Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by weedwhacker

I have asked at least twice now, conveniently ignored, because they have no answer. The ground track as depicted in many CIT overhead view graphics is quite impossible to accomplish -- the radius of the turn is too small for the speeds involved.

Anyone care to check the math??

The math has been done and there is nothing impossible about it particularly at the speed reported by aviation professionals Sean Boger and Terry Morin.

FALSE. The fraudulent flight path concocted by pffft completely ignores Morin. You include Morin in this most recent video, but you completely ignore what he said. In fact, he says in the video that if the AF Memorial had been present on 9/11 the aircraft would have stuck it. So, there's one Aviation Profession which you so proudly proclaim that kills your stupid theory.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Of course, as addressed in the presentation, Reheat's calculations are irrelevant because they are based on a faulty flight path not reported by any of the witnesses.

FALSE and FRAUDULENT statement. My flight path is devised EXACTLY based upon what Paik and Morin said. The ridiculous radius' to the NORTH are the RESULT of following their flight path. You pretend that I planned those ridiculous radii to the NORTH when in actual fact they are the result of attempting to fly the flight path described by your witnesses. I have no control over aircraft performance. You knew this already, but I won't accuse you of lying until you try it again.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Here are the unreasonable examples used by Reheat:

Here you go again pretending that those ridiculous turn radii were planned by me. That is the result of trying to fly the flight path stated by your witnesses. I have no control over those radii, they are simply the result of attempting to fly the paths stated by your witnesses. Since you agree they are ridiculous, then you agree that the flight path described by a combination of your witnesses was not only ridiculous, but impossible just as I've shown.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Pretty funny how he used such a ridiculous arc for his "calculations" don't you think?

There is nothing funny at all about your repeating a lie time and time again. The "arc" as you call them are DICTATED by aircraft performance in attempting to fly the flight path stated by your witnesses.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Actually it's not funny at all because it reveals the lengths that people will go to as a means to cast doubt on the scientifically validated accounts of BigSarge and so many other witnesses who unanimously and independently place the plane on the north side approach.

It not funny when you put words into people's mouths either. When and where did Big Sarge say the aircraft was on the north side? I don't want to hear your concocted answer because he never said this.

Indeed, you've just shown what lengths people will go to to perpetuated a fraudulent delusion.

WeedWhacker, I'm sure you can easily see what he's attempting to do to continue to fool his cult.

He's saying that those ridiculous turn radii to the north are of my doing. As you can easily see they are not. They are simply the result of the calculations when attempting to fly the flight path his witnesses Paik and Morin described.

My flight path illustrates that the aircraft could not fly the path his witnesses described. He's touting Morin as an aviation profession (he was a Marine Helicopter pilot in a previous life) and he was pretty clear on what he said. Consequently, the resulting calculations from what he described vividly illustrates that the aircraft can not complete the turn without stalling regardless of what reasonable speed it flies. I can tighten up the turn, but the aircraft can stall and/or over G and fold the wings only once.

He exploiting the ignorance of his cult on how to calculate a turn radius and pretending that I am the reason for the ridiculous radii. I'll say it again and perhaps you can say it also in your own words. Those turn radii are DICTATED by aircraft performance. I am only showing the result of those calculations. The turns are impossible for a transport category aircraft and he's attempting to spin it to conceal that from his cult who have no clue about how to calculate an aircraft turn radius.

It's a technical issue and he is spinning facts to fool the ignorant. It's difficult to explain in simple terms, but perhaps you can explain it in your own words to make it clearer.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by Reheat
ETA: Stop your nonsensical personal attack on me and stop it NOW.

Not an attack, just a suggestion. Truth hurts, doesn't it?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Kinetics, momentum, all that stuff...you have an engineering background, right?

I've never claimed to have an engineering background. However, you did dodge my question. Please show in the image that SPreston posted, where the fuselage and tail section got sucked into the Pentagon.

At the WTC, the outer columns offered little resistance and created a big enough hole to allow the entire plane to enter. There is no such entrance hole at the Pentagon. Large pieces of aircraft debris should be laying out there in the wide open.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by Reheat
You include Morin in this most recent video, but you completely ignore what he said. In fact, he says in the video that if the AF Memorial had been present on 9/11 the aircraft would have stuck it. So, there's one Aviation Profession which you so proudly proclaim that kills your stupid theory.

Fact: the Navy Annex is on the north side of Columbia Pike.

Fact: the Air Force Memorial is on the north side of Columbia Pike.

Fact: the official data, reports, and physical damage require the plane to be completely on the south side of Columbia Pike.



Fact: a plane on the official flight path would not have hit the Air Force Memorial even if it existed on 9/11.

Fact: Ed Paik has the plane flying directly over the Navy Annex.

Fact: Terry Morin has the plane flying directly over the Navy Annex.

Fact: Terry Morin says there is "no frippin way" the plane was on the south side of Columbia Pike like this:



Fact: Many others in a good position to tell have the plane flying directly over the Navy Annex.

Fact: A flight path directly over the Navy Annex or in a place that would hit the Air Force Memorial if it existed on 9/11 proves the official data and reports fraudulent and is irreconcilable with the physical damage proving the plane flew away after the explosion as reported by Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Reheat
ETA: Stop your nonsensical personal attack on me and stop it NOW.

Not an attack, just a suggestion. Truth hurts, doesn't it?

Based on your comments you wouldn't recognize the truth if it were a train that ran over you.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
At the WTC, the outer columns offered little resistance and created a big enough hole to allow the entire plane to enter.

The hole you see in most photos of the WTC is in the aluminum cladding. Not all of the steel outer columns were damaged, only some, so there was no such thing as a large hole in the steel columns.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There is no such entrance hole at the Pentagon. Large pieces of aircraft debris should be laying out there in the wide open.

It's quite obvious that you are not an engineer and it's also obvious that you know nothing about what happens to an aircraft which it hits a solid surface at over 750 fps.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

When will PFFFT or CIT continue the fantasy flight path animation so we can see what they think a 757 would look like JUST MISSING the Pentagon and flying AROUND the explosion? You know, what NO ONE saw in the middle of rush hour?

BTW, Mr. CIT, all of the North of Citgo witness are proven wrong via aerodynamics because you continue to use Morin as a "Professional Aviator" witness who is obviously a reliable witness.

Now, someone recently said that witnesses don't need to be mathematically correct. Do you know who said that? Wouldn't it apply both ways?

In case you didn't know when witnesses say "over the Naval Annex" because it is the largest structure on that hill, it doesn't necessarily mean DIRECTLY over the Naval Annex.

I do hope you stay awhile as I love to make you squirm......

Originally posted by Reheat
Based on your comments you wouldn't recognize the truth if it were a train that ran over you.

Reheat, please calm down. Why do you get so angry? It's unhealthy man.

The hole you see in most photos of the WTC is in the aluminum cladding. Not all of the steel outer columns were damaged, only some, so there was no such thing as a large hole in the steel columns.

Right...however, I bet the amount of steel columns that WERE damaged was actually JUST enough for the whole building to come down symmetrically though, right?

It's quite obvious that you are not an engineer and it's also obvious that you know nothing about what happens to an aircraft which it hits a solid surface at over 750 fps.

He doesnt' need to be an engineer. Common sense tells us a plane didn't hit there. Are you an engineer? Could you show me what happened to the wings and the tail of the plane that hit the Pentagon? How solid was that surface? Swampfox has already stated he read a book about the structural integrety of the outer wall...did you read those posts? Any thoughts on that?

I would appreciate a sincere and respectful answer, without anger or hated please.

Originally posted by Reheat


In case you didn't know when witnesses say "over the Naval Annex" because it is the largest structure on that hill, it doesn't necessarily mean DIRECTLY over the Naval Annex.

That argument doesn't fly with Morin who was at the Navy Annex:



He specifically says he did NOT have a side view and only saw the belly for a split second as it passed directly over him:



That leaves ZERO room for perception error much like the situation with the citgo witnesses.

If the plane was completely south of Columbia Pike as required by the official data, reports, and physical damage he would have a clear side view.

I know you understand all this but your desperate attempt to argue with all the confidence you can muster is your only hope to cast doubt.

It won't work Reheat.

We have logic, truth, and evidence on our side while all you have is angry denial and transparent spin.

Originally posted by Reheat
In case you didn't know when witnesses say "over the Naval Annex" because it is the largest structure on that hill, it doesn't necessarily mean DIRECTLY over the Naval Annex.

Well then what does it mean, Reheat?

Witnesses are on tape pointing and describing how the plane that they saw flew over the top of the Navy Annex. Some described it passing over the North corner of the Navy Annex.

Please, Reheat, enlighten us all, so that we can learn what over the Navy Annex really means?

Personally, I can't believe that you've sunk to this level of denial to try and twist these witness statements.