Challenge to CIT

[A W Smith]

Or could be lagasse and Brooks had plenty of time once contacted by CIT to wind them up. Make the kids from the innertubes chase their tails. How many years have Brooks and Lagasse worked together? wonder how many cups of coffee and donuts they shared together at the Citgo. Must get pretty boring at times. Hey Brooks some kids contacted me from california says Lagasse. They are coming here to interview us. Lets give them something to write about.


Did you see Lagasse roll his eyes when he said '"Eye Opening"

Must suck to have been played.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by WildCat
Scanning for math...
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Scan complete, no math to be found!

That jumped right out at me too. He was even supplied with an online calculator so that he would not have to take the word of any neonazicon bootlickers. Maybe Craig and Aldo are crunching the numbers and TC will relate the findings when he returns to taunt us some more.

Well that did not happen, just as was predicted by many here.

TC, please see post 175for that online tutorial and the calculator. If you'd be so kind, pass the info along to Craig and Aldo.

 

[TC329]

Is it wrong for me to find it hilarious rather than sad that TC does not realize that his pals at the CIT are being mocked?

I have also been just scanning this thread every once in a while, but it seems that the
1) CIT has been told that its NOC is impossible,
2) has been asked to present its maths in support,
3) has come up with wildly inconsistent flight paths,
4) seems to be throwing one of its witnessess under a bus, and
5) STILL has not explained why all of its witnesess testify that the plane hit the Pentagon?

Nice.

1) It is claimed by "duh-bunkers" that it is impossible. CIT does not believe the witnesses are liars or that multiple eyewitnesses are going to wrongfully corroborate each other. Not that the JREF hasn't set the precedent for multiple people wrongly corroborating each other, but the CIT witnesses don't interact with each other. Ever.

2) Duh-bunkers claim that it is impossible to cross the Navy Annex and approach the Pentagon on the NoC flight path. Of course this claim is beyond ridiculous and has no basis in reality. An exact flight path cannot be determined by eyewitness statements but a general location can be determined by it's presence in relation to notable landmarks. That has been corroborated repeatedly. If you don't believe the NoC witnesses placement of the plane then you should also doubt their story of impact.

3) Estimated flight paths. Not once has CIT claimed to have determined the exact flight path. Comprehension fails you.

4) No.

5) Because they believe thats what they saw.

 

[twinstead]

Because they believe that's what they saw? What does that mean?

 

[pomeroo]

The witnesses could have been hired by Pomeroo & Gravy. (Why do you think Pom wants to go with you to do new interviews?) They were instructed to tell you some ridiculous story just to keep you busy and it's all gearing up for a big reveal after your next DVD release to make you look like fools on a public-access version of the show Punk'd.

You can take a couple of predictions to the bank:

When we interview the frauds' cherry-picked witnesses, none of the liars will accompany us;

When we post the videos, the frauds will fabricate something to muddy the waters.

 

[jaydeehess]

TC, it has been explained to you many times and I offer the information in my last post by which you can verify it, that there is no flight path that is consistent with that reported to the CIT by a few witnesses which would allow any aircraft to perform the turns attributed to it without either being in an extreme bank or at a speed so low that it could not remain in the air.

So far you and the CIT steadfastly refuse to address this issue, instead prefering to wave your hands about 'no exact flight path", or state, "but, but the witnesses said...".

Will you ever get around to performing any calculations at all to bolster any contentions made by the CIT? It certainly seems unlikely.

 

[DavidJames]

3) Estimated flight paths. Not once has CIT claimed to have determined the exact flight path. Comprehension fails you.

Is that because:

1. You guys aren't smart enough?
2. You guys know you are wrong and know you can't?
3. I'll let you pick the third one.

Oh, and why hasn't CIT taken their "evidence" to the mass media or authorities?

1. You guys aren't smart enough?
2. You guys know you are wrong and know you can't?
3. I'll let you pick the third one.

 

[Myriad]

2) Duh-bunkers claim that it is impossible to cross the Navy Annex and approach the Pentagon on the NoC flight path. Of course this claim is beyond ridiculous and has no basis in reality. An exact flight path cannot be determined by eyewitness statements but a general location can be determined by it's presence in relation to notable landmarks. That has been corroborated repeatedly. If you don't believe the NoC witnesses placement of the plane then you should also doubt their story of impact.

The spider in the wizard hat marks the place where you may support the claim you make in the sentences preceding it, by inserting an example of a feasible flight path, with the appropriate calculations (e.g. of turn radii, bank angles, and G forces) to demonstrate its feasibility.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[pomeroo]

1) It is claimed by "duh-bunkers" that it is impossible. CIT does not believe the witnesses are liars or that multiple eyewitnesses are going to wrongfully corroborate each other. Not that the JREF hasn't set the precedent for multiple people wrongly corroborating each other, but the CIT witnesses don't interact with each other. Ever.

2) Duh-bunkers claim that it is impossible to cross the Navy Annex and approach the Pentagon on the NoC flight path. Of course this claim is beyond ridiculous and has no basis in reality. An exact flight path cannot be determined by eyewitness statements but a general location can be determined by it's presence in relation to notable landmarks. That has been corroborated repeatedly. If you don't believe the NoC witnesses placement of the plane then you should also doubt their story of impact.

3) Estimated flight paths. Not once has CIT claimed to have determined the exact flight path. Comprehension fails you.

4) No.

5) Because they believe thats what they saw.

Let's make sure that we're on the same page. Roughly a hundred people are on record as having seen a plane fly into the Pentagon. Agenda-driven frauds have cherry-picked a half-dozen of them who describe an impossible flight path. The frauds refuse, for obvious reasons, to ask their witnesses to resolve the mutually-exclusive claims (either the flight path, or the crash, or both, must be abandoned). The frauds have demonstrated total incompetence to support their fantastic thesis with calculations. People with strong technical backgrounds have supplied accurate calculations that destroy the frauds' position.

What exactly are you arguing at the moment?

 

[jaydeehess]

Here's something Tc can chew on and contemplate how it would affect the witnesses view of the plane.

At 15 degrees of bank the starboard wingtip would be about 13 feet closer to the ground than the center of the fuselage and the port wingtip would be 13 feet higher than the fuselage.

The fuselage itself is about 18 feet in diameter(9 foot radius)

(15 degree bank and 50 feet from centerline of the aircraft to each wingtip)

Thus the starboard wingtip is closer to the ground than the bottom of the fuselage and the port wingtip further from the ground than the top of the fuselage, each by about 3 feet.

A 15 degree bank and only 300 MPH (still has to conform to the description of 'fast') gives us a turn radius of 4.25 miles and the plane would take 30 seconds to turn 20 degrees, 15 seconds to change heading by 10 degrees.

(if Reheat or someone else would be so kind as to check my math)

 

[The Big Dog]

1) It is claimed by "duh-bunkers" that it is impossible. . . .

Estimated flight paths. Not once has CIT claimed to have determined the exact flight path. Comprehension fails you.


Because they believe thats what they saw.

HA! I knew it. I knew that rather than respond to numerous posts asking for explanation of a flight path, and your mathematical calculations, you would dodge that the one post you would respond to was mine!!

Anyway, "Estimated flight paths. Not once has CIT claimed to have determined the exact flight path. Comprehension fails you."

NICE DODGE! I never said that you claimed to know the "exact" flight path. I would never say that because I know you and your pals are INCAPABLE of coming up with a path that is not physically impossible. What I said was that Waldo has been posting paths that are completely contradictory.

"Because they believe thats what they saw."

So, your own witnesses destroy your pal's theory. And Waldo and the boyz were unable to mis-LEAD them off of this, right?

And you don't see that as a problem? No, of course you don't, you and the boys have got too much invested.

 

[celestrin]

You know, the stuff about planted witnesses is not an entirely sarcastic point, TC. It also shows the real power of your "hard evidence". How do you, three ueber-investigators, determine whether some of your witnesses are just leading you on? How do you know whether a whole team of planted witnesses was sent out to discredit you? And especially - how do you separate those who actually manage to tell it like it really happened, and those who are adamant their memory is correct, but don't really remember it right? How do you separate a real memory from a false memory? Do you have anything more substantial than gut feelings?

Where do you turn to, to separate real memories from false ones? Please, don't go with multiple corroboration mantra again, it didn't work when Lyte first used it and it sure isn't going to work now. Do you simply stop as soon as someone says something you wanted to hear, because it makes you feel good, special, comfortable, warm and safe? Picking cherries is such a satisfying hobby, isn't it?

Here, this is the best you'll be able to do. You'll still have to cherry pick either Mr. Paik's account or Sgt. Lagasse's. Blue turn has a radius of about 2350m.


Here's how it looks like at about 470-490KTAS.


Here's how it looks like from the heliport tower at the same speed. Sorry about that dark green stuff in the way, I just can't seem to be able to get rid of it.

 

[beachnut]

1) It is claimed by "duh-bunkers" that it is impossible. CIT does not believe the witnesses are liars or that multiple eyewitnesses are going to wrongfully corroborate each other. Not that the JREF hasn't set the precedent for multiple people wrongly corroborating each other, but the CIT witnesses don't interact with each other. Ever.

Your paths are made impossilbe by the correct testimony of your own witnesses. LOL, it is easy to figure out if you got physics. knowledge

2) Duh-bunkers claim that it is impossible to cross the Navy Annex and approach the Pentagon on the NoC flight path. Of course this claim is beyond ridiculous and has no basis in reality. An exact flight path cannot be determined by eyewitness statements but a general location can be determined by it's presence in relation to notable landmarks. That has been corroborated repeatedly. If you don't believe the NoC witnesses placement of the plane then you should also doubt their story of impact.

Repeat. Your own witneeses debunk your claims.

3) Estimated flight paths. Not once has CIT claimed to have determined the exact flight path. Comprehension fails you.

All your non-flight paths are impossible based on your witnesses. The witnesses are right, you are wrong. You need a lot of work on how to figure out what people are saying. It is called a reality check. Your lack of physics on flying is making you look silly.

Your own witnesses make you look even more challenged.
These are your witnesses, refuting your stuff.
William Lagasse, and Chadwick Brooks were Pentagon police officers when the American Airliner flew past. In an interview conducted in December 2001 , Lagasse described the secondary explosions and the search and recovery of injured Pentagon personnel. Brooks saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon and described the ensuing scenes of chaos in his interview, taped November 25, 2001.

Some of your new stuff coming out has a witness who watch 77 hit right next to him! That witness, if you understood him, has the plane hitting the lamp posts and on the 61.2 degree (or close) true track heading. Now there are some flying terms you sure wish jdx understood. (who is the person turning in your flaws? Spies? Wire taps?)

 

[uk_dave]

You know, the stuff about planted witnesses is not an entirely sarcastic point, TC. It also shows the real power of your "hard evidence". How do you, three ueber-investigators, determine whether some of your witnesses are just leading you on?

It would make more sense, wouldn't it?

The government (or elements therein) decide to fake a terrorist attack against the the US in the certain knowledge that this will provide them with support for one semi-failing war against a disgustingly obscene fundamentalist regime in afghanistan and one real pain in the arse war against a ****** up psychopath and family in iraq and, in order to discredit the inevitable 'truth movement' which will arise, peopled by intrepid amateur internet investigators who can see the obvious evidence which escapes the sheeple conditioned to watch american idol and History Channel and BBC and long standing technical publications such as Popular Mechanics, they create a handful...literally... of eyewitnesses who will swear blind that what they witnessed that day was completely and utterly contrary to the official account...except for the fact that a passenger jet flew at low level into the side of the pentagon...well, the NWO aint gonna make it too easy now, are we....I mean..... are they?

 

[Bobert]

Is that because:

1. You guys aren't smart enough?
2. You guys know you are wrong and know you can't?
3. I'll let you pick the third one.

Oh, and why hasn't CIT taken their "evidence" to the mass media or authorities?

1. You guys aren't smart enough?
2. You guys know you are wrong and know you can't?
3. I'll let you pick the third one.

I miss T.A.M's count he used to keep of how long it had been since Craig claimed that he was going to take this evidence to the courts.
He did promise trials BUT I guess that was only to try and sell his DVD.
True scum.
test

 

[GlennB]

You know, the stuff about planted witnesses is not an entirely sarcastic point, TC. It also shows the real power of your "hard evidence". How do you, three ueber-investigators, determine whether some of your witnesses are just leading you on? How do you know whether a whole team of planted witnesses was sent out to discredit you? And especially - how do you separate those who actually manage to tell it like it really happened, and those who are adamant their memory is correct, but don't really remember it right? How do you separate a real memory from a false memory? Do you have anything more substantial than gut feelings?

Where do you turn to, to separate real memories from false ones? Please, don't go with multiple corroboration mantra again, it didn't work when Lyte first used it and it sure isn't going to work now. Do you simply stop as soon as someone says something you wanted to hear, because it makes you feel good, special, comfortable, warm and safe? Picking cherries is such a satisfying hobby, isn't it?

Here, this is the best you'll be able to do. You'll still have to cherry pick either Mr. Paik's account or Sgt. Lagasse's. Blue turn has a radius of about 2350m.
[URL]http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/8305/citwr3.th.jpg[/URL]

Here's how it looks like at about 470-490KTAS.
[URL]http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/7119/citpbb0.th.jpg[/URL]

Here's how it looks like from the heliport tower at the same speed. Sorry about that dark green stuff in the way, I just can't seem to be able to get rid of it.
[URL]http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/3869/cittor7.th.jpg[/URL]

Celestrin - great post and great images. Thanks for that. Strictly one should wait for multiple corroboration D )of your images, but from all the physics theory I've been reading here (and doing myself) this is just the picture I had in my mind.
Incidentally - your images look a lot like MS FlightSim plugged into Google Earth. How do you do that? (a very quick clue would be fine).

 

[celestrin]

Celestrin - great post and great images. Thanks for that. Strictly one should wait for multiple corroboration D )of your images, but from all the physics theory I've been reading here (and doing myself) this is just the picture I had in my mind.
Incidentally - your images look a lot like MS FlightSim plugged into Google Earth. How do you do that? (a very quick clue would be fine).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2652921&postcount=102
This is basically it. Little kml tweaking and a 757 model by Dan O.. If you only want the plane model, I think it's still available at google's 3d warehouse.

The government (or elements therein) decide to fake a terrorist attack against the the US in the certain knowledge that this will provide them with support for one semi-failing war against a disgustingly obscene fundamentalist regime in afghanistan and one real pain in the arse war against a ****** up psychopath and family in iraq and, in order to discredit the inevitable 'truth movement' which will arise, peopled by intrepid amateur internet investigators who can see the obvious evidence which escapes the sheeple conditioned to watch american idol and History Channel and BBC and long standing technical publications such as Popular Mechanics, they create a handful...literally... of eyewitnesses who will swear blind that what they witnessed that day was completely and utterly contrary to the official account...except for the fact that a passenger jet flew at low level into the side of the pentagon...well, the NWO aint gonna make it too easy now, are we....I mean..... are they?

Heh! A little too Moebius-y for me at the moment, I feel a headache coming on.

 

[nicepants]

As predicted, Craig has posted yet another "possible flight path", although the scaling makes it impossible to discern much about the path in relation to citgo, etc.

 

[beachnut]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread347525/pg1
After meeting Sir Isaac Newton, their new story, the new smoking gun, is:
CIT's flight path can't be impossible because we never had one

Oh? What happen? (jdx is afoot)
Did the "hard evidence" turn soft?
Did the "hard evidenced" that was scientifically collected from witnesses evaporate?
Why are all the paths you posted now not paths?
Did jdx remind you of rule 1, never make a conclusion, just let the dummies who buy our DVDs do that?
Did jdx see a drop in sales, due to your fake flight paths now non-paths?
What is the problem?
Has jdx fixed the p4t web site 11.2 G error in math and physics?

They don't have a clue?
They don't have a conclusion?
They never had a path, those were not paths they have been publishing, they were proposed paths, and since they do not know how to do physics they are using JREF to do the math, they will pick the path. Is that right craig?

 

[nicepants]

Prediction...

They never had a path, those were not paths they have been publishing, they were proposed paths, and since they do not know how to do physics they are using JREF to do the math, they will pick the path. Is that right craig?

My prediction:

They will keep coming up with "possible flight paths" as each subsequent "possible path" is proven to be impossible. They will never do any actual math themselves, we've established that they're unable to. Instead, they will rely on the expertise of those of us here competent enough to do the calculations.

Eventually, they will stop coming up with these paths and cop out with a statement like: "well we don't know the exact path, but we KNOW it was north of the citgo because our quadruple-corroborated, scientifically-veirified, partially-hydrogenated eyewitnesses said so. This renders any math, science, and physics moot."

ETA: I realize that the accuracy of my above prediction may be altered by the fact that the special high-level investigative team members will probably read it, but I believe their desire to prove me wrong (pwn) will probably be outweighed by their desire to continue their conspiracy nonsense. Whatever the outcome, it's becoming interesting to see Captain Craig unable to comprehend the fact that the SS NOC has hit the JREF iceberg...and the ship he thought was unsinkable is taking on water fast.