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]

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.

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]

Full 19 minute presentation now released as promised.

Google Video Link

Merry Christmas everyone!

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.

InfinityO'Reilly

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]

---

---

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

---

---

Originally posted by tonysoprano
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?

No.

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]

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.

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.