Why fake the SoC path?

[JoeyDonuts]

You're also forgetting the doppler effect cloaking device. Lyte Trip forgot to mention this too.

[qimg]http://www.pd.astro.it/education/PlanetV/images/DOPPLER1.GIF[/qimg]

Uhhh...WHAT?

 

[apathoid]

I thought CIT believed the plane was meant to act as a cover for the explosion, and the fireball in the explosion was to mask the fact that the plane didn't crash, and all of this was supposedly the point of the faked SoC path in the first place.

If the plane and the explosion are no longer believed to be synchronized, what the hell is the point of all this?

The world's most fruitcake theory just got fruitier.

Almost exactly what I would have typed. Now granted, no one on earth is dumb enough to have witnessed CITs supposed flyover and mistake it for anything other than a plane dive bombing the Pentagon. But now its become just an airshow high speed pass and climbout with an explosion off to the side.

 

[dtugg]

You know, I would have slightly more respect (instead of a 0 on a 0-100 scale, it would be .1) for Craig if he just answered that he doesn't know. Instead he just added another insane, ridiculous explanation to his already huge list of insane, ridiculous explanations. But what else could be expected from the biggest idiot in the entire world, Craig Ranke?

 

[Bell]

*walks in*

Do we know why the SoC flightpath was faked allready?

*walks out*

 

[Brainache]

*walks in*

Do we know why the SoC flightpath was faked allready?

*walks out*

Yup:

...what else could be expected from the biggest idiot in the entire world, Craig Ranke?

 

[jaydeehess]

PFT does not speculate on what happened to Flight 77 or its passengers.
See this thread.

Come now, the plane(flight 77) either hit the Pentagon or it went somewhere esle and it and all on board were disposed of in some fashion.

Those are the only two choices.

CiT/PfT flatly assert that it did not hit the Pentagon therefore theyare asserting the only other possibility(unless we wish to go truly off the wall and assert that the aircraft and the people on board never actually existed at all)

Please quote where CIT/PfT claims bombs were dropped on the Pentagon, or missles were used.

Later, I'm at work and its New Year's Eve.

CIT no longer believes the plane flew directly over the impact due to Roosevelt's testimony, as well as the description of a right bank.

So there was nothing to hide the flyover and they are throwing out the intrepretation of Turcois' statement in which Craig asserted that Turcois was saying the the fireball obscured the impact.

enough to fool people, but that doesn't mean it flew level with the damage. Everyone reports it being much higher.Ok, well, it obviously did fly low

Well Turbofan suggested it may have been at least 100 feet above the roofline of the Pentagon which is itself 77 feet high. "Low" is subjective but this plane was described by all in position to to do as having hit this building. TF then has a plane flying over twice the height of the building that it is reported by all to have hit.

PfT asserts a bank angle between 22 and 60 degrees, at 45 degrees it would have to be at least 35 feet above the Pentagon in order not to have its wing impact the roof. That would mean that this plane that all reported as having hit the Pentagon was at a height 45% higher than the structure it was reported as having hit.
furthermore several witnesses comment on it hitting the ground floor. How can PfT reconcile such reports with a plane they assert was at least 45% higher than the building?

Cit no longer believe the plane flew directly over the explosion.

then there would be nothing to hide the flyover especially from Lagasse and Brooks or anyone who was south of the impact point.

Taken together with the rest of the sentence, it is false. Also, CIT does not claim that all witnesses were necessarily fooled, but clearly the objective was to confuse as many people as possible.

So the reports in the media were not the cause of people deciding that they had not seen a flyover which they actually did see.

No, CIT has hypothesized that the light poles where cut the night before the attacks.

That was a long night for LLoyd then wasn't it. Standing at the side of the road with a honking long pole sticking out from the windshield of his taxi and hoping that no one noticed him.

See above, the light poles were planted at night.

See above. I might also add then that no one noticed broken lamp posts. The security detail of the Pentagon, which according to TM contentions should have video surveillance of the surrounding area, did not notice that these lamp posts, supposedly knocked down by Flt77 were actually put in place during the night. (yeah, yeah "shut up or you get to spend the next 5 years in Thule, Greenland,,,, or worse, and if you stay shut up here's a pile of cash")

Well, the "DNA" itself wasn't necessarily sent. More likely the "remains" were examined.

What the &^#$@$ is the bleedin' difference? Was the DNA that of the passengers or not?

You're argument from incredulity is noted.

I see a very incredible tale of pure fiction emanating from CiT/PfT

 

[bje]

Taken together with the rest of the sentence, it is false. Also, CIT does not claim that all witnesses were necessarily fooled, but clearly the objective was to confuse as many people as possible.

So, according to you and CIT, the objective was to use the explosion to fool eyewitnesses in a relatively narrow range of the explosion obscuring a flyover plane into thinking the plane had crashed into the Pentagon while leaving the many hundreds more all around the area wondering what a low flying, fast moving jet was doing flying that way over the Pentagon.

And all those people who could have seen the flyover never said a word?

Why would you believe such a crazy scenario, TLB?

 

[twinstead]

So, according to you and CIT, the objective was to use the explosion to fool eyewitnesses in a relatively narrow range of the explosion obscuring a flyover plane into thinking the plane had crashed into the Pentagon while leaving the many hundreds more all around the area wondering what a low flying, fast moving jet was doing flying that way over the Pentagon.

And all those people who could have seen the flyover never said a word?

Why would you believe such a crazy scenario, TLB?

That's the oddest thing about these loons. Why do they choose to believe a scenario hugely less likely than the 'official story'? Is it ego? Is is the thrill of knowing something that everybody else, even experts, 'missed'?

They must know, as we do, they are considered wackos even among their truther peers. I guess I just don't get it.

 

[jhunter1163]

So, according to you and CIT, the objective was to use the explosion to fool eyewitnesses in a relatively narrow range of the explosion obscuring a flyover plane into thinking the plane had crashed into the Pentagon while leaving the many hundreds more all around the area wondering what a low flying, fast moving jet was doing flying that way over the Pentagon.

And all those people who could have seen the flyover never said a word?

Why would you believe such a crazy scenario, TLB?

But now they're saying the plane didn't fly through the explosion which narrows the effective range of the illusion even further.

 

[nicepants]

That's the oddest thing about these loons. Why do they choose to believe a scenario hugely less likely than the 'official story'? Is it ego? Is is the thrill of knowing something that everybody else, even experts, 'missed'?

I think it's 2 things:

1) Personal gain

2) Their dis-like of governmental authority and dis-trust of statements made by said government. Taken to an extreme, this would cause someone to disagree with anything said by the "evil government", regardless of whether they believed it to be right or wrong.

The combination of these 2 factors, in varying degrees, would certainly explain their opposition to logic.

 

[Calcas]

I think it's 2 things:

1) Personal gain

2) Their dis-like of governmental authority and dis-trust of statements made by said government. Taken to an extreme, this would cause someone to disagree with anything said by the "evil government", regardless of whether they believed it to be right or wrong.

The combination of these 2 factors, in varying degrees, would certainly explain their opposition to logic.

You forgot the most likely explanation.

3) They're mentally ill.

 

[bje]

That's the oddest thing about these loons. Why do they choose to believe a scenario hugely less likely than the 'official story'? Is it ego? Is is the thrill of knowing something that everybody else, even experts, 'missed'?

They must know, as we do, they are considered wackos even among their truther peers. I guess I just don't get it.

I have no doubt that Craig, Aldo, and Balsamo are intentionally perpetrating a scam and that their victims are gullible truthers, the true believers.

As long as those three have the sanction of their victims, it doesn't matter to them what they claim. It's all a grand farce.

 

[Baylor]

I got good news for CIT. They don't have to "speculate" about what happened to flight 77. Turns out it hit the pentagon after all.

Aircraft Description
Serial Number 24602 Type Registration Corporation
Manufacturer Name BOEING Certificate Issue Date 05/08/1991
Model 757-223 Mode S Code 52072030
Year Manufacturer 1991 Cancel Date 01/14/2002
Reason for Cancellation Destroyed Exported To


http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=644AA&cmndfind.x=4&cmndfind.y=13

 

[dtugg]

I have no doubt that Craig, Aldo, and Balsamo are intentionally perpetrating a scam and that their victims are gullible truthers, the true believers.

As long as those three have the sanction of their victims, it doesn't matter to them what they claim. It's all a grand farce.

I don't know about Balsamo, but I am pretty sure that Ranquis actually believes their fantasy. Seeing Craig talk and the look in his eyes leads my to believe that he is a true believer. Either that or he is a really good actor. Besides, there is no way in hell that they've made money selling their crappy DVDs.

Hey Craig....er TLB, do you actually believe in your fantasy or are you intentionally perpetrating a scam?

 

[Bobert]

I can tell you based on personal experience with Craig that he does believe this.
He even has a co-worker friend of his that told me with a complete straight face that Bush has a ranch down in South American and that the Bush's are trying to steal the worlds water supply.
No joke, completely straight face.
Of course when he told me this he said, "ya look it up online".

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Come now, the plane(flight 77) either hit the Pentagon or it went somewhere esle and it and all on board were disposed of in some fashion.

Not necessarily. PFT does not speculate on what happened to the passengers of flight 77.

So there was nothing to hide the flyover and they are throwing out the intrepretation of Turcois' statement in which Craig asserted that Turcois was saying the the fireball obscured the impact.

It is still possible that the fireball obscured the plane, but the key point is that it was a distraction.

Well Turbofan suggested it may have been at least 100 feet above the roofline of the Pentagon which is itself 77 feet high. "Low" is subjective but this plane was described by all in position to to do as having hit this building. TF then has a plane flying over twice the height of the building that it is reported by all to have hit.

I don't recall TF saying the plane didn't descend at all.

PfT asserts a bank angle between 22 and 60 degrees, at 45 degrees it would have to be at least 35 feet above the Pentagon in order not to have its wing impact the roof.

Really? You know aircraft measurements? How did you determine this?

furthermore several witnesses comment on it hitting the ground floor. How can PfT reconcile such reports with a plane they assert was at least 45% higher than the building?

Name the witnesses. Have you even read this article?

then there would be nothing to hide the flyover especially from Lagasse and Brooks or anyone who was south of the impact point.

You don't know the extant of the explosion/smoke. Besides, the key point is that the explosion was a huge distraction.

So the reports in the media were not the cause of people deciding that they had not seen a flyover which they actually did see.

Taken together with your nonsense about "dropping a bomb" on the Pentagon, it is false. You are correct, the false media reports confused the witnesses.

That was a long night for LLoyd then wasn't it. Standing at the side of the road with a honking long pole sticking out from the windshield of his taxi and hoping that no one noticed him.

There is no evidence a pole was ever in his windshield. Its very curious that you are attempting to "debunk" CIT without knowing even their basic claims.

See above. I might also add then that no one noticed broken lamp posts. The security detail of the Pentagon, which according to TM contentions should have video surveillance of the surrounding area, did not notice that these lamp posts, supposedly knocked down by Flt77 were actually put in place during the night. (yeah, yeah "shut up or you get to spend the next 5 years in Thule, Greenland,,,, or worse, and if you stay shut up here's a pile of cash")

This makes little sense. If they have video of a plane knocking these lightpoles down, why haven't they released it? If they have videos of people knocking down the lightpoles, why wouldn't they be able to withold it? I believe the claim was that the Pentagon had plenty of surveillance, not necessarily the surrounding roads.

As I have suggested before, Jaydeehess, why don't you, Reheat, and Farmer go to the PFT forums, or at least start up a private conversation with Rob and Turbofan, so you can come up with a reasonable flight path. It makes little sense to speculate on the values, especially when you're ignorant of their most basic claims.

 

[Bell]

Allthough I really appreciate how you peeps are all handling the truthers, I don't like it how all these NoC related threads turn into threads about the impossibilities of the NoC theory.

All I want from PfT/CIT is an answer to
Why fake the SoC path?

Come on, TheLoneBedouin and Roundhead, answer the question allready!
And don't give me the BS that you don't know, because you have everything else figured out allready.

 

[jhunter1163]

As I have suggested before, Jaydeehess, why don't you, Reheat, and Farmer go to the PFT forums, or at least start up a private conversation with Rob and Turbofan, so you can come up with a reasonable flight path. It makes little sense to speculate on the values, especially when you're ignorant of their most basic claims.

There's the rub, TLB. The whole point of this debunking exercise is that there is no flight path that is both a) aerodynamically possible and b) consistent with all of CIT's witnesses.

The onus is now on CIT. The fly in your ointment, as I see it, is Morin (well, that and the fact that most of your witnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon). At the very, very least, you need to produce the recording where he recants his prior statements and says he was in between the wings of the Navy Annex. You need to justify placing him in there. If you can do that, then maybe someone could work out at least a possible path.

Until then, we're going to continue to mock you.

 

[Baylor]

TLB It is still possible that the fireball obscured the plane, but the key point is that it was a distraction.

You need to understand these difference thresholds before telling us "what could've happened." You get an E for effort, but an F for substance.

 

[dtugg]

Wow, Craig actually thinks that people here should help them come up with a path. No, Craig it's your guys' claim, you do it.