Challenge to CIT

[Reheat]

Good Night Reminder to CIT

CIT, if you display any more speeds/calculations (other than the 333 already posted, in which you crashed and burned) anywhere on the Internet where they can be found by any of us I expect the following:

1) Adhere to YOUR witnesses flight path. Paik said the aircraft flew on about a ~ 061 degree heading (he indicated this with both hands) to near the VDOT antenna, so you can go from abeam the VDOT Antenna to the Citgo to include turn radius in your calculated turn. He also indicated the aircraft almost impacted the last building of the Navy Annex, consequently it was at very low altitude.

2) You must have the aircraft on a heading (or close to it) to the impact point by Washington Blvd where YOUR witness, Robert Turcois, (and YOU) have stated that it began the pull up to fly over the Pentagon. Account for vertical G in the pull-up timing.

3) You must account for the aircraft reduced roll and pitch response at slow speeds in your calculations.

3) You must account for the timing of the explosion YOUR witness, Edward Paik, indicated when he said he heard the explosion at the Pentagon.

These are NOT MY REQUIREMENTS, they are the "Scientifically Corraborated irrefutable testimony" requirements of YOUR witnesses or they are recognized aerodynamic principles of flight.

Since your witnesses are "irrefutable" and have been "Scientifically Corroborated", I'm sure you can easily support your claim with scientifically verifiable mathematics.

ETA: Someone might post this where they can see it at other sites they frequent and also where other twoofers can see it, as well.

 

[MIKILLINI]

You say fraud in the plural sense as if more than one member is even allowed here and my warnings have been shooting up with each and every new post....lol

You backed out from debate with me more than once Ron. You are the fraud.

The truth of the matter is you have a 4 page thread devoted to CIT and here is the first time a member of CIT actually posted in it.

And I'm not even acknowledging the OP. This will fuel you guys up for another 3 or 4 pages for sure.

I'll pop back in a couple days and enjoy it.......

TC, the only fraudulent thing here is the movement you argue for and the false truth it spews out.
Since you are not acknowledging the OP, is this an indication of you being unable to dispute the calculations and have decided to ignore them?

 

[beachnut]

Sorry Reheat, Craig has got you now. Give up! He posted this at p4t forum, and now we have to give in and laugh hard!!!

You clearly have no clue regarding the evidence you are addressing.

The bank in question is completely out of Edward Paik's line of sight as is the physical descent in the topography east of the Navy Annex which is where the postulated bank would have taken place.


The flight path/bank that we propose HAD to have had a descent after the Navy Annex and this would have been impossible for Paik to witness.

But guess what?

Witness Sean Boger was an Air Traffic Controller in the heliport tower and he had a PERFECT view of the bank in question.

Did you know that?

Did you know that he ALSO corroborates the north side claim and the reported bank perfectly?

Sean Boger

Wow, they got us now. It seems there was a fly over! WAIT! NO, wait, I see it now it says, INTO. The plane just flew into the Pentagon. Did he say INTO? YES he said INTO.

"A plane just flew into the Pentagon," Boger responded.

Yes, it is confusing their own witness, who will be in a super pentacon video, debunks the CIT again. It happens everytime the CIT posts something, instant self debunking. Save time debunk yourself.

Sean Boger said 77 flew into the Pentagon, and he saw 77 far out. Why did he see it so far away? Because when Hani was aiming for the Pentagon, the plane can be seen far away, it is going to hit the Pentagon so you can see it lined up for like a minute if he lines up quick. But let me tell you how long Sean could of seen 77 lined up with the target next to Sean.
For over 44 seconds the plane was only off 15 degree from line of sight impact point. The last 17 second less than 1.5 degrees off. They are going to mention bank. Yep, Sean would be in a good position to see Bank of 77, he was sitting near ground zero. The following bank which change the Aircraft heading less than 1.5 degrees in 17 seconds. Big banks of, 6.3 degrees right, 5, 3 and 1 degree right bank, then .4, 2 and 1 right bank again, then left bank of 1, 2, back to 1, and then right to 2, 4, 5, 6 degrees right bank and he said the plane hit the Pentagon.

another self debunking CIT special witness.

Boger, Sean

"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."​

Why do they make these people part of their lie?​

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

 

[Brainache]

"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

[CIT Loons] Well obviously it banked and flew over the building when he fell to the ground and covered his head.[/CIT Loons]

 

[Horatius]

I could actually hear the metal going through the building.

[CIT Cheerleader]And how does he know what the sound of metal going through a building is?!?[/CIT Cheerleader]

 

[Reheat]

Sorry Reheat, Craig has got you now. Give up! He posted this at p4t forum, and now we have to give in and laugh hard!!!

I tell you, I am speechless, stunned and speechless.

That's worth at least 5 dogs.

 

[Reheat]

Hey Beachnut, Bring out your Wonder Woman airplane again! We need to be able to see through it!

Aldo started a thread a few days ago quoting, Mike Walters, the USA Today Reporter and his description of a "graceful bank" to support the NoC fantasy. Ranke then drew that beautiful line on a map "depicting" it.

As it turns out, what Mike Walters really said was:

"I will never forget that day, trapped in traffic and then I rolled down the window and heard the sound of the jet overhead. [...] I looked up and saw the underbelly of the jet as it gracefully banked, then I watched in shock as the jet basically lined up the Pentagon in its sights and began to scream towards the mammoth structure."

Mike Walters position was SOUTH of both flight paths. He was actually describing a LEFT bank on the "Official Flight Path" as opposed to a RIGHT bank in support of NoC.

Can the STUPID get any worse?

 

[Cobalt]

Can the STUPID get any worse?

Probably.

 

[Bobert]

My favorite argument by Craig is that the fireball was so massive that the airtraffic controllers would have been fixated on it and missed the flyover.
As if the plane was very very tiny and the fireball soooo huge that it would have been missed flying over.
Aldo must get good weed.

 

[jaydeehess]

WOW banned in less then 5 min for posting .....

That must be where you went wrong.

 

[Bobert]

 

[jaydeehess]

My favorite argument by Craig is that the fireball was so massive that the airtraffic controllers would have been fixated on it and missed the flyover.
As if the plane was very very tiny and the fireball soooo huge that it would have been missed flying over.
Aldo must get good weed.

Well they also add, IIRC, that those witnesses would have ducked for cover before actual contact was made and thus would not have seen the impact.

My favorite bit-o'-lunacy is the idea that the fireball went off and hid the plane from Robert Turcios' view and that is why Turcois said that his view of the impact was "still obstructed". This would of course require that Turcois assume that the fireball was not the result of impact but rather an event that precedes impact. Yet Turcois indicates no concern or questioning about such an odd event, and does in fact understand/ believe that the plane hit the building. Anyone with a modicum of logic will hear Turcois' words and see his actions and understand that what he is ststing is that the plane he saw went below his line of sight and remained below his line of sight (due to the highway overpass) which meant that his view of the plane was "still obstructed" when the plane hit the Pentagon. Turcois could see the top floors of the Pentagon but could not see the plane. He most certainly would have seen it had it been at an altitude at which it could pass over the Pentagon. Thus if the fireball was indeed a diversionary tactic for a cover up then Turcois' statement is better used to illustrate a fly-under theory

 

[jaydeehess]

You say fraud in the plural sense as if more than one member is even allowed here and my warnings have been shooting up with each and every new post....lol

True, however all of the CIT have posted here in the past and been banned for bad behaviour. If it was so very important that they be allowed to post here then they should have abided the rules. They may claim that the rules are not applied consistently between typical JREF members and those who adhere to the Truth Movement philosophy. However if it was so very important to continue to post here then perhaps they should have strove to be shining examples of adherence to those rules. They did not.

So we are left with you, and you alone. You, who refuse to adress the fact that the CIT has put forth no flight path that would be possible to both adhere to the statements of their witnesses AND be physically possible. You, and the CIT, then claim that we are trying to make liars of the witnesses when in truth (you remember that word?) we are saying that some aspects of the witnesses rememberances are in error. In fact they all differ in the exact path of the plane but they all agree on the final act of the aircraft, impact with the Pentagon.

The truth of the matter is you have a 4 page thread devoted to CIT and here is the first time a member of CIT actually posted in it.

Yeah, its titled "Challenge to CIT", so what took you so long?

And I'm not even acknowledging the OP. This will fuel you guys up for another 3 or 4 pages for sure.

That's why it took so long!! You simply cannot reconcile the flightpath that the CIT says the plane took with the facts that state that the plane could not possibly make the turns required.

I'll pop back in a couple days and enjoy it.......

How good of you to pop by and offer nothing at all to the discussion. I am positive that your next visit will be equally constructive.

 

[jaydeehess]

For TC and the rest of the CIT. here's a bit of internet research for you
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0146.shtml

It has some math in it though. If you did not pass grade 10 math then you might get hopelessly lost.
You can check with Rob Balsamo on the veracity of the tutorial. (but remember, his math is about as bad as that of a grade 10 slacker)

If you want the math done for you then there is always the online calculator
http://www.kembleairrace.freeola.com/calculators/bankangle_calculator.htm

Of course the NWO might have your IP addresses noted and insert results that you try in that calculator that are lies.

 

[1337m4n]

My favorite argument by Craig is that the fireball was so massive that the airtraffic controllers would have been fixated on it and missed the flyover.

I've never bought it. I've heard that the jet wash would disperse the explosive cloud as it flew past. But even more importantly, there's also the problem that the explosion we're talking about was capable of destroying reinforced concrete. Even if the explosion didn't damage our plane directly, it would surely throw hazardous debris into the engine. Have you ever read about the effects of volcanic eruptions on aircraft?

 

[jhunter1163]

From SPreston at LCF:

And you are basing your assurances on ................................... this JREF paper airplane design dude ........... what was his name again ......... oh yeah ... Mister Reheat the Muse? We do not really know what kind of aircraft the decoy aircraft was do we? Chaconas stated it looked like a commercial aircraft. There is a huge range in testimony on what the aircraft at the Pentagon looked like isn't there?We know they are all either describing the decoy aircraft or they are lying, because the official Flight 77 757 never happened. And we do not know the flying characteristics of the decoy aircraft do we or if the 9-11 planners had the aircraft modified for the Pentagon simulation and NeoCON scam, do we? So how does your paper plane expert Mister Reheat the Muse estimate the flying abilities of the decoy aircraft when he does not know what type of aircraft it was?

Regardless the official flight path down the hill with the high G pull up at 530 mph has been proven impossible and the high G official FDR loop southwest of the Pentagon over Alexandria and Springfield has been proven faked and never happened. Let us not forget the proven faked 84 RADES data manufactured 4+ years later after 9-11 to prop up the failing Flight 77 FDR piece of crap. It didn't prop it up too well did it, with its foundations built on ********? There was a real aircraft and real witnesses reported it over Washington and 6 miles southeast of the White house and flying west across the Potomac, banking around Reagan National.

The opinions of a bunch of infantile JREFers who were born in denial is irrelevent. There is probably no way to prove the actual speed of the decoy aircraft, unless Dubya ordered a live feed of the Pentagon simulation into his limousine also and saved us a copy. Could you maybe have a talk with him sap-guy while you are visiting? You know; do something useful for a change.

I pointed out that Reheat showed that the bank is aerodynamically impossible no matter what type of plane is used. This ought to be even more fun.

 

[Reheat]

I've never bought it. I've heard that the jet wash would disperse the explosive cloud as it flew past. But even more importantly, there's also the problem that the explosion we're talking about was capable of destroying reinforced concrete. Even if the explosion didn't damage our plane directly, it would surely throw hazardous debris into the engine. Have you ever read about the effects of volcanic eruptions on aircraft?

The stupid never ceases to amaze me. If the explosion is too early, of course, the aircraft (primarily engines) would suffer considerable damage, it it's too late everyone who is looking can see the aircraft ascend rapidly to climb over the building.

All of this when the crew and passengers were killed anyway?

DNA from the crew and passengers
Planted aircraft debris
Faked downed light poles perfectly matching a 757 Wingspan and damage path
A DC Cab Driver in on it
A damaged generator and a clipped tree perfectly matching the damage path and a 757 Engine
FDR found in the building with 25 hours of previous flights on it
Hundreds of witnesses

There's more, but what's the point?

Why fake it when the true story is simple and more plausible. The stupid is so stifling it's sickening.

There's several of the idiots that are not well mentally.

 

[Reheat]

I pointed out that Reheat showed that the bank is aerodynamically impossible no matter what type of plane is used. This ought to be even more fun.

That guy is so stupid every post is a Stundie. I'm proposing to rename the Stundie Award to the SPreston Award.

It's futile arguing with someone like him.

 

[WildCat]

Can the STUPID get any worse?

Never, ever, can you overestimate the stupidity of the truth movement. Especially the CIT.