• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

CIT.....Time to call it a day

TC329 said:
Do you understand that it is impossible for everyone to hallucinate a 757 on the wrong side of the Citgo station not hitting any light poles?

7X over?

Including Sean Boger inside the Heliport Tower?

http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic9.htm
Click to expand...

But it is possible for a few witnesses to see a large shadow cast over the "wrong side" of the Citgo station from a plane they cant see from under a full canopy and deduce the flight was on the north side. I suggest you check the suns azimuth and altitude for that time of day and location Dom.


I might also add that Craig conceded here at this forum over a year ago that the two flight paths drawn by mechanic Edward Paik are not in conflict with the documented flight path.
 

Attachments

  • paik google.jpg
    paik google.jpg
    63.8 KB · Views: 12
TC329 said:
So let me get this straight, since CIT believes the FDR data to be a total fabrication you expect CIT to still use it as reference points for velocity the plane was traveling?

That's fascinating to take a piece of bogus "evidence" (used loosely) proven to be inaccurate and fraudulent and then have to rely on it as evidence. Perhaps in your world but not in ours.




This is great because I was speaking to a police officer last night and was telling him about my research in Shankville and Craig & Aldo's in Arlington and he told me "Yeah well you see a bus over there you see it over there. You might forget what color it was or whose bus it was but you know where you saw it." He found it all to be extremely fascinating especially the testimonies of the 2 police sergeants. As for the conclusions he said he would have to examine all the evidence before he could agree with the implications of it but couldn't see how so many people could get that aspect wrong. And then missing something like light poles getting torn out of the ground and thrown around by those same witnesses.

The attentive audience needs to discuss CIT's info with law enforcement officials from a fair unbiased stand point and I believe the attentive audience will be very surprised with the outcome.

That's my 2 cents.
Click to expand...



It's so much fun watching you frauds squirm that I can never resist calling attention to your steadfast refusal to ask your tiny handful of cherry-picked witnesses to abandon at least one of their mutually-exclusive claims.

How about it? Which claim, that the plane flew north of the Citgo station or that it hit the Pentagon, will hit the trash heap alongside the fantasies of the Penta-conmen?
 
TC or anyone else who believes in the CIT flight path; how fast was the plane going when it passed near (no matter what side) the Citgo station, and approximately how high over the highway between the station and the Pentagon was it?

At what point did the 'pull up' occur, between the Citgo and the highway, between the highway and the Pentagon, at some other point?

Why did no one who was 'duped' into believeing that the plane hit the Pentagon, think that it hit an upper floor?
 
Last edited:
TC329 said:
How did all these people who saw the plane fly into the Pentagon miss the same plane hitting 5 different light poles?

Are all these people "misrembering" all the details except "and then it hit the Pentagon"?

I'm afraid it's you who has to give it up.
Click to expand...

dodge...weave...dodge...weave

Does this dude every just answer a question instead of answering a question with a question?

Truthers are like high school girls arguing over who has the cutest dress.
Pathetic
 
Reheat said:
Cross posting? I asked you for calculations which does not require cross posting.

Let's see the math for the turn.
Click to expand...


You want me to invent numbers to prove people saw what they saw.

ABC News

Oct. 24 — It has taken six weeks, but air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien is now ready to talk about Sept. 11.

At the Dulles tower, O'Brien saw the TV pictures from New York and headed back to her post to help other planes quickly land.

"We started moving the planes as quickly as we could," she says. "Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed … I had literally a blip and nothing more."

O'Brien asked the controller sitting next to her, Tom Howell, if he saw it too.

"I said, 'Oh my God, it looks like he's headed to the White House,'" recalls Howell. "I was yelling … 'We've got a target headed right for the White House!'"

At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol.

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Click to expand...
 
1. Still no calculations
2. That quote has been beaten to death. It supports the RADES data and offers nothing that contradicts it. The maneuver may have been unsafe, but it was well within the capabilities of the aircraft.
 
The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe.
Click to expand...


And O'Brien was right! It was unsafe. Flying a 757 in that manner resulted in it crashing into a building. I'd say that's a big blot on the pilot's safety record.

But, the P4T claim is that the plane performed a specific maneuver. Reheat wants to see the math for that turn, showing that it's within the physical capabilities of the airframe.

You don't want to show it, fine. But in that case it's clear that the reasons you don't want to show it are either (1) no one at P4T can do the math, (2) the math would show the maneuver to be impossible (the same way they thought the math they did for the descent from the VDOT tower height to the light pole height showed the maneuver impossible, when actually they did the math wrong), or both.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
TC329 said:
You want me to invent numbers to prove people saw what they saw.
Click to expand...


Actually, we'd prefer that you didn't invent any numbers. However, if that's the only option you feel you have, I think that says a lot about your position.
 
Last edited:
pomeroo said:
It's so much fun watching you frauds squirm that I can never resist calling attention to your steadfast refusal to ask your tiny handful of cherry-picked witnesses to abandon at least one of their mutually-exclusive claims.

How about it? Which claim, that the plane flew north of the Citgo station or that it hit the Pentagon, will hit the trash heap alongside the fantasies of the Penta-conmen?
Click to expand...

I have an idea Ron. How about you invite them onto your show and you demand that they drop either the North side claim or the impact claim?

Just don't back out of it if they accept like you have a record of doing with me.
 
TC329 said:
You want me to invent numbers to prove people saw what they saw.
Click to expand...

You don't need to invent numbers, they've been around for many Centuries, you just need to use numbers to show it was possible. Where are they?

Which witness was it that saw the aircraft turn approximately between the Paik, Sheratan Hotel, Navy Annex, and Citgo. I don't recall anyone except Paik who saw it during that period, but that was just prior to the turn I'm referencing.

I want the numbers between where Paik saw the aircraft and where you're witnesses saw it at the Citgo. In fact, you don't have a witness for that turn, so I want to see numbers to prove it was possible.

Diagrams of the flight path have been posted for several days now and I want to see the numbers behind those digital sketches. Here's one of them...

gracefulbank.jpg
 
Last edited:
TC329 said:
I have an idea Ron. How about you invite them onto your show and you demand that they drop either the North side claim or the impact claim?

Just don't back out of it if they accept like you have a record of doing with me.
Click to expand...

WOW TC MORE DODGING AND WEAVING I AM SHOCKED!

ALDO and CRAIG would NEVER appear on Ron's show.
Their sick game is played out in a world where they never have to be asked hard questions and they thrive on only the stupid being mesmorized by their BS.
THEY WOULD NEVER be involved in a senario where REAL REPORTERS and REAL LAW ENFORCEMENT agencies asked THEM FOR REAL EVIDENCE AND FACTS.
 
Last edited:
You guys won't get any calculations. They either a) don't know how, or b) will be forced to conclude that the correct calculations support the government's theory.

We saw this a couple of weeks ago with their "Article" that they spammed all over the internet. I wrote a lengthy post doing the math correctly, showing that not only their baseline conditions, but also five other variants of the trajectory, were all well within the performance limitations of the aircraft.

It took me a mere four hours to write this -- calculation, writeup, graphics, formatting, the works. It's not that difficult. Meanwhile, two weeks have gone by, and they still haven't issued any corrections. All they've done is complained that I'm "lying" and "twisting numbers," and blamed the delay on a desire for thorough fact-checking, something conspicuously absent from all previous releases...

Thus, I predict that no calculations will be forthcoming. TC329, I welcome you and your investigating club to exceed my expectations.
 
Its unsafe to CRASH a 757 too TC.

Do you think kamikaze pilots in WW2, thought, hang on, I better not do this maneuver, it might not be safe for me ?
 
TC329 said:
Do you understand that it is impossible for everyone to hallucinate a 757 on the wrong side of the Citgo station not hitting any light poles?

7X over?

Including Sean Boger inside the Heliport Tower?

http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic9.htm
Click to expand...

And do you understand how stupid Aldo and Ranke flyover theory is?
I don't think anybody in the world could mistake a plane flying over a building rather than fkying into a building. Also, in order for the fire ball to conceal the airplane flying over the building the explosion would have had to gone off before the airplane got near the building so that the fire ball would have the necessary time to rise high enough.
 
TC329 said:
Let's get this straight. You want CIT to give altitudes, speed, descent & ascent angles and times for a plane that didn't hit the Pentagon and one that could be any type of plane resembling a commercial airliner (i.e. 737, A320, etc) based on eyewitness accounts.
Click to expand...

Nope. That's not what I asked for. I asked for you to prove the turn from Paik's position to the North side of the Citgo. You have no witnesses for that. It is described as a "graceful turn" by Aldo, so calculations for it should be no problem. It is really easy, so I would like you to prove that graceful turn. Someone has surely calculated it already as it is drawn on the map I posted.

I asking for turn calculations only. You would have to estimate the speed in order to do that. Ranke has argued that the aircraft was traveling at the accepted speeds, so pretending that you don't know the speed can be proven wrong, as Ranke has stated them.

Where are the numbers?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom