• 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

beachnut said:
Physics? What?
Click to expand...

I'll go off-topic a bit...........

Reminds me of a high school co-op student we had at work a few years ago. I was stuck with her while waiting for the rest of a crew to show up. Pretty young thing, when I asked what she wanted to do after graduating she told me and then asked what course of study I had done.
I told her that I had started out taking physics but decided that I wanted something more practical and switched to college and electronics.

Her response was "But it would have been nice to be a physician"

What can you say to that and remain polite? Was I, or the girls I knew ( in common parlance as well as biblically ;) ) that dozy 30 years ago when I was about the age of this student? One wonders..........
 
PhantomWolf said:
Heh, even drummers can get to 4, even if they have to repeat the 1...2 just to make sure they got that bit right. ;)
Click to expand...

,,, and while we wait for TC to get back to us, a jocular moment for the crowd.

Q: How do you know if the drum riser is leveled properly?
A: The drool is coming down evenly on both corners of the drummer's mouth

_____________________

Q: In a band, what do the drummer and the lead singer have in common?
A: They are the two members of the band that do not play an instrument.

_____________________

thank you, thank you, come back again, I'm here all week, and try the chicken kiev, its delicious :D
 
Ranke's Reply:


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=346675&page=1#pid4199486

I'm leaving the link here, this once, but have removed the text. Do not use this forum to publish a 'discussion' with a banned or suspended member. When a member is banned or suspended they cannot have their words published here on their behalf, in order to continue a topic.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HeyLeroy said:
That explains it. Do they wear cool uniforms 'n' stuff?
Click to expand...

Well, they probably would like to have the Paul McCartney blue epauleted and braided jobbie from Sgt. Pepper, but I don't think they've sold enough CDs, yet. In the interim, though, they've taken to signing their posts with CIT appended as though it's a degree.

Foolmewunz, IIT

(idiot in training)
 
he is removing the scenario from the context of the discussion so he can reduce real evidence to mere numbers that he can clearly skew particularly since he is completely making up the values for his computations.

How is that the least bit scientific?
Click to expand...

yeah those numbers... since when is number ciphering in any way scientific Reheat

Craig et al, if there does not exist a flight path that any aircraft large enough to fit the descriptions provided by your witnesses can possibly follow then your characterization of the flight path has to be in error , OR the laws of physics and aerodynamics must be. Try to guess which would be the scientific choice!
 
Last edited:
Craig, your reply is so vague as to be useless. Would you please show the SPECIFIC errors in Reheat's calculations. As in, quote a line at a time and explain why that line is wrong?
 
Last edited:
Craig Ranke CIT said:
I gotta hand it to YOU alphanumeric anonymous stick man.
Click to expand...

Y'know, Craig, you're okay.

If you don't mind I'm going to use this as my forum title as soon as I figure out how.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
I'll go off-topic a bit...........

Reminds me of a high school co-op student we had at work a few years ago. I was stuck with her while waiting for the rest of a crew to show up. Pretty young thing, when I asked what she wanted to do after graduating she told me and then asked what course of study I had done.
I told her that I had started out taking physics but decided that I wanted something more practical and switched to college and electronics.

Her response was "But it would have been nice to be a physician"

What can you say to that and remain polite? Was I, or the girls I knew ( in common parlance as well as biblically ;) ) that dozy 30 years ago when I was about the age of this student? One wonders..........
Click to expand...
im only 7 years out of high school and i can assure you, american children are getting dumber every year
 
One would almost think, from Craig's reply, that he can't understand even the greatly simplified (and correct) calculations presented here.

Can we go back to ignoring them now? I don't know about you guys, but given their consummate innumeracy, I'm not interested in their "research." Not one bit. Until they overcome this problem, they cannot produce anything of value.
 
Mr.Herbert said:
Ranke's Reply:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=346675&page=1#pid4199486
Click to expand...
Yes, if you say scientific enough Craig, your work will get more scientific? Maybe not.

[craig]No our work is more scientific because we say so! We do not care if Reheat used real numbers based on initial conditions specified by our witnesses! His work is doo doo! [/craig] Based on the above post, this is what Craig really said.

In rebuttal…
Blucker!

Reheat used CIT's work, CIT's path, CIT's witnesses, and shows CIT is wrong. Using science and CIT's work. BUSTED CIT flight path.

Now if you slow the plane down to 80 mph, you could do the turns, but a 757 would crash at 120 to 80 mph. OH, it was a covert plane, invisible to the eye! Wonder Woman's plane?
At 11.2 g, Rob is too busy to help give CIT some super pilot numbers for their failed flight path of the plane stolen from Wonder Woman! What does that plane look like?

ww.jpg


Oh. WW1, (now remotely controlled) is the covert plane! Did she work at the Pentagon? ... No wonder no one saw the fly over! Explains everything.
 
Last edited:
Isn't in interesting that the CIT boys, who a few weeks ago were spamming everybody with the PfTer's calculations (based on speculation about where the plane was and how fast it was going) that "proved" the plane couldn't make the pull up to hit the light poles and the Pentagon, but now, all of a sudden, doing the same thing with their flightpath is "unscientific".

As if we needed more evidence of their inherent bias.
 
Typical PfffffT nonsense. They spent all that time whingeing about RADES this and RADALT that and MSL and AGL and all the other altitude nonsense, not realizing that the fatal flaw in their theory was the speed, not altitude. If I was a cynic I'd say that we JREFers let them do that on purpose to box themselves in, then sprang the trap. Good thing I'm not cynical.
 
jhunter1163 said:
Typical PfffffT nonsense. They spent all that time whingeing about RADES this and RADALT that and MSL and AGL and all the other altitude nonsense, not realizing that the fatal flaw in their theory was the speed, not altitude. If I was a cynic I'd say that we JREFers let them do that on purpose to box themselves in, then sprang the trap. Good thing I'm not cynical.
Click to expand...

This is all terribly funny! In fact, it's absolutely hilarious!

Where is the speculation in my work? What was speculated?

The speed I used is actually 1 fps slower than the speed Balsamo used for the DME video. He used 781 fps, I used 780 fps.

The flight path is from CIT's own diagrams. In fact, it's a more favorable path to their theory if we examine Paik's testimony. I have the aircraft already on heading passing over Paik, but he indicated a few degrees further toward the South making the turn to impact EVEN MORE DIFFICULT than my numbers show.

Where is the bias? Where is the speculation?

Post the numbers for everyone to see and examine, just as I did. We don't need words at all, just numbers.

What's this about a descent requiring less G to turn that Beachnut posted on ATS. Can someone expand on that.

I know it's been said at ATS, but someone needs to beat into Ranke's head that ALL of the numbers are aircraft type INDEPENDENT. For other than roll rate (fighter versus large aircraft) I did not speculate on type of aircraft at all, it doesn't matter.
 
R.Mackey said:
One would almost think, from Craig's reply, that he can't understand even the greatly simplified (and correct) calculations presented here.

Can we go back to ignoring them now? I don't know about you guys, but given their consummate innumeracy, I'm not interested in their "research." Not one bit. Until they overcome this problem, they cannot produce anything of value.
Click to expand...

R.Mackey,
I dont know if you saw Craig post the following:
Edited by chillzero: 
Do not post on behalf of banned members in this fashion.


Craig seems to be adopting Aldo's tactics.
I ONLY WISH that Aldo would come to my house.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jhunter1163 said:
I used to refer to them as the Special High-level Investigative Team, but for some reason I got banned at LC for it...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

derailing even further.........

A Canadian political party that was the result of the merger of two existing parties had wanted to call themselves (this is absolutly true btw)

the Conservative-Reform Alliance Party.

The other political parties in Canada must have been hoping against hope that this would be adopted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom