lagasse & Brooks, because there IS NO physically-possible flight path that can be flown based on their statements of where the plane was.


Yes I have. There is nothing impossible about the descending loop that Steve Chaconas reports nor is there anything impossible about the plane flying north of the citgo.

The entire notion is nothing but a hypothetical irrelevant fantasy that was created to cast doubt on real evidence proving the official story false.

Why do you dismiss independent evidence in favor of pure faith in the government story?

Are you ashamed to admit that you believe the government story?



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by nicepants


They take into account the statements of Paik, Turcios, Lagasse & Brooks, and show that their statements require the plane to perform an impossible maneuver involving a 77 degree bank, which none of them reported.


The calculations to reach this false "77 degree bank" conclusion are fabricated, out of context, and completely irrelevant to the loop that Steve Chaconas reported which proves the plane was already descending in a bank the entire time before it ever reached Paik.


The loop described by Steve Chaconas is irrelevant to these calculations. They deal with what the plane did after it passed Paik.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITYes I have. There is nothing impossible about the descending loop that Steve Chaconas reports nor is there anything impossible about the plane flying north of the citgo.


We're talking about what the plane did after it passed Paik. It could not have flown by him where he said it did, flown north of the citgo, then turned to fly towards the impact point of the pentagon. Reheat proved this.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITAre you ashamed to admit that you believe the government story?


Whether I believe in the OT has no bearing on your theory being false.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants

They take into account the statements of Paik, Turcios, Lagasse & Brooks, and show that their statements require the plane to perform an impossible maneuver involving a 77 degree bank, which none of them reported.


This statement proves your lack of understanding in the calculations you are discussing and the evidence we present.

The calculations are completely removed from the evidence which has the plane already on a constant descending banking around the airport.

The evidence we present is not limited to Paik, Turcios, Lagasse, and Brooks.

Boger saw the bank over the Navy Annex north of the Citgo and Chaconas reports the loop around the airport on the approach.

You can't ignore what the plane was doing BEFORE it reached Paik as if it suddenly appeared out of thin air and had to perform that final bank.

Yet this is the completely irrelevant out of context scenario that you are using to determine your fabricated "77 degrees of bank".






The loop described by Steve Chaconas is irrelevant to these calculations. They deal with what the plane did after it passed Paik.



As you blatantly admit that the calculations are out of context of the evidence by calling the evidence "irrelevant"!

What the plane did before it reached Paik is not "irrelevant" to what it did as it passed him!

The calculations are presenting a random linear scenario.

The evidence we present demonstrates it was already on a descening loop around the airport.

Why would you embrace calculations that ignore the evidence in order to support your faith in the government story?







We're talking about what the plane did after it passed Paik. It could not have flown by him where he said it did, flown north of the citgo, then turned to fly towards the impact point of the pentagon. Reheat proved this.


No Reheat did not because he ignored the evidence we provide proving that the plane was ALREADY in a descending bank as it looped around the airport.

This means his "calculations" are irrelevant to the evidence presented.




Whether I believe in the OT has no bearing on your theory being false.


It has everything to do with why you insist on dismissing evidence in favor of pure faith in the official story.

It has everything to do with your propensity to accept the straw man argument of using irrelevant out of context calculations to deem the evidence we present invalid.

This discussion has nothing to do with any "theory". It is strictly in regards to evidence that you are choosing to dismiss based on faulty logic and completely false and fabricated calculations.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by nicepants

They take into account the statements of Paik, Turcios, Lagasse & Brooks, and show that their statements require the plane to perform an impossible maneuver involving a 77 degree bank, which none of them reported.


This statement proves your lack of understanding in the calculations you are discussing and the evidence we present.

The calculations are completely removed from the evidence which has the plane already on a constant descending banking around the airport.

The evidence we present is not limited to Paik, Turcios, Lagasse, and Brooks


You can't ignore what the plane was doing BEFORE it reached Paik as if it suddenly appeared out of thin air and had to perform that final bank.


Understood. But reheat demonstrated that the plane could not have done what Paik, Turcios, Lagasse & Brooks claim that it did...regardless of what Steve Chaconas saw.

What steve saw can't change the laws of aerodynamics.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The evidence we present demonstrates it was already on a descening loop around the airport.


Regardless of what the plane did prior to reaching Paik, it could not have done what Paik, Turcios, Lagasse & Brooks say that it did after that point.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants


Understood. But reheat demonstrated that the plane could not have done what Paik, Turcios, Lagasse & Brooks claim that it did...regardless of what Steve Chaconas saw.

What steve saw can't change the laws of aerodynamics.



Apparently you DIDN'T understand because he based this on a perfectly level and straight plane instantaneously going into the final bank after the Navy Annex at a fabricated speed way beyond what we propose.

Chaconas proved the plane did not behave that way at all.

You can't ignore what the plane was doing right before it reached Paik. Because Reheat did this, his calculations after it reached Paik are completely false and irrelevant to the evidence.

Chaconas proves the plane was not traveling perfectly straight and level which it had to be for Reheat's calculations to be the least bit relevant.






Regardless of what the plane did prior to reaching Paik, it could not have done what Paik, Turcios, Lagasse & Brooks say that it did after that point.


You are completely wrong and the fact that you keep repeating this proves your lack of understanding of the very calculations that you are defending based on faith.

The calculations are not valid when considering the plane was already in a wide descending bank as reported by Chaconas.

This fact changes everything yet was ignored.

The out of context scenario that he set up as a straw man argument is completely irrelevant to the evidence yet you don't seem to care and choose to blindly follow it and the official story based on nothing but pure faith.

Do you agree that the calculations are in regards to a linear scenario and assume that the plane was perfectly level and straight when it reached Paik?

Do you understand how the calculations are not relevant if this was not the case?

Do you agree that Chaconas has the plane in a descending loop around the airport which is not considered in the calculations?

Do you understand that the very fact that the plane came from east of the river and looped around the airport at all proves a military deception on 9/11 completely separate from the north side claim?



[edit on 11-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Over Paik's business (wings level), bank over the Navy Annex, then North of the Citgo (wings level) then to the impact Point. Not Possible

Just to get from Paik's location to wings level north of the citgo would require 8 gs.

Nothing Steve Chaconas says makes the above flight path possible.

Descent would not reduce the number of Gs pulled in the bank, and the turn would have to stop before reaching Paik in order for the wings to be level.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Do you understand that the very fact that the plane came from east of the river and looped around the airport at all proves a military deception on 9/11 completely separate from the north side claim?


It doesn't prove anything with regard to military involvement.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by nicepants]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Chaconas proved the plane did not behave that way at all.

Chaconas proves the plane was not traveling perfectly straight and level which it had to be for Reheat's calculations to be the least bit relevant.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]
He saw the C-130 backed up by RADAR data, it is an exact match.

Oh, the evil empire, my fellow soldiers, the FAA, and others faked the RADAR data and your proof is? Absent

Your misinterpreting your witnesses.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 



NONSENSE!! " we investigate to find out what really happened". But in this case, we do not need to investigate because we already know what happened. How do we know what happened without investigating? Well, because the government says so, thats why. Well, how can the government be trusted to tell the truth when they have been proven liars over and over? Well, don't ask troublesome questions, just accept that we know what happened, OK? Why should I accept it? Well, because we already know what happened, and we didn't need any stinking investigation and recration to show us..we just KNOW..OK?

THAT is the logic of the official lie supporters. It staggers the sound mind, does it not? How on earth can anyone still believe that a jet hit the Pentagon? We know what happened despite no investigation because we can trust the perps top tell the truth to us all. My God, how far we have fallen. If anyone really can accept that it says a lot about them but little about the truth:You cannot dismiss the HUNDREDS of anomalies that scream out of this event. Taken one by one they shred the official lie, but together it is beyond doubt: No evidence exits that proves the official story true.

Where are the photos of the bodies strapped into their seats? Where are the photo's of the two massive engines that did not make a mark on the wall? On and on....all ignored by the drones that still insist that the rabbit hole is actually the real world. The excuses they give are laughable and silly, but to them it is all they have and they treat supposition as fact with no shame at all. I will say it again: There are only TWO reasons for someone to believe the official story:

One, they are in a state of psychological denial and CANNOT accept the truth...or two: They are for some reason in agreement with the perps in their plans and goals, or being paid to deny truth. What other choice is there? None. There really is no other choice. No one can believe that a total lack of hard evidence is Ok. If so that tells us what we need to know about their ability to recognize and discern reality and make sound judgements. No other way.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants

Descent would not reduce the number of Gs pulled in the bank, and the turn would have to stop before reaching Paik in order for the wings to be level.


Yes it would!

ESPECIALLY since it was ALREADY in a bank.

That's the entire point that somehow completely eludes you.





It doesn't prove anything with regard to military involvement.


Oh really?

You are clearly oblivious to any of the facts behind what we are discussing.

Please study the NTSB flight path and think long and hard about that answer.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut

He saw the C-130 backed up by RADAR data, it is an exact match.




The C-130 is not a "commercial airliner" like Steve reported.

The RADES data does NOT have the C-130 looping around the airport like Steve reported.

The only way you can say that this is what he saw let alone an "exact match" is if you ignore absolutely everything he says which is clearly what both you AND Reheat are doing.



No commercial airliner or bank around the airport at all:


I know it's hard to accept when the facts prove you wrong "beachnut".

But denial isn't healthy.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

mirage, I've not seen anything about the 'alleged' flight path,, except some stuff from CIT.

I wrote earlier, I have a summary from NTSB mentioning the Auto-Flight interaction on the flight, AA77. Scroll up, it's there on this thread, I hope, unless I posted somewhere else.....

OK - I'll have a look and see if I can find it. Certainly from what I've seen (both official, from CIT, and other sources), nothing about any of the flight paths appears to be "impossible".


But, in short, the AP and A/T were disconnected, and the lst few minutes of the airplane were hand flown. Because, this makes sense, these Arab monkeys knew how to fly below 10,000 feet, because that was what they were used to!

Been there, done that.
I also fly extensively in MS FS 9 and FSX. I also have a 767 add-on for MSFS that I am very proficient in flying. In total, I have about 3000 hours FS time since 2004, approx. 1000 hours of that are supersonic.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The RADES data does NOT have the C-130 looping around the airport like Steve reported.

If you look at the RADAR data, it matches your witness statement for the C-130, not 77. You have misinterpreted the witness statement and you said the RADAR data was faked. All of this with no proof of the RADAR data being faked.
Your witness saw a plane, it was the C-130. Your flight-paths are proven wrong and now your have no flight paths. Your witnesses prove your assertions wrong, next you will not have witnesses. When your witnesses do not match you fantasy you attack them and call them agents.

Look at the RADAR data, it matches your witness statement for the C-130, not 77. You have misinterpreted the witness statement and you said the RADAR data was faked. All of this with no proof of the RADAR data being faked.
Your witness saw a plane, it was the C-130. Your flight-paths are proven wrong and now your have no flight paths. Your witnesses prove your assertions wrong, next you will not have witnesses. When your witnesses do not match you fantasy you attack them and call them agents.

It gets real funny when you find out they are using a news mistake for the 77 path they use ignoring the real path backed up by more witnesses they cite. The RADAR data for 77 never has it going over the river. Therefore the only plane for their witness on the water to see cross the river is the C-130. And there is hard evidenced from radar to prove it.

Now you have to say me and the military, the FAA, and others made up the RADAR data which you do without evidence. CIT has made this accusation already, with no evidence. And as they gather witnesses who support the RADAR data, they have shot themselves in the foot.

Anyone can see this is true if they take the time to watch your video, and check out the RADAR data which was not faked, you just said it was.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


You are in denial and you are repeating yourself.

There is NO WAY that the alleged C-130 path in the RADES data has anything to do with what Steve Chaconas witnessed.

He did not see a military cargo plane headed in a straight line southwest.

He saw a "commercial airliner" loop around to the north of the airport.

HUGE difference.

The notion he is describing the C-130 is plain old silly which is why your pseudoskeptic buddies at jref won't touch Chaconas.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by nicepants

Descent would not reduce the number of Gs pulled in the bank, and the turn would have to stop before reaching Paik in order for the wings to be level.


Yes it would!

ESPECIALLY since it was ALREADY in a bank.


The Gs are pulled laterally in a turn. (Think centrifugal force) The amount of lateral gs is not affected by the descent.

Either way, this turn would have to stop before reaching Paik in order for the wings to be level. (You keep forgetting that part)




top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join