It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 23 2008 @ 11:06 PM
It was revealed first here at ATS how even the pseudo-skeptic detractors agree that it is entirely possible for a plane to fly north of the citgo as reported by the witnesses.

See this thread for a complete history of this "debate".

But even though they admitted they were wrong, their irrelevant and pointless demands for "math" to validate the 13 times corroborated eyewitness north of citgo placement of the plane continued, and admittedly was never met.

Until now.

But just to put this in context I must express how even the very notion of requiring math to validate eyewitnesses is silly. Logical people typically understand how the intellectual world recognizes that eyewitness claims are validated via the scientific method of independent corroboration.

Not math.

But now we have the math too!

And I have to say that Pilots for 911 Truth have outdone themselves with this absolutely brilliant presentation.

There is no argument. The debate is over. I just saw a preview minutes ago and I have to say that I am eternally grateful to P4T for working so hard through the holidays while being in such a position of need as so many of us are.

Please support Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Expect the full release here on the holiday but for now please view the trailer:

posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 12:17 PM
Awesome!!! Fantastic!!!!

EDIT: how long did it take you to make what is essentially a advertisement and couldn’t this time have been better used brining the "perps" to justice?

[edit on 24-12-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 12:30 PM
lol Craig, you tease!

But sounds good. Just out of curiosity, you got any plans to drop a care package to April's lawyer with all the new juicy's? Seems like this could be additional evidence, and pertinent to her case.

posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 12:43 PM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

Great idea.

I think that is definitely in order.

posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 01:22 PM
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

Umm I didn't make it.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth did but the presentation will be available for free tomorrow.

Consider it a Christmas gift to our detractors.

Yes you have lost the "math" argument so now you move the goal posts to the "you don't do enough to bring them to justice argument".

Both arguments are merely straw man tactics that have no bearing on the validity of the evidence.

Plus you don't KNOW what we have done or will continue to do so you have no basis to place judgment on us about this.

In fact if you are willing to level criticism in this regard at all it can only be because you understand how the evidence has merit.

Plus you should also understand how this is no regular crime.

The fact that the media and authorities are reluctant to even entertain evidence of a world wide psychological war crime that has permanently altered global politics and world history implicating the very people that employ them shouldn't be surprising.

We aren't fooling ourselves here and we don't think a crime of this nature can easily be exposed by a couple of citizen investigators with no money.

But we'll keep trying!

Thanks for your concern and your support!

Merry Christmas.

posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 08:07 PM
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

I for one found that clip very diss-tasteful in respect to its content.

we are talking about a horrific attack on innocent civilians and whomever created this decided to put a banging track behind it.

This isn't a movie trailer, it's real life, real people died and whomever decided to turn it into some attention grabbing action movie trailer sealed with a merry christmas at the end as if it is some kind of joke needs to check him/her self.

Forgive me if i've insulted anyone

posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
But we'll keep trying!

No doubt.

We're supposed to get excited about *that*?

You guys are worse than April's lawyers - always promising everything but delivering a pile of cow flop. Can't wait to see Captain Bob's little gem.

Please hurry up and get this "evidence" to April's attorney - preferably before it gets tossed out on its ear. It won't make a bit of difference, but the humor-factor will be increased.

[edit on 24-12-2008 by pinch]

posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 12:18 AM
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

No Craig, that's not accurate. We will see where your "math" comes out. By the way, am I to assume you are going to use your own 'witnesses' (the ones who claim the plane hit the building, and did NOT fly over) and present math that correlates to their account(s)?

I know you know exactly the path I am referring to. The only question is do you abandon the path(s) you claim, or which eye-witness do you throw under the bus?

Also, it's not a canard - do you, or don’t you posses the conviction of your professed beliefs? Why continue to waste time presenting snazzy You Tube videos?

If you believe what you claim, how can you simply be content to post endless forum postings and not actually do something?

EDIT: what perfect conspiracy theory!!! No, it's not possible that CIT are two crackpots, no by golly, it's just further evidence of "them" and how far they will go to conceal the "truth"! Like OC Weekly, right? Part of the NWO, no?

Further, I wasn’t aware that bringing your ‘smoking gun’ evidence to a local DA costs money?

[edit on 25-12-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 03:42 PM
Full 19 minute presentation now released as promised.

Google Video Link

Merry Christmas everyone!

posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 04:19 PM
A great presentation. Thanks Pilots For 9/11 Truth.
This should shut down that spigot of disinformation from the enemy agents.
5 Stars

9/11: THE NORTH FLIGHT PATH: Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible - 19:29 - Dec 25, 2008
Pilots For 9/11 Truth -

The latest presentation from Pilots For 9/11 Truth and a supplement to "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon". Some have created a myth that the flight path(s) - witnessed by numerous individuals who place the aircraft opposite the physical damage in Arlington, Va on Sept 11, 2001 - were aerodynamically impossible. We are about to bust such a myth. For more information, please visit

We will be publishing a tech paper as a supplement to this analysis as well as offering a high quality download once holiday priorites settle. Thank you for your support!

[edit on 12/25/08 by SPreston]

posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 04:26 PM
Merry Christmas Craig.

All those flight paths are irreconcilable with the light poles and damage done to the Pentagon. I can see why you would consider a "flyover" to explain these anomalies.

You haven't convince me but I'm still paying attention.

One question: What did the damage to the Pentagon, in your opinion?

I can understand if you don't want to touch that.


posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 04:46 PM
reply to post by infinityoreilly

I shouldn't have to convince you.

It's the witnesses that should convince you.

If you believe the unanimous independent witness accounts regarding the north side approach you have no choice but to accept the flyover.

As far as what caused the damage, since there is no evidence for 2 planes or missiles (everyone only saw 1 plane) and we know there is such a strong precedent set for pre-planted explosives being used at the towers, the most logical conclusion is that nothing hit the Pentagon and that the damage was covertly implemented with strategically planted shape-charges/incendiaries etc. already inside the building.

posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
If you believe the unanimous independent witness accounts..."

...that would testify the aircraft hit the building, then there really is no question here.

I suppose we should owe the CIT boys a word of thanks for coming up with these impact witnesses. 11 of the 13 they have stated the aircraft hit the building, and the other two were not in a place to see the Pentagon.

Well done.

Perhaps now the CIT crowd can go chase down a real scam - global warming.

[edit on 25-12-2008 by pinch]

posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 06:16 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 06:58 PM
A reminder here...

The Topic and NOT the Member.

Thank you

» 9/11 Conspiracies » Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible » Post Reply

posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 06:59 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 07:01 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 07:58 PM

Originally posted by tonysoprano

You sound a lot like Captain Bob.

Why should Christmas Day be any different when it comes to replying to the Truthers?? Should the BS they are spouting be "protected speech" on the day we celebrate Christ's birth?


All the rest of your comments sound remarkably like Captain Bob. Like him, you express a rather high level of ignorance with regards to the NFWS, naval aviators and naval flight officers and naval aviation in general, but with the track record of PfT, I am not surprised, nor am I surprised with your association with them (if you are not, indeed Captain Bob).

So go ahead with your "math" games. I look forward to whatever you come up with that will help explain how a 757 going in the neighborhood of 700-750 feet per second makes that pylon turn around the NEX gas station so it can fly at "50 to 100 feet" above South parking like Craig and Aldo and Officer Roberts says it did. Keep in mind the wingspan of a 757. There was no evidence of a wingtip dragging across the western lawn of the Pentagon.

Merry Christmas, boys.

Oops....on edit, I notice your posts didn't make it past the mods. Try to be a bit more "on topic" next time and leave out the personalities.

[edit on 25-12-2008 by pinch]

posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 10:15 PM
Why does everyone who says, "CIT Witnesses all say the plane hit the Pentagon" totally forget the official story stating that AA77 knocked down the light poles?

Can you guys not come up with a solution to satisfy the entire equation?

Was it NoC and Pentagon impact with staged light poles, or 13 people made
up a story from the depths of their fantasies and all 13 have a similar
flight path.

What are the odds of that? Think about it.

posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 11:59 PM

First of all this was written for "twoofers". That's the only people who will believe it.

Just as predicted it is a combination of disregarding inconvenient witnesses, illusions, incorrect radius calculations and pure unadulterated horse manure. It's not surprising at all that it was done as a cartoon. They could not write this and pull the shenanigans shown.

The FIRST path shows the aircraft impacting near the helipad (pardon me, flying over the helipad) That radius is close enough and the calculations appear to be accurate. So that still rather extreme bank angle is planted in the viewers mind as being aerodynamically possible at FDR speeds, no less! As an after thought it is then mentioned that well, that's not exactly what happened, we'll now adjust it to the impact point.

Now, when it switches to the proper impact point, the razzle dazzle crap begins. The radius is WRONG. The radius for that flight path is approximately 7025'. That computes to a bank angle of 67.4 degrees, 2.6 G's at 460 knots. That flight path from Paik CAN NOT be adjusted to an increased radius and still pass North of the station and to the impact point. Of course, it can be flown at a slower speed and that is implied throughout the cartoon. OHhhhhhh, the innuendo of how that lines up nicely with a runway at Reagan. I'm truly impressed.

Where those huge turn radii and very shallow bank angles are derived from in the latter portion of the cartoon is anyone's guess. It is never clearly stated how and where those radii were derived nor to what flight path they apply. Maybe they are just ignoring Paik (well, his statements are ignored anyway except for what supports the delusion) and the impact point. They can draw any flight path they want if it ignores key witnesses. What does that prove?

A flight path to the North of that station from a straight approach would have never been questioned as to it's aerodynamic probability. It's adhering to where the witnesses place it that makes it aerodynamically impossible.

Note that no vertical pull-up was addressed at all throughout the entire charade. There is a good reason for that. I don't need to specify that as most understand that the calculated bank angle and G forces for the point to point flight path must be maintained in order to arrive at the destinated point. G must be added (as all of the witnesses stated that it was at a very low altitude) in order to fly over the building.

The innuendo of some type of exotic aircraft design was to be expected. It's funny that the witnesses describe a transport category aircraft, but that might be an inconvenient fact. We'll put exotic aircraft in anyway just for grins. Oh, and we'll also throw in a large aircraft at about 35 degrees of bank after take-off executing an idiotic low altitude turn just to show them it can be done. We just won't tell everyone that that's a lesser bank and G than any of our postulated turns require when we adhere to what the witnesses said.

Oh, the irony. The Ranquisamo clones will be all over this. They now have poof that the "Official" flight path was impossible, but the North Flight path is very reasonable. Why? Because Ranquisamo said so and it's in a cartoon.

Decide for yourself.

Hint: this isn't even the tip of the iceberg.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in