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

[uruk]

Happy birthday, uruk!

Thanks! I feel every second of my 43 years.

 

[uruk]

Hey, uruk ~ Happy Birthday!!

Thanks, but I can only eat one cake.

 

[TC329]

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.

You can sit here and argue about which is more logical to you but the fact remains the eyewitnesses place it on the North side of the Citgo not hitting lightpoles and throwing them about the highway and impaling cars.

Again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

 

[The Big Dog]

You can sit here and argue about which is more logical to you but the fact remains the eyewitnesses place it on the North side of the Citgo not hitting lightpoles and throwing them about the highway and impaling cars but hitting the Pentagon

Again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Fixed that for you! That whole hitting the Pentagon thing is a real problem for CIT, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You can sit here and argue about which is more logical to you but the fact remains the eyewitnesses place it on the North side of the Citgo not hitting lightpoles and throwing them about the highway and impaling cars.

Again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

And eyewitnesses place it hitting the pentagon.

Again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

And yet you also want us to believe that someone planted the light poles in front of thousands of people without anyone noticing. You want us to believe that someone planted plane parts at the exact moment of impact in front of thousands of people and no one noticed. You want us to believe that the people on board who had just over an hour earlier gotten on a plane were planted at the scene exactly at the moment of impact without anyone noticing.


I think your red flyer wagon has a broken wheel.

 

[Reheat]

Still no numbers, I see.

Again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

 

[A W Smith]

You can sit here and argue about which is more logical to you but the fact remains the eyewitnesses place it on the North side of the Citgo not hitting lightpoles and throwing them about the highway and impaling cars.

Again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

No they don't

 

[MIKILLINI]

Still no numbers, I see.

Again and again and again and again and again truthers will be asked for calculations and the usual result happens...nothing.
When they are shown calculations, once again, the usual results happen....they can't dispute them.
TC, there is a real reason for that, can you figure what that reason is?

 

[uruk]

You can sit here and argue about which is more logical to you but the fact remains the eyewitnesses place it on the North side of the Citgo not hitting lightpoles and throwing them about the highway and impaling cars.

Again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Last I heard it was, what, four or five? And one of the wittnesses couldn't even remember which gas pump he was at. He was pretty certain about his mistaken position untill he saw the video.

And the repairman's drawings support the southside flyby but Aldo and Ranke don't seem to get it. (see AW post)

And I think the doubletree video would have shown the airplane flying over the Pentagon.

Even the CG animation CIT had made also shows that a flyover would have been hard to miss. It's really funny.

Face it Aldo and Ranke are Dylan and Avery wanna-be's. They came up with some pretty weak cherry picked crap and tried to market it to the truther community. They were even dumb enough to include testimony and evidence which pretty much refutes thier claim. They were just desparate for material and hoped everyone was too dumb to notice.

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

First point, a 737 or A320 would not just 'resemble' an airliner, they would be airliners.
Second point, you have been asked to show the numbers that would be used to describe relevent parameters of the flight path. The effect on the plane on that flight path could be determined and we can deduce whether or not any plane 'resembling' an airliner could perform them. This is a simple request TC, the math is relatively simple as well. Certainly an experienced pilot should be able to assist the CIT with this. They do know a few experienced pilots do they not? I mean, after all, the P4T web site makes much of the experience and expertise of their members. The flight path has been drawn on a map by the CIT. Now you, and by extension, they, have been asked to detail whether or not it is possible at all. Time to either put up or shut up.

Now that the eyewitnesses have corroborated each other again and again and again you demand more. You don't demand that the US Gov release those 80+ cameras which could not have all missed photographing this plane on it's flight path nor do you want to hear the oddly classified 911 Arlington phone calls.

Shifting the goalposts. Do try to stick to one item at atime TC.
Craig and Aldo accepted the velocity of the aircraft before. Are you claiming that they have changed their mind on that.
How fast was the plane going? How high off the ground was it along the CIT drawn flight path? Where did it begin its 'pull up'?
Show the math as to the forces on the plane and the bank angle required to perform the turns illustrated.

No instead you want math from 3 guys who take camera's up to eyewitnesses and ask them what they saw to prove those eyewitnesses aren't liars. You're funny.

You are saying that those three guys will believe the eyewitnesses even if the calculations illustrate that their statements must be in error?
Four words TC, "The world is flat".

It's ironic what some will do to defend Lord Bush and his legion of Neonazicons.

Strawman, many, if not most, here do not like G.W.Bush or the neo-conservative administration. It (political motivations) enters into the discussion almost exclusively when TM's bring it up. It is therefore ironic that a TM adherent would claim that politics is the motivation for anyone here arguing for the math to be shown.

 

[jaydeehess]

Getting back to http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic9.htm

TC, were any of the pictures of the heliport on that page taken by the CIT? If so which ones, and if not why not take any,?

 

[CurtC]

Hey - that's my graphic! Thanks for reposting it here. The problem that CIT has, for anyone not intimately familiar, is that Ed Paik saw the plane fly over him, down in the lower right of this photo. CIT does not dispute this. CIT says that the plane then flew to the LEFT side of the Citgo station, and back to the impact point on the Pentagon, which is right about where Paik's line hits it.

It would be completely impossible for a plane flying at a high speed to make that maneuver, with the possible exception of an F-16. Even at middling-speeds, a plane would have to be in a severe bank, one so tilted that everyone who saw it would say "I saw a sideways plane come in at the Pentagon."

Since no one saw a plane flying a wings-vertical bank, we can be assured that no plane went over Paik, to the North of the Citgo, then to the damaged area of the Pentagon. It's really that simple.

 

[beachnut]

You can sit here and argue about which is more logical to you but the fact remains the eyewitnesses place it on the North side of the Citgo not hitting lightpoles and throwing them about the highway and impaling cars.

Again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Sorry, your own witnesses impeach themselves; but moreover CIT has taken their words and twisted them into false information. The plane was not even heading that way. Your path is impossible unless the plane was flying 80 mph. You failed and are passing false and also making the witnesses liars by your twisted logic. The proof of your lies are that 77 did hit the Pentagon and your failure to prove false thousands of pieces of evidence. You have not even tried. Your physics and math is real bad too. You, p4t, CIT have all made up implications of false conclusions on 9/11; that is total failure to be truthful, you are just misleading others.

 

[Reheat]

I can't wait until tomorrow to do this as I will be busy all day with no time to post.....

No they don't.

Well, Edward Paik is a killer for their delusion (as if nothing else is) and they don't know it yet. We have one of their witnesses placing the aircraft in a fixed position, at a known distance, on an approximate heading and it destroys their fantasy because of the aircraft turn time and turn radius. Not just a B-757, but any normal aircraft turns at the same rate assuming the same speed, bank angle and G force.

Note the depiction below posted on pfffffft by Aldo. I think Ranke drew it.

It depicts about 35-40 degrees of turn (as near as I can measure from the photo) and is termed a "graceful turn". Well, it is anything but graceful. It is beyond anything anyone outside of test pilots or accident victims have witnessed in an airliner type aircraft.

Take a look at the numbers... At the Sheraton Hotel the aircraft is ~ 5000' from the Pentagon. Everyone agrees the aircraft was traveling very fast, but I used 760 fps as a compromise (It probably was traveling a bit faster, but 760 fps is fast enough). Those numbers make it about 6.6 seconds from the Pentagon if it flew in a straight line.

Even at the excessive 60 degrees of bank and 2 G's, the aircraft requires in excess of 8 seconds to complete a turn of 35 degrees or in excess of 10 seconds to complete a turn of 40 degrees, but remember it only has about 7 seconds to do that. In other words, at the excessive 60 degree bank angle (for an airliner) it could not make that kind of turn and still fly over the impact point at the Pentagon while also passing WELL North of the Citgo (beyond where the witnesses said it was).

The only way to increase turn rate is to increase the bank angle beyond 60 degrees and pull more G's or decrease the speed significantly. We're talking in the range of 70 to 80 degrees of bank and in excess of 5-6 G's. Anyone want to go there? If the speed is reduced too much we run into a stall problem to make the turn.

I have not calculated turn radius, but I can assure you it is SIGNIFICANTLY more than they have shown in the "pull it out of our posterior orifice" map posted below. Perhaps someone with less rusty math skills can calculate the turn radius using these same parameters. I already know what it will show, but it would be fun to actually see the specific numbers and plot them on a map.

They could adjust the flight path slightly and have the aircraft make two 20 degree turns, but that would still require in excess of 10 seconds to perform at 60 degrees of bank and 2 G's. Is there a witness who saw this?

Now, you know why TC won't show the numbers for this maneuver.

ETA: Remember Edward Paik said the aircraft flew over his shop and he thought the aircraft hit the VDOT tower, so if the flight path is adjusted to allow the turn to be in the realm of possibility that negates Edward Paik's testimony entirely. Well, the above graphic negates his "independent testimony" anyway, doesn't it? Let's now watch the spin. I'm going to be accused of being a liar, so Randi get that mil ready!

Bwhahahahahaha!

 

[PB&J]

Reheat thanks for that info

I'm curious, even if the aircraft were able to make that turn, wouldn't it then need to level out in order to do the deceptive pull-up maneuver that CIT claims it did?

If so, would this be even more stressful to the aircraft? JAQs here

 

[Reheat]

Reheat thanks for that info

I'm curious, even if the aircraft were able to make that turn, wouldn't it then need to level out in order to do the deceptive pull-up maneuver that CIT claims it did?

If so, would this be even more stressful to the aircraft? JAQs here

Yes, that's correct. As they have it depicted it would had to have been in 60 degrees of bank all the way to the Pentagon and it still would have missed the impact point. If it had rolled out of the bank to pull up it would have missed even further.

ETA: PB&J, they also depict the aircraft in the gif animation pulling up too late to flyover, as well, and Robert Tucous' (sic) testimony would only allow the aircraft to miss the traffic sign as he said, not do the delusional flyover maneuver.

 

[Hokulele]

Late to the party, but Happy Birthday uruk!

 

[pomeroo]

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.

I promise you that we will soon learn which of the mutually-exclusive claims hits the circular file. You still haven't explained why the Penta-conmen refuse to ask this obvious question.

 

[pomeroo]

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.

Nobody backed out of anything with you. You claimed to be a researcher and you turned out to be just another know-nothing.

 

[uk_dave]

Who had a job stalking a co-worker?