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 is inconsistent when discussing G loads on AA77

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Craig Ranke & CIT,

Please explain how the decoy aircaft could have survived the G loads when performing your proposed course in blue, while at the same time you hold that AA77 could not survive pulling out of a dive along the official course in red.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT






posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
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]



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
As exponent points out,

There is nothing "impossible" about a north side flight path.

The reason we don't provide "calculations" for this is because it's impossible to determine the necessary values from eyewitness accounts which are subjective.

However the official flight path must be 100% reconcilable with the official NTSB data that reports ALL necessary values including speed, altitude, pitch, roll, g forces etc all mechanically recorded (allegedly) as well as all physical damage staring with the downed light poles ending with the suspcious round C-ring hole.

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.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   


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.



Wrong.

There is no room for debate.

The math MUST match the official data yet it does not.

Even Mackey's calculation of a constant 4 g's for 4 seconds proves the official story false!



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   

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]



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
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]



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Still I have yet to find serious error with either Mr Farmer or Mr Mackey's analyses.


That's because you and they ignore what the NTSB says.

THEY are the ones who report impact time.

You MUST accept their analysis and make it work with the data, yet you can not.



G forces in the NTSB data go all the way up to that point and average at 1.17 g forces.

This means Mackey's own equations prove the descent is irreconcilable with the data.

There is no way around it.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
That's because you and they ignore what the NTSB says.

THEY are the ones who report impact time.

You MUST accept their analysis and make it work with the data, yet you can not.


This is assuming they're correct. We have evidence they are not correct. As I have already explained we're interested in finding what actually happened.

If your analysis does follow the NTSB data, immediately before the 34G pullout, you have illustrated a 1G descent. Can you show me this in the NTSB data?



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
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.


I see you have resorted to stating assertions as fact. Please reply to my questions directed at you. Mr Mackey's 4g claim is the worst case scenario which is contradicted specifically by witnesses with no evidence to suggest they were mistaken. You have taken the initial conditions for this worst case scenario and made them considerably worse by (as far as I can see it) taking an unjustifiably short arc for the required pullup.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
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".



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
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:


As I have already stated Craig, we believe the NTSB to be inaccurate with regards to their time of impact. John Farmer's analysis shows that the evidence available suggests the FDRs recording stops significantly before impact and therefore the NTSBs time of impact is wrong.

If this assumption is removed, Mackey's scenarios all become plausible and fit with witness information indicating AA77 passed extremely close to the antenna.

Your illustration shows a 1g descent immediately prior to the 34g pullup. Is this consistent with the data you have from the FDR? Can you show us?



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
As exponent points out,

There is nothing "impossible" about a north side flight path.




If you are correct, and there is nothing impossible about YOUR North side flight path in blue, then you must agree that there is nothing impossible about MY north side approach in yellow which still manages to strike the light poles. Which also lines up with the last lat/long readings from the DFDR and correlates fairly well with observation from Paik, Brooks, and Lagasse.

Right?




posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   
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.





posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
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]



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It doesn't matter what you "believe".

You MUST accept what they report and make it work with their story.
...
The plane was on the north side bro.

Just ask all the people who WERE THERE.


In the same post you demand I accept the NTSB's analysis, and then you deny the NTSB's analysis. This thread is about your presented flight paths, so I will ask you one last time.

Your 34G analysis indicates a 1g descent prior to the 'pullup', is this supported by the data and if so can you present it?



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT1. 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?


It's not a completely different manuever. It's simply a right bank followed immediately by a left bank, both pulling about 4-5 Gs at the reported airspeed. Your path in blue is just one right hand bank. Look closely at the arcs. Mine have essentially the same radii as yours. If the right bank in blue at 5 g's was possible, so were the right then left hand banks in yellow.
You can call this sillines, but I'm sure to many, it's more believable than planted explosives, lamposts, airplane parts, etc.


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


It sure is. The yellow course cooroborates exactly what Brooks and Lagasse saw. And if you trace the course back to Paiks shop it backs up what he saw as well. It can also be traced back to the last lat long reading from the DFDR without supposing any additional impossible manuevers.


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

No, but I will check them out.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

It sure is. The yellow course cooroborates exactly what Brooks and Lagasse saw.


No it does not.

Not even close.

They all illustrated it for you so there should be no confusion:






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

No, but I will check them out.


Yes you better because they also illustrate the flight path and it matches perfectly with what the CITGO witnesses drew and described yet is NOTHING like the ridiculous S curve you drew with micorsoft paint.




posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Craig Ranke & CIT,

Please explain how the decoy aircaft could have survived the G loads when performing your proposed course in blue, while at the same time you hold that AA77 could not survive pulling out of a dive along the official course in red.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT




The blue flight path, over9 Gs, greater than 83 degrees of bank. An impossible path.

Their witnesses all debunk the other witnesses paths; not one constant path. All the paths are different, some require great bank angles. Bank angles never witnessed; no one reports these 80 degree banks.

Paik actually points straight to the Pentagon impact point down the PIKE and he says 77 was low enough to hit the VDOT tower. Paik's pointing to the impact point when he is looking where he is pointing.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut

The blue flight path, over9 Gs, greater than 83 degrees of bank. An impossible path.



Nonsense.

You don't have the necessary values to even calculate that unless you made them up.

Particularly speed.

Morin, Middleton, and Boger all report a relatively SLOW moving craft and the ANC guys ALL report a very significant bank.




Even the the FAA/NORAD reports this significant bank!



Oops!

I guess it's not so impossible after all!

Just ask your jref buddy exponent.

Why do you think you are correct and he is not?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join