Challenge to CIT
- Thread starter Reheat
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cit edward paik pentagon
Ye gods! Is SPreston trying tocondenseshoehorn the entire CIT theory into one post?
Seems like he's going for the "bludgeon into submission with repetition" approach.
And boy does he make a pigs ear of it. It's like reading a stream of consciousness from someone with ADHD.
My underlining of the huge red font
This is the part that gets me over at LCF. They don't much like a specific proposed flightpath. Then they don't like the next one. They've been challenged to propose anything that bears analysis. Zip. No response.
I suppose science can appear scary when, unleashed in all its clinical fury, it will undermine the foundations of your little fantasy world.
With jfk, SPreston, and CIT, 9/11 truth is about to break the biggest smoking gun yet.
That smoking gun is STAY IN SCHOOL and choose to take physics, geometry, higher math, chemistry, biology, "not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills."(the real JFK, which jfk is mocking with his dolt comments and failure at science)
If jfk, SPreston, and CIT had taken the hard courses, they would have flunked. Oops. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/197914/2/ A pile of 9/11 truth bs growing dumber.
Would add some math, but that is overkill with these guys. Now the pull out, which never happened is impossible. Yes Craig, 77 hit the Pentagon, the Pentagon is down hill, the camera in the parking lot makes the Pentagon look like it is up on a small rise, it is in the Hollow, next to the river. Down hill, must be like parallel, not in your vocabulary.
That smoking gun is STAY IN SCHOOL and choose to take physics, geometry, higher math, chemistry, biology, "not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills."(the real JFK, which jfk is mocking with his dolt comments and failure at science)
If jfk, SPreston, and CIT had taken the hard courses, they would have flunked. Oops. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/197914/2/ A pile of 9/11 truth bs growing dumber.
Would add some math, but that is overkill with these guys. Now the pull out, which never happened is impossible. Yes Craig, 77 hit the Pentagon, the Pentagon is down hill, the camera in the parking lot makes the Pentagon look like it is up on a small rise, it is in the Hollow, next to the river. Down hill, must be like parallel, not in your vocabulary.
Last edited:
A W Smith
Philosopher
look at the ad google placed at the end of the cit thread. how appropriate for cit who have lost their brains.
Looks like their web host has a sense of humor.
Forgive my ignorance, is the trajectory impossible as aldo asserts there?
I quickly calculated the descent to be about 75' s^-1 at about 530 mph??
BV
If you assume the plane descends at a constant rate (as Aldo's picture shows) until it's low enough to hit the light pole, and then levels off, it pulls relatively high G's in order to level off without hitting the ground before it reaches the Pentagon. (Not as high G's as Rob Balsamo once "calculated," though, so it's still possible.)
However, a descent that starts out more steeply when passing the VDOT tower, and levels off continuously (that is, the rate of descent decreases continuously) between the VDOT tower and the light pole, allows for much lower G's, within the nominal operating range of the airplane.
Finally, there's no proof that the airplane has to have flown directly over the VDOT tower in the first place. We don't know the flight path with that much precision.
Respectfully,
Myriad
You gotta love how wharped Aldo is.
He makes a claim:
BUT NOOOOO according to Aldo:
Yet in another thread he accuses Skeptics:
typical MC!
Gee I think i am beginning to see who the really dumb one is within the CIT
Oh ya Aldo and JPreston sure do dispise "JREF'ers" yet they keep topping threads wondering where the "JREF'ers" are.
He makes a claim:
Ok Aldo so you made a claim so now how about you back it up?
BUT NOOOOO according to Aldo:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/197914/3/
Yet in another thread he accuses Skeptics:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/204496/2/
typical MC!
Gee I think i am beginning to see who the really dumb one is within the CIT
Oh ya Aldo and JPreston sure do dispise "JREF'ers" yet they keep topping threads wondering where the "JREF'ers" are.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
They need to ask the mods that one. They banned me in one night (12 posts or so). I can't even read their forum anymore.
Craig talking about witnesses used by others to prove his "hard evidence" wrong! The hard evidence, of course, from the same witnesses. Someone needs to go to aircraft accident investigation school. They are banning the only rational posters they had. Albeit, jkf is doing a super job, the expert censor nazi, is maintaining the intellectual level to somewhere below dirt.
Last edited:
The answer is "no." But... what a remarkable thread they have over there.
The graphic in question is originally one that I made last month, showing the geometry of the problem to scale. They've drawn a crude line over the figure and shown that the top of the VHP radio tower, the light pole, and the impact site cannot be fit to a straight line. In other words, if you assume the aircraft maintains 1.0 g, the flight path is impossible. It would have either clipped the radio tower, missed the light pole, or fallen short of the Pentagon.
Of course, there is no reason at all to assume the aircraft maintains 1.0 g, i.e. neither pulls up nor down. And that's what makes this so remarkable.
In order to produce that graphic, Mr. Marquis had to erase the lower half of it. That part of the graphic overlaid a plausible flight path, one where the aircraft pulls up at a steady 4.0 g, which is harsh but within the capability of the aircraft. That flight path clears the radio tower by several hundred feet, hits the light pole smack in the middle, and strikes the Pentagon with feet to spare. In other words, it proves not only is the flight path possible, but that it's so easy that not even any reasonable variation of the flight path is impossible.
In short, Mr. Marquis had in his hands and deliberately erased a figure that proves he doesn't know what the heck he's talking about.
I have no idea why they've suddenly begun insisting the flight path was a straight line in the last few seconds. I originally made that figure in response to their earlier claims which included pull-up maneuvers in the last few seconds, so surely they've thought of it before. In the previous claim, they accepted pull-ups but could not do the math properly, and incorrectly stated that in excess of 11 g would be needed. In reality, a downright comfortable 1.62 g is enough to meet the requirements, and 4.0 g is the worst conceivable case.
Original graphic and derivation is here. I created that for them about a month ago, did all the math, and even produced graphics for them. And yet they still find a way to screw it up.
After so many and such severe mistakes, I can no longer even guess whether they're doing it on purpose, or they are actually that stupid. I doubt anyone can.
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
Doesn't that graphic they're so fond of over there show the plane banking at impact (about 10 degrees or so)? I haven't seen that lately. Maybe someone should remind them of it.
Good Night message to CIT
This is one of those strawmen that you keep incessantly referring to. Your witnesses all said the aircraft was traveling very fast. They did not stutter when they said that. The inflection in Edward Paiks voice when he said "very fast" means just what we all know it means. LaGasse was quite precise, as well. He is obviously familiar with aircraft and would not be fooled by your "any speed at low altitude would seem fast" nonsense.
We don't need a "precise" heading, but some of your witnesses indicated enough to be close. Paik indicated with his hands that it was traveling down Columbia Pike. You can STUFF the drawing YOU drew for him. Morin said it flew PARALLEL to the Navy Annex. You conveniently place him INSIDE between the buildings when he clearly said he was OUTSIDE. That is not a mistake, that is an outright blatant LIE and you've known it since late 2006.
We don't need the bank angle at all as most of your witnesses mention none. Those that do would not be confused by a relatively shallow bank mentioned by two of your witnesses (except one had it banking in the wrong direction, FOR YOUR FANTASY to be true) versus a big "honkin" 60+ degree bank close to the ground.
Well, DOM, since you started with the impact hole in the Pentagon, you ought to be smart enough to know the answer without asking. It missed!
Was that the same instructor who said he/she believed Hani could have done the job or was that a different one?
Craig Ranke @ LCF said:
This is one of those strawmen that you keep incessantly referring to. Your witnesses all said the aircraft was traveling very fast. They did not stutter when they said that. The inflection in Edward Paiks voice when he said "very fast" means just what we all know it means. LaGasse was quite precise, as well. He is obviously familiar with aircraft and would not be fooled by your "any speed at low altitude would seem fast" nonsense.
We don't need a "precise" heading, but some of your witnesses indicated enough to be close. Paik indicated with his hands that it was traveling down Columbia Pike. You can STUFF the drawing YOU drew for him. Morin said it flew PARALLEL to the Navy Annex. You conveniently place him INSIDE between the buildings when he clearly said he was OUTSIDE. That is not a mistake, that is an outright blatant LIE and you've known it since late 2006.
We don't need the bank angle at all as most of your witnesses mention none. Those that do would not be confused by a relatively shallow bank mentioned by two of your witnesses (except one had it banking in the wrong direction, FOR YOUR FANTASY to be true) versus a big "honkin" 60+ degree bank close to the ground.
TC329 @ LCF said:
Well, DOM, since you started with the impact hole in the Pentagon, you ought to be smart enough to know the answer without asking. It missed!
TC329 @ LCF said:
Was that the same instructor who said he/she believed Hani could have done the job or was that a different one?
Last edited: