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: 6
1
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants

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


Why do the wings have to be level?

Just because Paik wasn't able to see or notice the wing tilt as it flew directly over him?

It's hilarious how you guys hypocritically rely on the witnesses to be perfectly accurate about specific little details while simultaneously suggesting they completely hallucinated the general placement of the plane!

Steve Chaconas proves the plane was banking as it approached.

Sean Boger and Mike Walter prove it performed an additional bank just before it reached the Pentagon.



Do you understand how ANY bank anywhere near that area completely destroys the official story?



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




posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
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. .........?


the government didn't HAVE to say ANYTHING. There were literally hundreds of eyewitnesses to what happened. It is folks like you that refuse to accept the abundance of evidence that think there should be another investigation. Why MORE do you want.

You have eyewitnesses
Phone calls from the passengers
FDR evidence
Minimal video evidence
DNA evidence
Personal Belongings
I mean the list goes on and on and on.

We all knew what happened BEFORE the government said a word.


Originally posted by eyewitness86
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.


Wow....this is one sad rant. Who said there wasn't an investigation? Hundreds of anomalies? Hundreds? First of all....anomalies does NOT = CONSPIRACY
Anomalies do NOT = Evidence.


Originally posted by eyewitness86 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......


Where are the photos of the bodies? Hey eyewitness... If your Mom was on that plane...and was the victim still strapped to her seat, would you want pictures of her charred corps plastered all over the internet?

You like CIT and the rest of the no-planer truthers all refuse to accept ANY evidence that goes AGAINST your fantasies. Where is YOUR hard evidence that supports a missile, a flyover, or whatever else you may think caused the destruction of the Pentagon.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by nicepants

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


Why do the wings have to be level?

Just because Paik wasn't able to see or notice the wing tilt as it flew directly over him?

It's hilarious how you guys hypocritically rely on the witnesses to be perfectly accurate about specific little details while simultaneously suggesting they completely hallucinated the general placement of the plane!

Steve Chaconas proves the plane was banking as it approached.

Sean Boger and Mike Walter prove it performed an additional bank just before it reached the Pentagon.

Do you understand how ANY bank anywhere near that area completely destroys the official story?

Paik makes a big point, and CIT grills him on the bank, he said LEVEL (a pilot would take that as less than 10 degree. And you know, the plane was how far out past the street? I will tell you, over 400 feet as 77 past to the right of the VOT tower. Got witnesses? This makes your NoC even harder! Now you need 81 degrees of bank and 6.4 Gs.

A guy miles (3.8 miles) away, Steve Chaconas sees the final 10 seconds? Right, now you made the mistake of space and time. Your newest attempt is flawed because your witness can not see a plane over Paik's area. You guy did not even see 77, he was watching a C-130, when you listen to him, you can figure that out.

Your map now plastered on the internet makes this the biggest error you have made. Your witness sees a plane just over the trees 5 miles away from Paik. Good job.

The closest your witness was to 77 was over 3 miles, and he missed that because he followed the plane who flew of the river, which 77 never did. Now you promote another impossible path with a witness you have misinterpreted again.

You should stop making up stories and really analyze the data. So much for you "hard, incontrovertible evidence" based solely on your faulty interpretation of witness statements.

No bank angle does not make the real flight path of 77 wrong. The plane varied the bank angle for the last 30 seconds by up to 10 degrees. The turn radius for a 10 degree, bank is 21 miles. Good luck getting in a turn at 10 degrees. Go ahead try to make up a bank angle greater than 10 degrees in the last 20 seconds of flight for 77, the plane Boger saw hit the Pentagon with his eyes. Your witness who will surely say is wrong on that but right on what?

BTW, the tower person does not support your over the river new fake flight-path made up out of the blue, or did you steal the erroneous flight path from the early stories? Kind of like mimicking the NTSB animation by accident. (they rotated the map by 20 degrees, like your final heading)

So who saw the 81 degrees of bank? The wings could fail at 6 Gs.


[edit on 11-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut

Paik makes a big point, and CIT grills him on the bank, he said LEVEL (a pilot would take that as less than 10 degree. And you know, the plane was how far out past the street? I will tell you, over 400 feet as 77 past to the right of the VOT tower. Got witnesses? This makes your NoC even harder! Now you need 81 degrees of bank and 6.4 Gs.


You are barely coherent again and of course wrong. Paik was not "grilled" on bank and the fact that the plane was directly over him would make this detail extremely difficult to notice anyway. Oh yeah and the fact that it was directly over the top of him ALSO proves the plane was NOT on the official flight path.




A guy miles (3.8 miles) away, Steve Chaconas sees the final 10 seconds?


I never claimed he could. He watched the plane loop around the airport "beachnut".

This means it was already in a descending bank as it approached Paik and the north of the citgo

The notion that he was watching the C-130 is plain old idiotic since not even the RADES data has the C-130 looping around the airport like Steve described.

The fact that you keep repeating this proves your DESPERATION to deny the evidence.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon, and never looped around the airport. You have no evidence.

Please explain how much bank Paik saw? ZERO is what he said. This means your descending in a bank turn is false again, sort of; the 5 to 2 degrees Flight 77 was banking near Paik is hard to see as bank, it is not really much bank it turns the plane very slowly, only 1 degree back and forth the whole final 10 seconds.

You made up the loops around the airport, with only an error made by news sources after 9/11 (everyone can see those wrong paths), and you try to get Steve to say the plane looped around DC and the airport. False. He said out of the east sky.

Steve your new smoking gun witness was 5 miles away from Paik, he saw the C-130 fly across the river because it is the only plane that did fly across the river going west. Why did the C-130 fly there, because it is a departure for military planes! He was on the standard departure from Andrews, so military planes fly this unseals route routinely. Do your homework, stop throwing out the facts. East, Steve said east, not north or southeast, east, then you coach him. You never coach your witness, you need to go to an investigation class, you have ruined another witness; it is on video, saved all over the internet.

Steve did not see the plane loop, you told him he did. He said from the east, and that is all he saw. Watch your own video!

Please explain more of what you thought your witness said when STEVE said ""Coming out of the east sky! " "This plane was higher" "it was a plane"" These are his words, after that you were questioning him, it was no longer his story, but he never said the loop junk, and he even said he did not see it but from the east. You did publish this video I am watching and it does not support your loop path; another non-path. I thought you said you had no paths, so what is this loop stuff? Your loop path is 7 miles off or worse from where 77, which hit the Pentagon prove by DNA, flew. Why? Where is the hard evidence, because Steve does not support it.

The C-130 was out of the east sky, it was higher, it was a plane. Your witnesses first words before you coached him. People will see how you made up your path disregarding RADAR data that puts the C-130 right where Steve sees a plane, at 3500 feet (high, the planes he is use to seeing are lower, at 1500 feet, I am a pilot I can tell you these things, I designed approaches for the gulf war), from the east sky, people will know until you provide proof of false radar data. You are sunk. How will you prove the military, the FAA, and others faked the RADAR data. With out evidence you are insulting the military.

Out of the east, no loop! Steve does not support the loop, watch the video. Next time tell Steve the rest of the data, before you try to back-in your false paths. You better watch your video, pull it off the internet and do it over. To let the truth come out ruins your made up paths. Does Steve know you are making this up, did you tell him your idea of how the military did this?

Sorry you can not follow my post, who can? I get typing too fast, my typing class in 1969 was all the girls in my high school, they would cram my keys during typing tests. Surrounded by 8 women has cursed me to type fast. But the points is, your inability to decode my posts is indicative of your misinterpreting your witness statements and not decoding them very well. Good luck next witness, and again, is this loop a new impossible 77 flight path, or is it a non-path?




top topics
 
1
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join