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