• 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.

Challenge to CIT

Back to 10+ G's

CIT has miraculous news with 3 new witnesses to NoC.

Aldo @ LCF said:
All 3 support the north side flight path. 1 of them directly mentions the plane turning and gliding near the ANC maintenance parking lot, which is in line with the NOC bank. .......
Click to expand...

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/265029/1/#new

The problem with these witnesses is that the 60 degree bank 2 G diagram that is their latest potential non flight path is now out. They need a new flight path. These newest witnesses ups the ante back to ~ 90 degrees of bank, ~10++ G's to make the turn. If we include Morin's position it's in excess of 20 G's.

Sorry, CIT, the aircraft needs wings to do a "flyover".

 
Last edited:
Reheat said:
CIT has miraculous news with 3 new witnesses to NoC.



http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/265029/1/#new

The problem with these witnesses is that the 60 degree bank 2 G diagram that is their latest potential non flight path is now out. They need a new flight path. These newest witnesses ups the ante back to ~ 90 degrees of bank, ~10++ G's to make the turn. If we include Morin's position it's in excess of 20 G's.

Sorry, CIT, the aircraft needs wings to do a "flyover".

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif[/URL]
Click to expand...

The army band member looks up to where she expects to see a memorial fly over when she hears the flight approaching, But instead sees a plane heading directly to the pentagon.
http://aal77.com/cmh_foia/neit567.pdf
and as I'm walking towards Arnold Street, Towards MacArthur intersection, and the buses had just departed, maybe 8:40 at this point, [inaubible], somewhere between 8:40, um, I hear what I think is a flyover, over my head because that's standard. Lots of times you have missing man information sometimes you won't, and I looked, I looked directly up for it, And I also had some tree cover so i wasn't able to see. But I was facing the pentagon and I saw something really fast going to the pentagon with a swoosh and ill never forget it, It was so fast, and then a huge fire ball explosion and smoke, and they said there was a huge sound, but I dont recall, I just remember it being just it was like a clap, And I just remember it being so fast, And I screamed, no, or oh my god, and right, I think right then at that point i'm at the intersection and still constantly walking toward my car,
Click to expand...

Now remember shes looking through the same trees they claim that Keith Wheelhouse can't see through to discredit his south of citgo path.

arlington-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Attention Cit Personnel We Have A Cleanup On Aisle 3 Repeat Cleanup On Aisle 3!
 
pomeroo said:
The quality of the debunking in this thread is outstanding. Destroying the insane claims of a tiny group of fringe cranks is interesting and useful only to the restricted circle of skeptics who have immersed themselves in the particulars of 9/11 crackpottery. Showing how intelligent people with technical backgrounds address specific claims in their areas of expertise has universal value.

Reheat, you should really produce a paper on the "controversy" examined in this thread. It would be helpful to have the wealth of information contained in these pages organized properly in the manner of Mackey's paper on Griffin's errors.
Click to expand...

I have not been ignoring your request, but I have been considering how to do this. It is not easy as there are many variables and they keep changing. It's not as if there is one issue to address. There are multiple witnesses? which keep changing the parameters and in view of the fact that I'm very busy with other issues it does not seem appropriate to do a paper at this point. In fact, the theory is so preposterous that it does not justify as much acknowledgment as flatulence in a hurricane.

I will however, summarize the NoC theory to this point. Beginning with Paik's statements and then to Morin's stated position, any flight path to go NoC at any speed is absolutely impossible to perform. It would be ludicrous of me to attempt to post ridiculous scenarios of parameters that are too stupid to contemplate.

Without including Morin's stated position, the best the CIT could postulate was a 60 degree bank, 2G's to a position just over of the northern most canopy of the Citgo Station. The bank was variable to achieve this, but it was an average of about 60 degrees/2G's. This is the ABSOLUTE BEST scenario for CIT's fantasy to be feasible even tho' no witnesses mentioned the Airshow type bank angles. Any position North of this location becomes increasingly impossible to perform by any aircraft, if we ignore Morin.

Locations North of this position would increase the heading/bank/G requirement to ridiculous numbers not worthy of even posting.

In essence by including Morin in the list of viable witnesses CIT's possible flight paths NoC ALL become impossible to perform by a fixed winged aircraft on planet earth. This is Isaac Newton's position on CIT's theory.
 
I figured I'd bump this thread. I notice the morons at CIT are now claiming that they don't need to provide a flight path. Further, one of their apologists over at LC says:

"the strawman is that no one has ever said the plane went directly over the alleged impact zone... keep making a fool of yourself... it's hilarious to watch."

Dear lord, these guys are pathetic. Of course the CIT said that it flew over the impact zone, it had to because otherwise their star witnesses at CITGO would have seen the alleged flyover.

To explain their theory they have to provide a flight path that fits every part of their little fantasy. Over the annex, north of citgo, under the tree line, up and over the pentagon impact site. I won't even ask that they try to fit in their spin on their new witnesses in Arlington (I assume that as dumb as they are, they will eventually realize that their idiotic suggestion that the plane flew over Arlington is insane. Well maybe not, as they have yet to realize that every one of their witnesses contradicts their old witnesses, except that they all agree the plane hit the Pentagon).

C'mon CIT and Pilots, lets see your path.
 
16.5 said:
LC says:

"the strawman is that no one has ever said the plane went directly over the alleged impact zone... keep making a fool of yourself... it's hilarious to watch."

Dear lord, these guys are pathetic.

C'mon CIT and Pilots, lets see your path.
Click to expand...
They have no theory, and no evidence. They made up the non-conclusions.
They have, after learning about physics of flight, tried to edge the flight path off to the left of impact.

CIT are so bad at analyzing witness statement is it funny to listen to them screw up the statements on the fly. They can take any witness statement and turn it into a fly over and government plot.

They have the 11.2 G error sitting there, they can fix it. But I guess they can't do physics for real, p4t and CIT lack those skill.

p4t and CIT, groups so bad at math and physic they have proposed flight paths impossible based on witness statements, and too many Gs, to much force in the turns to complete. The wings would fall off.

They charge 15 dollars a DVD and give you false information. For free, you can google this junk, and save some money. Citizen Investigation Team works with Pilot for 9/11 Truth to give you bad physics for 15 dollars a DVD. If you want to know what happen on 9/11 don't ask them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom