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 skeptics finally admit north side approach is possible after all!

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
This topic is actually kind of silly but necessary since there has been such a significant campaign from members on this board, led by "Reheat", who claim to be pilots or "professionals" who have furiously argued for months that it is aerodynamically "impossible" for a plane to have crossed over from the south to the north side of Columbia Pike and bank around the north side of the former CITGO gas station as unanimously reported by all of the witnesses in the area.

Apparently that campaign bus has come to a screeching halt as the driver is forced to admit they're out of gas.



The flight paths depicted in orange on the image below are a composite created from illustrations independently drawn by the witnesses themselves:

compared with the blue official NTSB/physical damage flight path that has zero room for error.

Reheat stated:


"CIT's NoC theory has been shown to not be possible using proven aerodynamic principles. Using witness, Paik and postulating a flight path to conform to his description in conformity to the other witnesses at the Citgo Station it has been amply demonstrated that ANY flight path conceived not only does not subscribe to witness testimony, but as the witnesses roll in (according to CIT) the theory becomes more and more impossible."
source


First the notion that the north side approach is a "theory" by CIT is ridiculous since we have simply reported what all the witnesses told us first-hand. We did not "theorize" what they would say about where they saw the plane. We have nothing to do with their unanimous north side approach accounts.

Why anyone would choose to try and discredit so many independently corroborated witnesses with nothing but irrelevant calculations based off fabricated values is a mystery to be sure, but that is exactly what Reheat has tried so hard to do while going so far as to suggest that the more corroboration we present for the north side approach, the more "impossible" it becomes!

OF COURSE it's 100% possible for a plane to fly where all of the witnesses report it flying, but that didn't stop Reheat from authoritatively stating the opposite in a desperate attempt to discredit over a dozen credible witnesses during his direct propaganda campaign to cast doubt on this important evidence proving a military deception on 9/11.

Naturally Reheat makes this false claim without any risk to his "professional" reputation since he chooses to remain anonymous and has even had a "technical" article published on this issue under his internet handle.

Real professionals stand by their claims by signing their name to their work so their credentials can be verified.

Of course many picked up on this false notion anyway and the mantra that the "north of citgo flight path is impossible" has been endlessly repeated by others who simply refuse to believe what all of the witnesses report about the north side approach.

Next thing you know, on Sept. 12th 2008, the FAA released an animation depicting the exact same banking north side approach as described by the witnesses and declared "impossible" by Reheat!




Watch animation here.

Reheat was predictably quiet about this newly released official animation, and then to make matters worse for him, a "colleague" of his and fellow anonymous CIT detractor who goes by the name "exponent", or "e^n", declared that he had come up with his own north side flight path, based on his own fabricated values, that he deemed aerodynamically "possible". By coincidence, it just about perfectly matched what the FAA had just released.

Here is the flight path image that exponent created with his own estimated values shortly before the FAA animation was released showing virtually the exact same thing:


Pilots for 9/11 Truth had just released their new presentation, 9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON, with full scale animations depicting the same hypothetical north side approach example as well.

All of this finally forced Reheat to admit that he had been wrong all along and that a banking north side flight path similar to what the witnesses report IS in fact aerodynamically possible!

Reheat stated:


"Exponents' example posted earlier is just an example. He only used two of the witnesses to show the ONLY possible flight path that could be flown North of the Citgo Station."
source



In the same quote he went on to justify his admission by abandoning his "math" and turning back to the witnesses by suggesting they did not report the necessary bank angles:




"Even it shows high bank angles and high G that NO ONE DESCRIBED."



However, many of the witnesses, including heliport air traffic controller, most certainly did report a significant right bank angle and turn!

And as we all know it's impossible for a witness to "describe" a G load!

The extreme irony here is that since Reheat was forced to abandon his mathematical/aerodynamic argument, he turned right back to the witnesses who he has tried so hard to discredit, as a means to suggest they didn't report the necessary bank angles required!

Of course specific or mathematical details, like the exact degree of bank angle, are extremely difficult to expect eyewitnesses to remember or report accurately anyway.

But Reheat is once again incorrect as many of the witnesses were very explicit in describing a significant right bank angle after all!

The very notion that ANYBODY reports a bank AT ALL in the final few seconds is very important because all official data, reports, AND the physical damage require the plane to approach in a completely straight flight path with no bank and only a slight and relatively indiscernible wing tilt to the left or the opposite direction as reported by all the witnesses.

[SIZE=2]Perfectly Straight Official Flight Path As Required By Physical Damage And Official Data[/SIZE]



Minor LEFT tilt down as reported by the ASCE to account for physical damage:





[SIZE=2]Significant RIGHT Bank Angle With Significant TURN As Reported By Witnesses[/SIZE]







In fact, even suspect witness, glossy news anchor, un-official official story spokesperson Mike Walter reports the fatal right bank!


So Reheat is quite incorrect when he says the witnesses don't report the necessary bank angles. This means that, even according to the pseudo-skeptics, there is no legitimate argument whatsoever to dismiss the 13 times corroborated north side approach witness accounts.

Besides the north side approach, the right banking/turning flight path as described and illustrated by the witnesses, animated by the FAA, and now deemed "possible" by even Reheat, is enough by itself to fatally contradict the official story proving a military deception on 9/11.





[edit on 28-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]




posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

[SIZE=5]Significant RIGHT Bank Angle With Significant TURN As Reported By Witnesses[/SIZE]



 


Wow, 28 degrees of bank. What a turn of turns, 13 miles wide! You got the big giant turn you need to but in the wrong dimensions. You want a big bank, not a big diameter turn. Geometry and physics could help with your investigation.

Middleton's path requires over 57 Gs and 89 degree of bank because he drew a line with a kink in it that make the path impossible. Planes do not hit a point and change direction. You overlook physics and present impossible paths from all your witnesses.

This thread is ironic, none of the paths are possible based on your own witnesses, RADAR, FDR and physics.

Middleton shows us 28 degree of bank, when he saw left and right bank, no more than 6 to 9 degrees. His own flight path need an 89 degree bank turn, actually more, but at 57 Gs who cares.

Impossible turn on Middleton's drawn path, shallow bank shown by Middleton. 28 degrees is shallow, compared to 89 degrees. When comparing Gs, the 28 degrees is 1.13 Gs, and a 6 degree bank is 1.005, the 89 degree of bank is 57 Gs.

I find your witness is exaggerating the bank angle because he has never seen a plane that low and fast making erratic bank angles (you fail to think about perspective and what he is seeing). 28 degrees, what Middleton is showing is a low G turn, and a 13 mile wide turn.

You gather evidence to refute your own witnesses effortlessly.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   

All of this finally forced Reheat to admit that he had been wrong all along and that a banking north side flight path similar to what the witnesses report IS in fact aerodynamically possible!

This is a neat bit of twisting from you Craig. You know quite well that my flight path ignores all but 2 witnesses, one of which saw the plane impact the building.

It is also only valid for certain speeds. Something you have yet to understand. You have been content to simply use the example I have given, despite its complete lack of verification as some sort of proof.

This sort of intellectual dishonesty is not acceptable, and indeed were you to go back and ask your 4 latest witnesses to specifically describe the bank angle, I feel confident we would have major problems. Of course considering all the footage you have so far released has been edited, and indeed in some cases quite deceptively so, I hold out no great hope.

I'll ask this question here as I have no doubt it will be repeated in future posts:
When are you going to take this evidence to court?.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I won't admit to being knowledgable enough to say that your theory is not possible, craig. BUT, even if it is possible, that doesn't equal your theory being a fact. There are far less witnesses that you use for your fantastical account of events than there are of ppl who ACTUALLY SAW THE PLANE CRASH INTO THE BUILDING!!

I personally choose to go with the account that is not only a possibility, not only a PROBABILITY, but is a fact. I just can't get over your desperate attempts to make others believe your account when all one has to do is look at the evidence to see that it is stacked against your theory. There are many possibilities that could have taken place that day, but that doesn't make them fact.



There can only be one story that is fact and the evidence overwhelmingly points to 4 planes being hijacked, one of which flew into the pentagon, imo.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

This is a neat bit of twisting from you Craig. You know quite well that my flight path ignores all but 2 witnesses


Why are you so confused about this?

Witness accounts are subjective and have A LOT of room for error due to perspective and many other factors.

You can't look at the 13 north side witness accounts as if they are talking about 13 different flight paths!

We understand how NONE of them are 100% accurate in regards to the exact radius, heading, speed, bank angle etc.

It would be foolish to suggest that any of them would be.

It is the very general north side approach that has been corroborated by all and proves the 9/11 official story false.

Reheat has been claiming for months that it is completely "impossible" no matter what.

You proved him wrong and got him to admit it.

Good job!



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma
I won't admit to being knowledgable enough to say that your theory is not possible, craig.


The north side approach is not my "theory".

It is what all of the witnesses unanimously report proving there was a deliberate deception initiated to convince people the plane hit the building.

There is no way that 13 people all hallucinated the plane on the north side of the station.

It makes infinitely more sense that people were deliberately deceived into believing the impact.

Ask yourself what's more logical, mass hallucination or mass deception?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

I'll ask this question here as I have no doubt it will be repeated in future posts:
When are you going to take this evidence to court?.


This question is continuously posed out of desperation to switch the subject when you know you have lost the argument.

Of course it's completely irrelevant to the topic but I will answer it YET AGAIN to stop you from repeating it endlessly in this thread.

The implications of a crime of this nature are far too great for a couple of citizen investigators with no resources to accomplish anything in a regular court case.

It would require grand juries, congressional hearings etc to compile ALL the evidence exposing 9/11 as a military black operation.

Certainly we'd be happy to participate in any way possible but in the mean time we will continue to gather evidence and to put pressure on the media and authorities to take action but we are not deluding ourselves into thinking we can sue George Bush.

This doesn't diminish the conclusive evidence we provide proving the north side approach one bit.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITIt is what all of the witnesses unanimously report proving there was a deliberate deception initiated to convince people the plane hit the building.



You say " 'All' of the witnesses," but how many witnesses are you actually using for this theory you support? I have seen 13 witness accounts that you have used and you aren't even using the whole of their accounts. You are aware that there are FAR more witness accounts than the ones that you and your followers are using, are you not?

I am not anti-craig, but I am pro truth, even if the truth supports the "dreaded" govt's account.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma

You say " 'All' of the witnesses," but how many witnesses are you actually using for this theory you support? I have seen 13 witness accounts that you have used and you aren't even using the whole of their accounts. You are aware that there are FAR more witness accounts than the ones that you and your followers are using, are you not?


I refer to the witnesses who were in the most critical area who were in a position to tell whether or not the plane was on a heading north or south of the gas station.



Yes there are more witnesses but most were not in a position to see the Pentagon at all!

Have you ever been to the area? You pretty much have to be within this tiny space depicted in the image to be able to see the alleged impact point.

We have gone through the entire previously published witness list and spoken direct with many dozens of them. We would find out their location and ask them direct what they saw. We would plot their location on the map and go there in person to forensically analyze their true point of view.

Most saw the plane and heard the explosion in the distance but couldn't even see the Pentagon let alone tell what side of the gas station it flew!

This is simply the way it is due to the topography and landscape.

The Pentagon is at the bottom of a hill creating a topographical bowl.

You pretty much have to be as close as the citgo to get a good view of the violent event.

The fact is.....EVERYONE in this critical area independently corroborates the north side approach.




I am not anti-craig, but I am pro truth, even if the truth supports the "dreaded" govt's account.


It doesn't.



[edit on 28-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Here's a question no-one is asking:

WHY DOES THE FAA FLIGHT-PATH DIFFER FROM THE NTSB ACCOUNT?

Even government agencies can't get their story straight!


The North-side turn is possible. The jet was not flying at 400 kts at the time. THAT is the crucial difference.

If the flight path is wrong, it stands to reason the speed is wrong, too. That the FAA have gone and contradicted the FDR is just a small fly in the ointment.


Either the FAA are out to either discredit or create "fog of war", or someone forgot to tell them the game-plan and they've made the mistake of the century, releasing what they did.

Aren't alarm bells ringing for anyone out there? The very fact TWO government agencies do not have the same story, SHOWS SOMEONE IS LYING.

Looking for inconsistencies in a story (alibi, etc..) has been a tried and tested method in legal circles for centuries. Right now, the BS-o-meter is running off the scale.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITHave you ever been to the area? You pretty much have to be within this tiny space depicted in the image to be able to see the alleged impact point.


Yes sir. Have been to the area on numerous occasions and was even lucky enough to have a tour of the pentagon that most ppl don't get bc I have a cousin who works there


In fact, on my most recent trip, I noted that there are plenty of points to be able to see the side that the impact took place on. Now, I won't lie and say that I have done the research to check out where the MANY witnesses were located that claimed to have witnessed the actual impact, but I assure you, I am now on top of that. Will get back to you as soon as I have investigated this.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


Good for you!

My partner and I also got a tour of the Pentagon from a rescue recovery worker/decorated hero who supports us.

Imagine that!

It was a late night tour too so there was nobody in the halls. We even signed the guest book at the memorial right at the alleged impact point and called for justice.



Good luck finding a south side witness account!

Out of all our dedicated obsessed detractors, none have been able to provide one yet!

Remember, only confirmed first hand accounts are valid evidence.

Plus you would need to provide 14 confirmed definitive south side accounts to effectively refute the 13 we present.

Let me ask you, if you are unable to achieve that goal, will you finally be convinced enough to believe the witnesses already presented?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Why is there no videos of a plane hitting the pentagon if it actually happened?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



Dude, I have stated clearly. I * AM * PRO * TRUTH!! But already the truth is, I have seen your theory on both this board and yours' debunked quite effectively and even worse (as far as your credibility goes), I have seen you say point blank that you didn't care.
good day to you!!


[edit on 28-9-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


Huh?

Prove it.

Quote me where I said that and quote where the evidence we present has been "debunked".

I think you are bluffing just like you are bluffing about seeking out first-hand witness accounts.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
well, my favorite one happens to be on your site.. am looking for it now. I am sure you can help me with it if you are honest. It is one where a member named bobloblaw shows clearly that you and your "partner" *snickers* had mislabeled the light poles.
Will post it the minute I can find it.. still looking, but wanted to respond before you go claiming any more of your bs that I am bluffing. There are plenty of places on this site where anyone has the freedom to read through and see the evidence of your blatant disregard for the truth themselves.

edited: to change name of member who smeared the truth in your face... found other threads w/ him in it and realized that it was him and not the other one. the other one smeared it in your face on some youtube video w/ you in it.


[edit on 28-9-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Craig,
What exactly are you trying to prove with this?
That is was not an aircraft? Your own witnesses say it was, right? So if they say it was an aircraft, then who cares about the flight path.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I think the general point is that if the flight was north of Citgo, then it is impossible to reconcile the damage patterns from the official path with the flight as seen by these witnesses. This would lead to the conclusion that the 'official' flightpath damage, that is downed lightpoles and line of entry through The Pentagon was staged.

The evidence does seem to suggest that something impacted with The Pentagon though, but still points to Government deception.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


That has nothing to do with anything let alone the north side approach evidence!

I mislabeled poles 1 and 2 once on a location video while driving down the road so perspective was difficult.

Big deal!

In all other instances when referencing the poles from a topographical view in relation to the flight path we have always had it right of course.



Your irrelevant point does not show the evidence being "debunked" let alone me saying I didn't care!









[edit on 28-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Craig,
What exactly are you trying to prove with this?
That is was not an aircraft? Your own witnesses say it was, right? So if they say it was an aircraft, then who cares about the flight path.


It is impossible for a plane on the north side to cause the physical damage.

A plane on the north side proves a military deception on 9/11.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join