8 out of 8 at Citgo station

Childlike Empress said:
Any comment on my debunk, LashL?
Click to expand...
Why would she comment on your "debunk" that never occurred? You were shown that you were wrong yet you brush it off. Reposting your lies does not help your case when anyone can page back and see where you were tripped up.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6796711&postcount=1646

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6789581&postcount=1368

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6796970&postcount=1679

Will you be posting any witnesses to the Pentagon fly over soon?
 
Childlike Empress said:
This is indeed an interesting fact.

Let's recapitulate what happened the last days.

Ronald Wieck befriends Jeff Hill and a bunch of truthers. They show him a video by YougeneDebs which he buys hook, line and sinker. He enthusiastically mails it to his big debunker friends.

LashL gets the memo and posts it here and in at least one other thread, maybe without even having watched it, relying on Ron's recommendation.

I come along, watch it and immediately spot the deception - because I have watched the witness testimony and the video only works if people haven't done so. I slam-dunk debunk it, but intentionally in a way that's only obvious for people who are familiar with the argument.

I proclaim that my debunk will stand. Some bare assertions by people who don't know what they are talking about ensue.

I explicitly challenge Ron's debunker friends to raise their voices if they see anything wrong with my debunk. None show up.

achimspok comes along and completely failing to debunk my debunk. I force him into a series of concessions while making my debunk more explicit in the process.

The truther who produced the video gets asked by Ron to defend his work against my debunk. YougeneDebs doesn't deliver.

My debunk still stands firm.

AND YET NOBODY AGREES WITH ME.

Why is that, sheeplesnshills? Certainly not because i'm wrong.
Click to expand...

DERP.

Hey, shortbus, you get the raw video yet?
 
I'm curious, CE, what you make of Brooks' claim that he saw a United (not AA) jet. He additionally describes a new United logo which wasn't on any of their jets in september, 2001).
 
Step 1: Cherrypick a few witnesses who saw the plane fly north of citgo
Step 2: 100% of these and other witnesses agree that the plane struck the Pentagon
Step 3: Conclude that the plane couldn't have struck the Pentagon
 
In April of 2010, I drove past the Pentagon on my way into DC for some sight seeing. The first thing I noticed, about a mile out, was the airplanes making their approach to Reagan International.
What is to say that someone pumping their gas at the Citgo didn't hear a plane, look up (northward) and see a plane making an approach and assume it was the one that hit the Pentagon? Were any other planes in the vicinity at the time making scheduled landings?
Another thing I noticed is how congested the highway is and how fast I drove through the area. Add a plane knocking light poles into the traffic and you have all that is needed to confuse the living crap out of people. It is no wonder that many weren't sure of their exact location that day, especially an elderly cab driver that had a G-D'ed light pole spear his taxi.
 
Wolrab said:
In April of 2010, I drove past the Pentagon on my way into DC for some sight seeing. The first thing I noticed, about a mile out, was the airplanes making their approach to Reagan International.
What is to say that someone pumping their gas at the Citgo didn't hear a plane, look up (northward) and see a plane making an approach and assume it was the one that hit the Pentagon? Were any other planes in the vicinity at the time making scheduled landings?
Another thing I noticed is how congested the highway is and how fast I drove through the area. Add a plane knocking light poles into the traffic and you have all that is needed to confuse the living crap out of people. It is no wonder that many weren't sure of their exact location that day, especially an elderly cab driver that had a G-D'ed light pole spear his taxi.
Click to expand...

The time from a plane being close to the citgo and hitting the pentagon is a matter of 3 - 4 second so not likely that the they confused it with another aircraft (Planes coming into land are in any case higher and much slower)
You are right about the confusion factor. It was important to nobody where EXACTLY they were standing, what was important was the sight of a big jet at 500mph hitting a building. Most of CITs "witnesses" simply had no way of judging how close or distant the plane was so their evidence to that is worthless.
 
I haven't read the whole thread, but I have a question for both sides of the debate...

1. Why did the "conspirators" create a plan that was so complex and so full of risk (by flying the plane over the Pentagon, planting evidence, ect) when they could have just crashed the plane into the Pentagon?

2. Middleton claims to have felt the heat from the plane as it passed by. Is this possible on the SOC flight path?
 
tj15 said:
I haven't read the whole thread, but I have a question for both sides of the debate...

1. Why did the "conspirators" create a plan that was so complex and so full of risk (by flying the plane over the Pentagon, planting evidence, ect) when they could have just crashed the plane into the Pentagon?

the only conceivable ones are that they ran out of suicidal pilots or RC 757s. The whole debate arises because the crash site looks "wrong" to truthers but given the phantom video it actually looks exactly right.

2. Middleton claims to have felt the heat from the plane as it passed by. Is this possible on the SOC flight path?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Seems unlikely that he could have on any of the NoC routes either as the plane would have been too high. I've never noticed that effect at airshows so its likely he was simply mistaken or may be lying and pretending to have seen it when he did not.
 
tj15 said:
2. Middleton claims to have felt the heat from the plane as it passed by. Is this possible on the SOC flight path?
Click to expand...

NO. It's not possible that this is true on a North path either.

tj15, no offense intended, but I have trouble believing that ANYONE who's a regular here would consider this even as a remote possibility.

The entire CIT crap is so preposterous that I can't believe anyone even asks a serious question about it anymore. If you'll go back and look at one of their diagrams with all of those different lines drawn as witness described flight paths, you'll notice they are quite divergent and ALL of them are only drawn with a line SHORT (not extending to) of Paik's business. There's a reason for that. If the lines were extended back to where *THEY SAY* the aircraft was at that point it is obvious to anyone with sufficient aeronautical knowledge that most of those lines are IMPOSSIBLE for a transport category aircraft. Some of them are even IMPOSSIBLE for an F-22 Raptor to fly. It's simply due to turn radius.

The criteria for ANY aircraft to fly from over Paik's business, then pass slightly north of the Citgo Station north canopy and then to near the entry hole at the Pentagon requires a MINIMUM of 60 degrees of bank and 2 G's. The pilot would have to use MAXIMUM control deflection and hold that bank angle and G the entire distance from beginning (over Paik's business) to impact. Even then, I seriously doubt any transport category aircraft has the control authority to do that. It really doesn't matter the type of aircraft or even if it's flown by a human pilot or by remote control, all would require the same bank angle and G. I emphasize that's the MINIMUM required.

Now, since that 60 degrees of bank and 2 G's is the MINIMUM required for the entire distance.....an aircraft can not initiate a sufficient climb at 60 degrees of bank and 2 G's to over fly the building. The aircraft must roll out to a shallower bank angle because pulling more G will mostly just decrease (tighten up the turn) the turn radius. If it rolls out of the 60 degrees of bank it will missed the impact point.

For an aircraft to pass over Middleton means that both Paik's and Morin's observations (according to CIT's interpretation) are under the bus. In other words it's impossible for ANY aircraft to fly that even an F-22 Raptor at 9+ G's.

There are other threads where this issue is discussed at length to include the math.
 
Last edited:
Reheat said:
NO. It's not possible that this is true on a North path either.

tj15, no offense intended, but I have trouble believing that ANYONE who's a regular here would consider this even as a remote possibility.

The entire CIT crap is so preposterous that I can't believe anyone even asks a serious question about it anymore. If you'll go back and look at one of their diagrams with all of those different lines drawn as witness described flight paths, you'll notice they are quite divergent and ALL of them are only drawn with a line SHORT (not extending to) of Paik's business. There's a reason for that. If the lines were extended back to where *THEY SAY* the aircraft was at that point it is obvious to anyone with sufficient aeronautical knowledge that most of those lines are IMPOSSIBLE for a transport category aircraft. Some of them are even IMPOSSIBLE for an F-22 Raptor to fly. It's simply due to turn radius.

The criteria for ANY aircraft to fly from over Paik's business, then pass slightly north of the Citgo Station north canopy and then to near the entry hole at the Pentagon requires a MINIMUM of 60 degrees of bank and 2 G's. The pilot would have to use MAXIMUM control deflection and hold that bank angle and G the entire distance from beginning (over Paik's business) to impact. Even then, I seriously doubt any transport category aircraft has the control authority to do that. It really doesn't matter the type of aircraft or even if it's flown by a human pilot or by remote control, all would require the same bank angle and G. I emphasize that's the MINIMUM required.

Now, since that 60 degrees of bank and 2 G's is the MINIMUM required for the entire distance.....an aircraft can not initiate a sufficient climb at 60 degrees of bank and 2 G's to over fly the building. The aircraft must roll out to a shallower bank angle because pulling more G will mostly just decrease (tighten up the turn) the turn radius. If it rolls out of the 60 degrees of bank it will missed the impact point.

For an aircraft to pass over Middleton means that both Paik's and Morin's observations (according to CIT's interpretation) are under the bus. In other words it's impossible for ANY aircraft to fly that even an F-22 Raptor at 9+ G's.

There are other threads where this issue is discussed at length to include the math.
Click to expand...

When it comes to the math and airplane capabilities, I simply can not discuss it because I'm not a pilot.
 
tj15 said:
When it comes to the math and airplane capabilities, I simply can not discuss it because I'm not a pilot.
Click to expand...

Not a problem at all. You can use an aircraft turn radius calculator found here:

http://www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html

Otherwise, you're going to just have to take someone's word who's knowledgeable, EXCEPT the idiots at pffft.

ETA: Excuse me, I'm going to take the rest of the evening off. I'm having guests for the Super Bowl....
 
Last edited:
Reheat said:
Not a problem at all. You can use an aircraft turn radius calculator found here:

http://www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html

Otherwise, you're going to just have to take someone's word who's knowledgeable, EXCEPT the idiots at pffft.

ETA: Excuse me, I'm going to take the rest of the evening off. I'm having guests for the Super Bowl....
Click to expand...

Yeah its great our lizard Overlords at the NWO let us have the night off to watch the Game.....I think they are starting to like it here and are going native:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom