CIT - Changes Their Flight Path., page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 06:04 AM by cogburn

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Here I go breaking my zealot rule again but I just can't resist....

To calculate how long the plane would have been visible from any vantage point before having the view obstructed (as opposed to having the plane become invisible) from the observer would require the flight path, air speed and angle of inclination/declination during the period of time when the plane was alleged to be observed.

Your claim of "2 seconds" is completely arbitrary. The witness's statement has an equal probability of being correct. You have no way of proving if the plane was in view of the witness in question or not.

If you did, you'd have enough information to prove your wild theories beyond any shadow of doubt.

It is within those little annoying details where the truth lies. One may choose to ignore them for the sake of the "big picture", however those of us who understand how the world works will require those little details to be resolved.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 07:13 AM by pinch

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Morin states that he was 10 feet in between the wings...

Where does he state this? Certainly not in his published account, where he states he "...was 10 steps OUT from between Wings 4 and 5..." You wouldn't be changing a witnesses account to fit your agenda, would you?

...when the plane flew directly over him and the Navy Annex and that he walked out to look at the Pentagon and was walking backwards uphill as he saw the tail of the aircraft after it had descended past the tree line.

This is in direct contradiction to Morin's published account. If you have something other than Morin's exact quoted words, present it.

You can barely see the roof of the Pentagon!

And what was Morin's original account (before you twisted his words?):

As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.

I know you won't, but go back to your Ingersoll image - apply Morin's account to that image and it fits *perfectly*.

You're starting to get it pinch.

What I have *always* gotten is your raison d'être of taking the witnesses *you* like and creating a gerrymandered story, cherrypicking items of a their experience that *you* like, discarding or discounting the items that you *don't* like, and tying it all up in a nice convoluted bundle that matches *your* agenda through a creative writing program.

The point is the way you twist your "witness" accounts, like your stories here, lacking any and all credibility with regards to what did happen.

Morin's account of the fly-by, specifically his statement "The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB)" has never been refuted or recanted by him. If you have something to the contrary, publish it - and I don't mean a submission from your creative-writing class.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by pinch]

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 07:31 AM by SPreston

posted by cogburn

To calculate how long the plane would have been visible from any vantage point before having the view obstructed (as opposed to having the plane become invisible) from the observer would require the flight path, air speed and angle of inclination/declination during the period of time when the plane was alleged to be observed.

Your claim of "2 seconds" is completely arbitrary. The witness's statement has an equal probability of being correct. You have no way of proving if the plane was in view of the witness in question or not.

You cannot do simple math? The official speed of Flight 77 was 535 mph according to the Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY, and the distance from the Naval Annex to the Pentagon is about 2500 feet. Dividing 2500 feet by 784.8 fps gives you about 3.2 seconds of viewing the aircraft before it reaches the point of the explosion at the Pentagon wall. Of course Morin is rapidly backing up into the parking lot to keep the aircraft in view.

However according to the Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY, the alleged official aircraft must dive down the hill and impact the #1 light pole which is about 1650 feet from the Naval Annex. Don't forget that the Naval Annex sits on a hill which is more than 100 feet higher in altitude than the Pentagon lawn. Dividing 1650 feet by 784.8 fps gives you about 2.1 seconds before the alleged aircraft was completely out of sight at the #1 light pole. Of course the aircraft tail would have been out of sight before it reached the #1 light pole. Terry Morin could not possibly have seen the alleged 44 foot tall 757 tail section down below the hill at the #1 light pole.

If Morin could see the tail from the Naval Annex until he saw the results of the explosion at the Pentagon wall, then the aircraft he saw could not possibly have dived down the hill.

Terry Morin could not possibly have seen the aircraft from the parking lot if it was below the hill down at the #1 light pole. The claim by the Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY supporters is that Morin saw the official Flight 77 aircraft which allegedly struck the five light poles and impacted the Pentagon 1st floor. Therefore the speed of the aircraft from your perspective must be the official 535 mph (784.8 fps), and it has less than two seconds before it is completely out of sight from the Naval Annex parking lot.

posted by cogburn

If you did, you'd have enough information to prove your wild theories beyond any shadow of doubt.

It is within those little annoying details where the truth lies. One may choose to ignore them for the sake of the "big picture", however those of us who understand how the world works will require those little details to be resolved.

Are your annoying little details feeling better now? Do you understand how the world works now?

[edit on 1/2/09 by SPreston]

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 08:54 AM by CameronFox

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

There is nothing deceitful about it at all.

It is a hypothetical example.

Hello? You proved your own hypothetical example FALSE! By leaving that graphic on your website you ARE being deceitful.

Intelligent and reasonable people understand perfectly how there is no reason to expect that it is 100% accurate.

The GENERAL point of the image stands and that is the decoy jet was timed perfectly with the explosion effectively fooling people into believing it hit the building.

It is not even 1% accurate. PERIOD. You said so yourself. Do the right thing and remove it from your website. (i know you won't)

p.s why would you "assume" this is Aldo? I can assure you that I am Craig as my screenname says. I always post as Craig and he always posts as Aldo. We both use our real names whenever we post so there isn't a reason on earth for us to speak for each other.

You spoke of yourself in the third party on your post. Not somthing typical of you. Not a big deal either way.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 09:25 AM by CameronFox

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

We trust Morin for one simple, GENERAL corroborated claim that the plane flew directly over the Navy Annex.

What you mean is trust Morin with only the parts that fit your fantasy.

Period.

We understand how Morin is not a computer and how it is unreasonable to expect him to be perfectly accurate regarding specific details such as exact heading.

Yet he is very detailed in what he saw. Period

Particularly when his "parallel" claim is not corroborated by anyone and particularly when even that claim is fatal to the official story.

North side of Columbia Pike/directly over the Navy Annex AT ALL proves the plane did not hit.

It is pretty darn close to the official story. But in fact throws a serious wrench into your fantasy. There is no way what so ever that the plane can make a NOC approach traveling parallel to the FOB2. This is why you disregard this part of his interview.
Morins parallel path is exactly the same way Paik is pointing.

Perhaps you and Aldo can look up what Parallel means?

Period.
This does not show the exact flight path, but does show a parallel line to the FOB2. The same direction Paik is pointing to in the interview.

In addition, Morin statement puts a fatal blow to the math PFT put together for CIT's alleged flyover witness.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 11:01 AM by megaman1234

OK- so I pop back in here after a few months to see the SAME silly stuff! It’s kind of like seeing and old friend – these CIT guys. I think I can count on this to continue into perpetuity. So now they are saying that a plane flying in that circle above the Pentagon fooled everyone in the world in to thinking it actually flew in a straight line into the Pentagon?

Umm- seriously – I mean no disrespect – but that’s just crazy-talk.

I mean – that huge passenger plane would be almost on its side pulling that turn, shooting around to the point where it was almost perpendicular to the explosion.

Haven’t you guys ever been to an airshow? Do you seriously think that anyone would miss that?? I mean – look at the WTC videos. Those were bigger planes – bigger explosions than the one at the Pentagon – and we have all seen the videos. Can you imagine a plane flying by the WTC, pulling a huge turn, and NOT being seen by everyone there? There’s no way man!

Shoot – you’d need 1,000 witnesses, 15 videos, and a testimony from the pope to convince anyone of that crazy maneuver…

megaman

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 11:57 AM by jthomas

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

When considering all this new extremely important very significant evidence that we uncovered during this productive year of 2008 we now estimate/hypothesize/suggest that perhaps the flight path was something closer to this:

The first thing we notice is the absurdity of flying over the Navy Annex to pass over the Pentagon in the fashion you suggest.

Even CIT has to admit that its representation of what it claims Roberts described would mean there was a reason for flying over the Pentagon from left to right. That reason would preclude the pilot of that aircraft from approaching from the NoC approach CIT claims. Instead, the jet would have approached straight on from the side it intended to approach and flyover the Pentagon. See red line.

So, in one swell swoop, CIT has invalidated both flight paths and debunked itself again.

Along with P4T's flawed understanding of basic math and aerodynamics, the final act in the CIT fairy tale is over.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:05 PM by pinch

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

We trust Morin for one simple, GENERAL corroborated claim that the plane flew directly over the Navy Annex.

Craig likes to apply his "version" of witness credibility with this catch-all statement:

We are not required to accept Morin's "parallel" claim when this is not corroborated by any other witness

What is really funny is the way Craig ignores it when that standard is applied to other witnesses that he still embraces (i.e. Roberts, Gallop, etc).

Let's check it out, shall we?

We are not required to accept Robert's "50 to 100 feet over South parking" claim when this is not corroborated by any other witness

We are not required to accept Gallop's "no fuel"" claim when this is not corroborated by any other witness.

We are not required to accept Chaconas's "Attack/Decoy/Whatever Plane" claim when this is not corroborated by any other witness.

edited to add one more:

We are not required to accept Scott Cook's "THE PLANE PASSED OVER/PAST THE PENTAGON AND OVER TO THE TIDAL BASIN!!!" claim when this is not corroborated by any other witness.

Cherrypicking witness statements, picking out only those items that fit your agenda and disregarding/ignoring the others.

Credibility! Its not just for breakfast anymore!

[edit on 2-1-2009 by pinch]

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:43 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by cogburn

Here I go breaking my zealot rule again but I just can't resist....

To calculate how long the plane would have been visible from any vantage point before having the view obstructed (as opposed to having the plane become invisible) from the observer would require the flight path, air speed and angle of inclination/declination during the period of time when the plane was alleged to be observed.

Your claim of "2 seconds" is completely arbitrary. The witness's statement has an equal probability of being correct. You have no way of proving if the plane was in view of the witness in question or not.

Sorry but you are quite incorrect.

I was speaking specifically in regards to his claim when considering the official story as reported by the NTSB in 2006 with the data that allegedly came from "Flight 77's" black box.

If you weren't aware the data has the plane traveling 460 knots or about 535 mph or about 780 feet per second at this point.

With this value provided to us along with video and images of the topography and the useful internet tool of google earth it is quite simple to calculate how long it would take for the plane to reach the Pentagon (about 4 seconds) and how long it would take for it to descend to light pole #1 way below the sight line behind the trees (about 2 seconds).

Of course we know the data is fraudulent because this is not where anyone saw the plane fly but in order to accept the official story to be true this data MUST be embraced.

Terry Morin's account is 100% irreconcilable with this data.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:41 PM by CameronFox

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

If you weren't aware the data has the plane traveling 460 knots or about 535 mph or about 780 feet per second at this point.

Of course we know the data is fraudulent because this is not where anyone saw the plane fly but in order to accept the official story to be true this data MUST be embraced.

Terry Morin's account is 100% irreconcilable with this data.

Emphasis mine

by Terry Morin

I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots.

100% irreconcilable? How do you figure? Take the low end of Mr. Morin's statement and he is 76% accurate with the speed of light 77. Take the high end of his estimation and he is 87% accurate.

Not a bad estimate considering your claim is that he only saw the plane for a split second... don't you think?

Mr. Morin was in a position to make a pretty darn good estimate of the speed of the plane. Just like he was in a great position to see that the plane...........

by Terry Morin
Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon.

So again, lets look at the POV from the FOB2 and see what Terry is talking about:

Remember what else he said:

by Terry Morin
The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB).

Was Morin 100% accurate? Nope, but he is a witness to SOC.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:55 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by CameronFox

He said 13 to 18 seconds.

That's a lot slower than 460 knots or even 350 knots.

Regardless....humans are not computers and I would not expect Terry Morin to be perfectly accurate about specific details such as speed.

However....

If the official story were true the plane would be completely invisible to him 2 seconds after it flew over his head when he was 10 feet in between the wings.

This is a fact that you can not deny.

This means by the time he reacted and went out to see the plane headed towards the Pentagon....it would be too late.

He would not have seen the tail of the aircraft at all.

Because of this fact it is clear that his account is 100% irreconcilable with the official story.

Oh and if as he emphatically states the plane was directly over him and the Navy Annex as corroborated by so many others, it was not on the official flight path and this simple fact is 100% irreconcilable with the physical damage proving the plane did not hit the building.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 02:48 PM by CameronFox

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

So let's just pick and choose whatever fits your theory Craig.

The man saw the plane, he estimated the speed, time,and position. Go get him a crayon and a nifty overhead picture and ask him where he saw the plane.

He said the plane was going DIRECTLY TOWARD THE PENTAGON.

You have a SOC witness and you know it.

His statement as I noted before strikes a fatal blow at PFT latest cartoon with numbers.

Now. let me ask you again. Will you remove your outdated hypothesis
from your web page? Will you ask your friend to create another one with your latest and greatest hypothesis? Or will you be like the clowns at PFT and leave old false claims on there?

I highly doubt you will create another graphic showing your "flyaround" ...it will just show you how ridiculous your claim is.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by CameronFox]

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 03:04 PM by CameronFox

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CameronFox

He said 13 to 18 seconds.

That's a lot slower than 460 knots or even 350 knots.

NO he didn't:

Elapsed time from hearing the initial noise to when I saw the impact flash was between 12 and 15 seconds.

HEARING the initial noise and 12 to 15 seconds. NOT 13 -18 You are doing a poor attempt at spinning his words.

At 784 fps, you are talking 2,352 feet you added to his time. (close to a 1/2 mile)

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 03:05 PM by Boone 870

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Oh and if as he emphatically states the plane was directly over him and the Navy Annex as corroborated by so many others, it was not on the official flight path and this simple fact is 100% irreconcilable with the physical damage proving the plane did not hit the building.

emphasis added

"The plane was directly over," that sounds very familiar...

When did I hear that before??? Oh, yeah. Scott Cook!

"But then right over the tidal basin"

CIT had that one wrong, too.

Where, in the above image, does the arc intersect lane one as described by Roosevelt Roberts Jr.?

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 04:33 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by CameronFox

So let's just pick and choose whatever fits your theory Craig.

Huh?

His account is 100% irreconcilable with the official flight path, the official speed of the plane, and the physical damage.

This is a fact that you can't change whether or not you choose to accept the official conspiracy fraud.

Now. let me ask you again. Will you remove your outdated hypothesis
from your web page?

I will update our website as I please but the hypothetical example on the page relays the general point of a plane timed with the explosion just fine.

We will never know the exact flight path or the exact placement of the plane when it reaches the building and that hypothetical example works fine for that purpose.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 04:38 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by CameronFox

NO he didn't:

Elapsed time from hearing the initial noise to when I saw the impact flash was between 12 and 15 seconds.

HEARING the initial noise and 12 to 15 seconds. NOT 13 -18 You are doing a poor attempt at spinning his words.

At 784 fps, you are talking 2,352 feet you added to his time. (close to a 1/2 mile)

He told me 13 to 18 seconds in person.

Of course that is pretty much the same as 12 to 15 and ALL of it is 100% irreconcilable with the official story but matches perfectly with the speed estimated by William Middleton and Air Traffic Controller in the heliport tower Sean Boger.

No matter how you slice it....if the official story were true, the plane would have had to have descended to the point of invisibility in 2 seconds after it passed directly over his head while he was still in between the wings of the building.

This means his account is 100% irreconcilable with the official story and the physical damage.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 04:42 PM by CameronFox

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

His account is 100% irreconcilable with the official flight path, the official speed of the plane, and the physical damage.

This is a fact that you can't change whether or not you choose to accept the official conspiracy fraud.

His account gives you a SOC witness. You can't deny it. I accept that he is not perfect, as do you.

I will update our website as I please but the hypothetical example on the page relays the general point of a plane timed with the explosion just fine.

No, it doesn't relay the point "just fine." You know very well the plane does NOT fly through the impact point. You have admitted this yourself. Again, if you were to show graphics of what you now hypothesize, you would cringe.

We will never know the exact flight path or the exact placement of the plane when it reaches the building and that hypothetical example works fine for that purpose.

You many never know Craig, and perhaps the few at PFT. The rest of the world does know the exact flight path and exactly where is crashed.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 04:46 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Boone 870

"The plane was directly over," that sounds very familiar...

When did I hear that before??? Oh, yeah. Scott Cook!

"But then right over the tidal basin"

CIT had that one wrong, too.

It was not our claim it was Scott Cook's claim.

We accurately reported what he said.

When more evidence turned up proving him wrong we accurately reported that also.

Now it would be a stretch to suggest that Scott Cook was "mistaken" about this but such a claim certainly would serve as perfect cover for the flyover.

Why do you suppose that Scott Cook would make such a claim?

Where, in the above image, does the arc intersect lane one as described by Roosevelt Roberts Jr.?

Witnesses are not computers.

We don't expect any of them to be perfectly accurate regarding all details.

That would be unreasonable.

We only rely on them for general details so in Roosevelt's case that would be regarding the fact that he saw a low flying jet immediately after the explosion AT ALL.

Since he told this to the Library of Congress in Nov 2001 and since all the NoC witnesses in essence corroborate him we tend to believe him regarding this general claim.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 06:55 PM by Boone 870

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Now it would be a stretch to suggest that Scott Cook was "mistaken" about this but such a claim certainly would serve as perfect cover for the flyover.

Why do you suppose that Scott Cook would make such a claim?

Scott Cook never made such a claim. The CIT had a difficult time understanding that he was describing what he witnessed from his perspective. You guys twisted and contorted his words to fit your fantasy until you were clubbed back into reality with 4 photos and 2 videos that proved you where wrong all along.

I now see that you trying to label him as a government plant, that's not surprising considering that he places the C-130 exactly where the RADES and FAA data says that it was. Also, he says that he had his face against the window watching the fireball rise from the Pentagon before the blast shock wave reached him.

Why didn't he witness the flyover, as described by Roberts, Craig?

We only rely on them for general details so in Roosevelt's case that would be regarding the fact that he saw a low flying jet immediately after the explosion AT ALL.

One of the few things that Roberts was specific and clear about is that he witnessed the aircraft over the lame one area in south parking. And now you are dismissing that part of his testimony because you know that there is no way the "Decoy Jet" could not have pulled off that maneuver.

Another example of CIT Selectivity!

At least you're not trying to place lane one in south parking somewhere in the north parking lot, again.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 08:03 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by Boone 870

Your accusations are uncalled for and completely unsupported.

Why don't you quote us or Scott Cook to prove your point?

I'll tell you why....because you are WRONG.

We did not twist Scott Cook's words one bit. He is the one who claimed the C-130 headed towards DC.

We merely reported what he said.

Here are his quoted words so please explain how we "twisted" them or admit that YOU are twisting the facts as a means to accuse us of lying.

Scott Cook regarding the C-130:

It was coming from an odd direction (planes don't go east-west in the area), and it was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft. Trailing a thin, diffuse black smoke trail from its engines, the plane reached the Pentagon at a low altitude and made a sharp left turn, passing just north of the plume, and headed straight for the White House.

All the while, I was sort of talking at it: 'Who the hell are you? Where are you going? You're not headed for downtown!' Ray and Verle watched it with me and I was convinced it was another attack. But right over the tidal basin at an altitude of less than a thousand feet, it made another sharp turn to the north and climbed rapidly. Soon it was gone leaving only the thin black trail."

Explain how we "twisted" those words Boone. He was VERY detailed about this.

Here is an image of his POV from across the river:

The fact is that it would have been difficult for him to see the RADES data C-130 bank with any detail from from his location way across the river.

But it is clearly NOT what he describes anyway as there is no way his perspective could cause him to confuse the RADES data (that never even has the plane as far east as the Pentagon) with heading towards the White House or being anywhere near the Tidal Basin which is right next to him, or crossing the river AT ALL for that matter.

The yellow flight path is what he is describing compared to the RADES data in red:

Yes we initially believed Scott Cook because his account was so detailed and at the time we had no reason to think he was lying.

But the ANC witnesses and the new Tribby video released this year prove his account false.

Of course they also prove the 84 RADES data and Keith Wheehouse's "shadowing" claim false too so it's only bad news for the official story.

But we twisted NOTHING in regard to Scott Cook's account. And there is no way he could have honestly thought the C-130 was headed for the White House or crossed the river to the tidal basin right next to him due to "perspective".

Absolutely no way.