CIT is inconsistent when discussing G loads on AA77, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 12:49 PM by exponent
The flight path illustrated is not beyond the performance limits of the aircraft (actually I haven't calculated yours specifically), but it's possible for a path to pass over Mr Paik (or therabouts), pass north of the Citgo and then pass over the Pentagon.

Unfortunately this is inconsistent with many of the accounts, and requires a minimum of a 50 degree bank angle for the reported speeds.

Here is my proposed flight path, I can run through the maths involved if needed:



edit: I guess I should add this to make sure people don't think I'm supporting CIT.

CITs supposed required G loads of 10 or 34g are utterly ridiculous and R Mackey has already addressed these with a series of potential flight paths at JREF. CIT have taken the worst case scenario, deliberately made it significantly worse, and are presenting this as a factual representation of the scenario. It is not.

[edit on 22-9-2008 by exponent]


reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 01:21 PM by exponent
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So there is ZERO room for error in the official flight path but there is all the room we could possibly need for error in the north side path.


This is of course incorrect, John Farmer has done an in depth analysis which you can view here: 911files.info...

This analysis indicates the last reliable data occurs well before the flight path CIT refers to, and as such there is a large margin for error in the "official flight path". You can also view R Mackey's analysis from March in which he presents several potential scenarios for height and required force here: *SNIP*

I am still looking through the available data, and will be constructing my own model of events that day I hope. Still I have yet to find serious error with either Mr Farmer or Mr Mackey's analyses.


Mod Edit: Please do not provide links to other discussion boards without permission as stated in the Terms and Conditions.

1d.) Cross-Posting: You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive advance permission from The Above Network, LLC). You will not post-by-proxy the material of banned members or other individuals who are not members, but have written a response to content within a thread on these forums.


[edit on 9/22/2008 by Hal9000]


reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 01:25 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by exponent


There is zero room for error between the last reported lat long coordinate and light pole 1.



This is the only part that matters in regards to the necessary pull up out of the final descent.

Snip



Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 22/9/2008 by Sauron]


reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 01:49 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by exponent


We know what the NTSB reports is irreconcilable, anomalous, and false.

The plane was on the north side of the citgo.

YOU have to reconcile what they report with the physical damage yet you can not.

Nowhere near 4 g's are reported yet this is what Mackey himself calculated as necessary.


reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 02:08 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by exponent


Ummmm....this "worst case scenario" is the ONLY case scenario that you can accept because it is based on the NTSB reported altitude.

If you (or Mackey) can not make the NTSB data work with the physical damage you must admit that Mackey is incorrect (or lying if he won't admit his error) when he said this:



"there is no case to be made that the FDR data is inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77"

-Ryan Mackey


You must admit that the NTSB data is irreconcilable with the alleged impact of "Flight 77".


reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 02:35 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by exponent


It doesn't matter what you "believe".

You MUST accept what they report and make it work with their story.

Do you really think the NTSB had no clue what they meant by "impact time" and that they were not aware when the data allegedly "stopped"?

Rob already has proven how there IS data beyond the last lat long.

You can wave your hands in denial all you want but you have not refuted this.

No matter how you slice it the last reported altitude is ridiculous and not reconcilable with the official story in any way particularly with a terrorist hijacker who could barely fly a cessna behind the controls.

Get real with yourself for a moment.

Stop making excuses for this RIDICULOUS official story that that clearly has evidence proving it false.

Stop living in denial and reaching so far with all this ridiculous spin.

The plane was on the north side bro.

Just ask all the people who WERE THERE.





reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 02:46 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by darkbluesky


Too much!

I shouldn't even respond to that silliness.

1. Even if that is "possible" how could that completely different maneuver be mathematically equivalent to the north side path as indicated by the witnesses in any way?

2. That is not reconcilable with what ANY of the witnesses report OR the official data.

Have even you seen the interviews from the ANC guys yet?


Did you know they describe the bank perfectly?








[edit on 22-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 13 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 6 days ago with 12 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 17 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 16 hours ago, 114 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 12 hours ago, 98 replies
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 10 hours ago, 63 replies
Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 6 hours ago, 58 replies
Free will
  Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 14 hours ago, 50 replies