• 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.

8 out of 8 at Citgo station

mudlark said:
Just saw this ´discrepancy´

[qimg]http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikheading.gif[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikmap-2.jpg[/qimg]

I think someone else needs to watch the video again.
Click to expand...

Dude, you convinced us that Fatty and Craig are the freaking masters! No need to spend your valuable time watching fatty and Shakey's masterwork!

Just pull out the old slide rule, and run the numbers!! History demands it! Here is their path:

All that we require is proof that an airliner could actually fly the flight path that is essential to CIT's theory. In particular, please provide to us the flight path, including bank angle, G Forces, stall speed, etc. for a path that flies over Paik, then parallel to the Navy Annex while descending, banks North of Citgo, continues descending below the level of the trees, pulls out of the bank, arrests the descent, pulls up and over the Pentagon at the impact site.

/oh yeah, Dodge on Probst duly noted!
 
mudlark said:
Just answering one of the dumbest counterarguments I´ve seen for a while...oh wait...someone here told me impact was POSSIBLE from NOC. Make that the second dumbest..
Click to expand...

Ugh, even fatty and Craig don't claim that it was impossible, damn man, they said the plane had to pull up and over the impact site. Didn't you watch their videos?

Their theory is that the damage was inconsistent with a NOC impact, and thus it must have flown over.

Now run those numbers, my friend, and prove them right!
 
I´m presenting evidence not theory.
Evidence that the plane did NOT fly the official path.
I´m also proving that these pathetic links to ´witnesses´ do NOT contain SOC witnesses,
´100s of impact witnesses´ or even contradictory to the NOC path described by corroborative witnesses in the best possible position to define the plane´s final path.
So the question is flipped back to you. How did the lightpoles, trailer and subsequent damage to the facade come about given this PROVEN trajectory?
 
mudlark said:
How did the lightpoles, trailer and subsequent damage to the facade come about given this PROVEN trajectory?
Click to expand...

That's what YOU need to esplain Lucy!

I'll go pop some corn, this should be good!

ETA: Look up that word in bold.
 
mudlark said:
I´m presenting evidence not theory.
Evidence that the plane did NOT fly the official path.
I´m also proving that these pathetic links to ´witnesses´ do NOT contain SOC witnesses,
´100s of impact witnesses´ or even contradictory to the NOC path described by corroborative witnesses in the best possible position to define the plane´s final path.
So the question is flipped back to you. How did the lightpoles, trailer and subsequent damage to the facade come about given this PROVEN trajectory?
Click to expand...

It is proven. Dude at this point, no one dares argue with the Oracle of the Truth movement! (remember when Aldo made that claim? What a douche)

Now all you have to do is show that it was possible, THAT should be a god damn no brainer. I mean, it is "proven" and all:

here's that path again:

All that we require is proof that an airliner could actually fly the flight path that is essential to CIT's theory. In particular, please provide to us the flight path, including bank angle, G Forces, stall speed, etc. for a path that flies over Paik, then parallel to the Navy Annex while descending, banks North of Citgo, continues descending below the level of the trees, pulls out of the bank, arrests the descent, pulls up and over the Pentagon at the impact site.

You can probably just cut and paste this from somewhere, right?
 
16.5 said:
Dude, you convinced us that Fatty and Craig are the freaking masters! No need to spend your valuable time watching fatty and Shakey's masterwork!

Just pull out the old slide rule, and run the numbers!! History demands it! Here is their path:

All that we require is proof that an airliner could actually fly the flight path that is essential to CIT's theory. In particular, please provide to us the flight path, including bank angle, G Forces, stall speed, etc. for a path that flies over Paik, then parallel to the Navy Annex while descending, banks North of Citgo, continues descending below the level of the trees, pulls out of the bank, arrests the descent, pulls up and over the Pentagon at the impact site.

/oh yeah, Dodge on Probst duly noted!
Click to expand...

I´ll get to Paik in a minute. Once you answer the post on Benedetto as being an SOC witness given his testimony.
You have a habit of doing that as many others do here.
Ignore posts when you know you are wrong.

Here is Paik´s extended path from his own drawing

edpaiksextendedpath-1.jpg


NOC.

How the hell can I provide G-Forces, stall speed and bank angle without exact (nor even estimated) numbers??

What exactly did I dodge on Probst?? Run it by me again.
 
mudlark said:
How the hell can I provide G-Forces, stall speed and bank angle without exact (nor even estimated) numbers??

What exactly did I dodge on Probst?? Run it by me again.
Click to expand...

We submit that the path the plane supposedly took according to you is impossible, and impossible in a way the precludes any witness testimony or physical evidence.

You disagree? Show the math.
 
Same old rhetoric. No answers. No SOC witnesses.
Can´t you guys find one??
16.5 said there were ´100s´...
 
mudlark said:
Same old rhetoric. No answers. No SOC witnesses.
Can´t you guys find one??
16.5 said there were ´100s´...
Click to expand...

You're kidding me, right? What kind of a lame answer is this?

I'll say it again. I submit that the flight that you suggest is IMPOSSIBLE. If you disagree, PROVE IT.
 
mudlark said:
Just saw this ´discrepancy´

[qimg]http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikheading.gif[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikmap-2.jpg[/qimg]

I think someone else needs to watch the video again.
Click to expand...

What a loon...That is NOT his garage!
 
mudlark said:
I´m presenting evidence not theory.
Click to expand...
If you aren't going to do the math and prove the flight path from CIT is even possible, could you at least post a plausible theory for what happened to American Airlines flight 77 at the Pentagon on 9/11/01? I mean really, if you don't have a theory or hypothesis, why don't you just cut and paste a plausible explanation from whatever site you got all of this other stuff from?
 
16.5 said:
Oh god, another CIT mouth piece.

I learned and subsequently forgot how to deal with the true believer.

My bad.

Ahem:

Very interesting theory Mudlark. All that we require is proof that an airliner could actually fly the flight path that is essential to CIT's theory. In particular, please provide to us the flight path, including bank angle, G Forces, stall speed, etc. for a path that flies over Paik, then parallel to the Navy Annex while descending, banks North of Citgo, continues descending below the level of the trees, pulls out of the bank, arrests the descent, pulls up and over the Pentagon at the impact site.

Should be very easy for you to prove! Thanks!
Click to expand...

I am not a mouthpiece for anyone. I don´t speak for CIT.
This is my own research. Got it?

The numbers have already been ran for you:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=122

The plane does not have to be "parallel" to the Navy Annex since Terry Morin is the only person who made that claim and he admitted that he was IN BETWEEN the wings of the Navy Annex and therefore was not in a good place to see the exact heading of the plane as it flew directly over his head for a split second.

morinPOV2-1.gif


However Ed Paik had an unobstructed view and was able to see it approach and was therefore in a much better position to tell the actual heading.

Clearly the corroborate each other perfectly regarding the location of the plane directly over the Navy Annex which is fatal to the official flight path that requires the plane to be entirely south of Columbia Pike (and still NOT parallel with the Navy Annex).

straightofficialpath1.jpg
 
mudlark said:
How the hell can I provide G-Forces, stall speed and bank angle without exact (nor even estimated) numbers??

What exactly did I dodge on Probst?? Run it by me again.
Click to expand...

What, what do you mean? Are you serious? I mean you can't be serious, right?

Just take the "proven" North of CITGO path as described by your witnesses and show that an airliner can fly that path without its wings falling off. From the path you can derive everything you need, stall speed, etc.

i mean, for cripes sake, if I had 13 corroborated witnesses who said that a Toyota tercel jumped over the Pentagon, you can be god damn sure that I'd be able to show that a Toyota can jump over the god damn Pentagon.

You have run the numbers haven't you? I mean, you would not be wasting our time, would you?

Looking forward to it, Mudlark!
 
The flippin' plane hit the Pentagon. It is supported by a VAST amount of evidence, both eye-witness and physical. You can't just ignore this evidence.

DEAL WITH IT
 
mudlark said:
I am not a mouthpiece for anyone. I don´t speak for CIT.
This is my own research. Got it?
Click to expand...

why are you using their graphics/ their speech and pretty much spreading word for word their claims.
sorry, but your actions speak louder than your laughable attempts to convince us otherwise.

No planers like you, should be ignored, and i suggest that those who continue to engage you should think otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom