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, what's the next step?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Oh and I see that Ron Weakling has not been able to find the non-existent statement where I allegedly claimed we would never contact media or authorities.



It's because he is a fraud and now a proven liar who is willing to say anything to cast doubt on us to defend his unadulterated faith in the government story.




posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Geesh, you have to fall back to name calling. This is the typical behavior I expect from you and your crew.

You have an issue with Ron, take it up with him. And until you can some how confirm you have taken your work to the MSM, Ron, I am sure will still believe you to be lying.

Honestly I think you should be considering a rebuttal to Reheat claiming to have destroyed your latest claim.


in part:


Additional problems: You're proposed a possible flight path that has the aircraft in a significant bank over Paik's position (yet, he indicates it flew straight down Columbia Pike.) It is in a significant bank abeam the Citgo yet, (NONE of your witnesses at the Citgo mention an "airshow" type bank.)

Mike Walters mentioned a bank (that you like so well) BUT, in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION. Sean Boger mentions a bank, but not a significant "airshow" type bank that you show here.

If I were you (thank God, I'm not) I'd be ashamed to display such an diagram filled with errors especially after over 2 weeks of not being able to come up with a viable flight path. Your twoofer buddies read these pages too, so I'm surprised any of them still support your obviously L**** position.


forums.randi.org...



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Let me answer the OP's question directly.

CIT, and others like them, should continue to do more of the same. By that I mean get their feet on the ground; meet and question witnesses; and bring their findings to forums such as ATS for debate.

I may not agree with their findings yet - though I remain open - but I admire their committment and willingness to act.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Weak has been spreading that lie continuously for months and now he has been publicly called out on it thanks to you Mr. Herbert.

If you didn't realize it they are too afraid to let CIT post on jref.

Reheat is ridiculous!

Edward does NOT have the plane parallel!

He has it on an angle exactly like we depicted.

How many times does this handwritten drawing from Edward Paik have to be posted?




And Mike Walter describes the bank perfectly.



Same with Sean Boger.



It's not my fault that Reheat refuses to accept the evidence.



Plus his numbers are wrong regarding the curve.

He is using an incorrect radius, refusing to use our hypothesized speed, and is using a simplistic formula all together to come to his conclusions.

There is nothing "impossible" about the curve and it is fully supported by all the witnesses.


[edit on 20-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig,

No one at JREF is afraid of what you have to say. To be honest (and you know it because you are often there reading threads.) you and the rest of CIT are laughed at there. Your theories are often put to shame. Many more just flat out ignore CIT.

You were banned there NOT because people were afraid of you. I would assume it is the same reason you got your section here at ATS removed.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   


Reheat is ridiculous!

Edward does NOT have the plane parallel!

He has it on an angle exactly like we depicted.

How many times does this handwritten drawing from Edward Paik have to be posted?
It's not my fault that Reheat refuses to accept the evidence.
Plus his numbers are wrong regarding the curve.

He is using an incorrect radius, refusing to use our hypothesized speed, and is using a simplistic formula all together to come to his conclusions.

There is nothing "impossible" about the curve and it is fully supported by all the witnesses.


You are claiming the numbers are wrong? Can you please present your work on this diagram that you posted?



This is what Reheat and Beachnut say:



A 757 could roll to 60 degree and pull 2 gs. On 9/11 77 in the last 20 second did not go over 10 degree of bank (or was it 11), and the witnesses confirm the FDR.

I have seen banks of over 60 degrees while refueling but we were pulling ~1 g and doing very precise turns while in contact, refueling as confidence maneuvers for instructor upgrade. We were big planes a KC-135 and a B-52.

757 can pull 2 gs, and is most likely limited to 2.5 g, but the wings may be able to handle up to 6 before they fail. (based on 777 test; think it failed at 7 g). The CIT using witnesses who said no bank or little bank proves all their non-paths impossible for NoC. They also refuse to use the positions their witnesses us to place the path. Paik as 77 near the tower, but CIT uses over his work! They also have a basic hatred of math, physics and geometry refusing to recognize parallel. I have never seen anyone as dumb on these topic who claim to be researchers.




It's not just the 2+ G's that are the problem. In order for the aircraft to pull 2 G's for more than a second or two it must be at 60 degrees of bank or it will climb. Everyone who saw that kind of bank that close to the ground would have been astounded and undoubtedly would have mentioned it. As it flew over/beside (depending on viewing angle) they would have been looking at either the top or bottom of the aircraft. That kind of maneuver in that size aircraft WOW's! spectators at airshows.

A 757 has a ~124' wingspan. Terry Morin said it was 50-100' as it flew over him, so the inboard wingtip would be awfully close to the ground at 60 degrees of bank. Notice in the diagram posted above CIT has the aircraft in that kind of bank from PRIOR TO Paik's position all the way to the Pentagon.

What about the sign on Washington Blvd. that Robert Turcois said the aircraft pulled up to avoid? How did it pull up to avoid the sign in a 60 degree bank? It would have either needed to roll out of the bank to pull vertical G's (and pass north of the impact point) or it would have needed to pull additional G's while in the turn, over stressing the aircraft.

One more point, while we're on the subject. CIT is going to say the aircraft was traveling ~300 KIAS in order for this to work. That speed violates what every single one of their witnesses said. All of the witnesses said it was traveling at high speed. CIT has argued for over a year that it was at high speed in order for the deception to fool viewers. Now, they change their mind when they discover it won't work.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Thread closed.

There are other venues for the back-and-forth personal comments, attacks, and insults between the participants of these topics... ATS is not the appropriate one.

If the participants of this thread engage in posts that focus on each other rather than the issues within other threads on ATS, your account may be terminated without warning.

Thread closed.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join