• 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

Reheat

Illuminator
Reheat
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
3,693
Location
In Space
TC329 said:
CIT Open Letter to JREF
Click to expand...

So, you want to defend your theory, do you? OK

In response to the above I issue the following challenge to "CIT" or their
representative.

A map of the flight path depicting ANY aircraft that reasonably meets YOUR witnesses descriptions flying a path from overhead Edward Paik's business to a position North of the Citgo Station and then directly to the impact point at the Pentagon.

Your diagram should include speed, headings, bank angles, G's (both lateral and vertical), estimated altitude and pull up point to overfly the Pentagon.

There should be no extraneous words, no spin, just a map including the above requested numbers.

The plausible of this will be evaluated by qualified pilots and engineers at JREF who will be the final judges on whether or not this challenge is met.

It's time to put up or shut up. Let's see the numbers proving your irrefutable "independent witness" testimony is physically possible.
 
Reheat said:
So, you want to defend your theory, do you? OK

In response to the above I issue the following challenge to "CIT" or their
representative.

A map of the flight path depicting ANY aircraft that reasonably meets YOUR witnesses descriptions flying a path from overhead Edward Paik's business to a position North of the Citgo Station and then directly to the impact point at the Pentagon.

Your diagram should include speed, headings, bank angles, G's (both lateral and vertical), estimated altitude and pull up point to overfly the Pentagon.

There should be no extraneous words, no spin, just a map including the above requested numbers.

The plausible of this will be evaluated by qualified pilots and engineers at JREF who will be the final judges on whether or not this challenge is met.

It's time to put up or shut up. Let's see the numbers proving your irrefutable "independent witness" testimony is physically possible.
Click to expand...

Is that crickets I hear?
 
AMTMAN said:
Is that crickets I hear?
Click to expand...

If CIT could answer the questions in the OP truthfully, it would destroy their precious flyover theory. Either they do not know the answers and are deliberately avoiding finding them, or they know the answers and are lying to keep from killing their own theory.

Either by willful ignorance or outright lies, CIT prefers to stay about as far from the truth as they can.

My prediction: You'll never see any of the numbers asked for in the OP....at least not from any members of CIT.
 
Reheat said:
So, you want to defend your theory, do you? OK

In response to the above I issue the following challenge to "CIT" or their
representative.

A map of the flight path depicting ANY aircraft that reasonably meets YOUR witnesses descriptions flying a path from overhead Edward Paik's business to a position North of the Citgo Station and then directly to the impact point at the Pentagon.

Your diagram should include speed, headings, bank angles, G's (both lateral and vertical), estimated altitude and pull up point to overfly the Pentagon.

There should be no extraneous words, no spin, just a map including the above requested numbers.

The plausible of this will be evaluated by qualified pilots and engineers at JREF who will be the final judges on whether or not this challenge is met.

It's time to put up or shut up. Let's see the numbers proving your irrefutable "independent witness" testimony is physically possible.
Click to expand...
(bolding mine)

Sorry, Reheat, but I wouldn't accept a debate which says "our cadre of experts decides who wins".

The evidence stands or fails on it's own merit, no?
 
Mr. Skinny said:
(bolding mine)

Sorry, Reheat, but I wouldn't accept a debate which says "our cadre of experts decides who wins".

The evidence stands or fails on it's own merit, no?
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand that there is no debate. They have created a box from which they can not escape with proper math showing realistic aircraft performance.

All the qualified pilots and engineers will do is verify the math and turn radius they depict. The judging is not subjective to determine who wins the debate (the numbers will determine that) it's the evaluation of their math, proper headings, etc. i.e. the technical information, not opinions or conjecture, or the usual spin.

Perhaps you didn't see the other thread where I have proven them to be the hucksters they are with the numbers based upon their digital maps and depicted flight path.
 
Last edited:
This thread is what is called. a honeypot!,, they don't dare respond. I would like them to just come up with a radius for their "long gracefull turn" and the aircraft speed. Thats all I need. I sent some PM's to some of you to verify.
 
Hahaha just reading that thread and glancing their forum, it seems the only people interested in posting there are Craig Ranke CIT, Aldo Marquis CIT, and Dominick DiMaggio CIT.



El Oh El.





EDIT: Whoever made that animation automatically replace Aldo's name is a genius!
 
Last edited:
This from Craig in reponse to my request for placement of the flight path

Why would you expect ANY witness to be correct down to the meter in regards to the exact placement of the plane?

We don't.

Our expectations of the witnesses are much more reasonable and general.

They only need to be remotely accurate in the extremely general claim that the plane was north of the station as opposed to south.

There is no way to know exactly how far north of the station it was nor is it necessary to prove a deception.

There is zero room for error in the physical damage flight path yet ALL of the witnesses fatally contradict this requirement proving the official story false.

Furthermore the fact that ALL the witnesses were so drastically mistaken in the exact same way about such a simple and general claim is not a statistical possibility.
Click to expand...

OK Craig. lets cut you some slack. Do you want to place the flight path directly over the north end of the Citgo canopy? and the flyover location. Over the fireball,, correct? And Paik? can we center the flight path over Columbia pike directly in front of his shop?. This would be the absolute minimum radius without clipping a wing on the Sheraton. Can we give it a go Craig? I got the numbers right here on my side on paper. the numbers do not look good for CIT at all Craig. Are you ready to play a game of math? You are not a coward are you?


and no craig Im not going to join your little circle jerk club over there. Just spit it out. are the above control points agreed to or not?
 
Last edited:
Uhhhhhhh....ummmmm....you want math and stuff?

thedamagereport_episode_103.jpg
 
Why would you expect ANY witness to be correct down to the meter in regards to the exact placement of the plane?
Click to expand...


Well, then, suggest some maximum and minimum values for all the above points (Paik, Citgo, Pentagon). It doesn't need to be accurate to the meter. Lets see if there's any plausible path that's physically possible.

Of course, CIT has to provide the aforementioned max and min values, otherwise they'll just brush off the calculations as having been cherry-picked to eliminate any flightpath that would be physically possible.

C'mon, guys, dig that hole!
 
I've never visited the PentaCon forum before. Boy, that place is a ghost town. There are more regular Truthers posting here than there.

We have 58 registered members
Click to expand...

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad...
 
1337m4n said:
Uhhh...who are they talking to?
Click to expand...

Oh never mind, this seems to be some sort of convoluted cross-forum debate.

CIT, if you're reading this, allow me to give you friendly advice: Ignore us. We are not your primary concern. Your primary concern is (or at least SHOULD BE) gathering up your evidence, writing up petitions, presenting your evidence to lawyers, detectives, and politicians and consulting them for advice on what you should do next.

"Pwning" JREF in debate accomplishes absolutely nothing for your cause. You want to expose the greatest mass murder conspiracy in US history? Then expose it already. You want to ask Congress for a new investigation? Then ask them already. We have done nothing to stop you, and we never will. I fail to understand your obsession with us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom