Moved:CIT's NoC is not possible

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2
…
13

Moved:CIT's NoC is not possible; Impossible theory
Topic Started: May 24 2008, 09:38 PM (5,314 Views)
Reheat	May 24 2008, 09:38 PM Post #1
Reheat Posts: 137 Group: BANNED! Member #605 Joined: 05/24/08	CIT's NoC theory has been shown to not be possible using proven aerodynamic principles. Using witness, Paik and postulating a flight path to conform to his description in conformity to the other witnesses at the Citgo Station it has been amply demonstrated that ANY flight path conceived not only does not subscribe to witness testimony, but as the witnesses roll in (according to CIT) the theory becomes more and more impossible. The testimony of Terry Morin sinks this theory once and for all. Including his described position and the position of the aircraft it is simply not possible for ANY aircraft to perform in the manner theorized by CIT. The recent witnesses from the ANC area add additional impossibility to the theory. It is aerodynamically impossible for ANY aircraft to fly from Paik's described position to Morin's described position to anywhere near NoC and then to anywhere near the impact point. The presumed flyover witness adds an element of comedy to the theory as anything other than a helicopter would not be able to perform the type of maneuvers described. For those who will bring it up, I am not here to defend the "official theory" I am only here to discuss the CIT theory. I am not here to consume SPreston's cartoons nor am I here to absorb insults. I will, however, address legitimate questions regarding my conclusions. Edited by Reheat, May 24 2008, 09:39 PM.



Domenick DiMaggio	May 24 2008, 10:18 PM Post #2
Posts: 2,091 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	Reheat May 24 2008, 09:38 PM CIT's NoC theory has been shown to not be possible using proven aerodynamic principles. You have done no such thing as prove Paik, LaGasse, Brooks, Stephens, Boger wrong about where they all saw the plane fly on 9/11. Pure and simple. Your championed claims of debunking an artistic rendition which is not scientific in any form other than to attempt to create a visual image demonstrating the most likely area of flight for the plane that flew over the penatgon on 9/11 are nonsense. Quote: Using witness, Paik and postulating a flight path to conform to his description in conformity to the other witnesses at the Citgo Station it has been amply demonstrated that ANY flight path conceived not only does not subscribe to witness testimony, but as the witnesses roll in (according to CIT) the theory becomes more and more impossible. utter rubbish. your impossible demands that investigative reporters present flight data recorder quality numbers to scientifically prove the eyewitnesses are telling the truth without having a single known variable is insanity at its most unbridled. especially when we all know you don't hold to US gov or the NTSB to such standards. Quote: The testimony of Terry Morin sinks this theory once and for all. " Including his described position and the position of the aircraft it is simply not possible for ANY aircraft to perform in the manner theorized by CIT. i thought we were just discussing CIT's interviews? i don't recall terry morin being on that witness list anywhere. please catch me up to date. Quote: The recent witnesses from the ANC area add additional impossibility to the theory. It is aerodynamically impossible for ANY aircraft to fly from Paik's described position to Morin's described position to anywhere near NoC and then to anywhere near the impact point. hmmmmm all of the eyewitnesses in the media accounts are to the south of the impact spot. the road to the north of it had conveniently been shut down before the event happened which prevented a lot more people from being witnesses to the flyover. So if the plane doesn't hit the building then why would it have to fly directly above the impact spot? Quote: The presumed flyover witness adds an element of comedy to the theory as anything other than a helicopter would not be able to perform the type of maneuvers described. the fact that you call an eyewitness to a silver commercial airliner 50-100' off the ground over the Pentagon immediately after the explosion an "element of comedy" highlights your ignorance, stupidity, insincerity, & blind nationalistic support of a terrorist regime, your true motives. Quote: For those who will bring it up, I am not here to defend the "official theory" I am only here to discuss the CIT theory. "I've aerodynamically proven all the eyewitnesses are wrong without any known variable except there whereabouts for the plane they saw." "I find it an act of comedy that after the alleged impact of a silver commercial airliner at the pentagon that a police officer running out to see what happened and just happens to see a silver commercial airliner flying away at a very low altitude at the Pentagon, a plane he is told is a second plane that no other eyewitness reported, is something to be laughed at." Paraphrasing really puts things into perspective sometime. Quote: I am not here to consume SPreston's cartoons nor am I here to absorb insults. I will, however, address legitimate questions regarding my conclusions. no but you sure are here to pass them out arent you? "The presumed flyover witness adds an element of comedy to the theory " Edited by Domenick DiMaggio, May 24 2008, 10:20 PM.
Posts: 2,091 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	May 24 2008, 10:26 PM Post #3
Posts: 1,475 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Reheat May 24 2008, 09:38 PM The presumed flyover witness adds an element of comedy to the theory as anything other than a helicopter would not be able to perform the type of maneuvers described. The plane banked north of the former CITGO "reheat". You need to tell Sean Boger, Sgt. Lagasse, Sgt Brooks, and everyone else who describes this bank to their face that what they saw is impossible. and then it pulled up.... It happened Reheat. You fabricating values for speed, radius, descent angle or any other relevant factor that you do not and can not know does not prove what all the witnesses saw is impossible. Stop accusing all of the witnesses of being either delusional or liars or both.
Posts: 1,475 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	May 24 2008, 10:29 PM Post #4
Posts: 1,475 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	It is not "CIT's Noc" it's the witnesses' NoC.
Posts: 1,475 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Reheat	May 24 2008, 10:29 PM Post #5
Reheat Posts: 137 Group: BANNED! Member #605 Joined: 05/24/08	Domenick DiMaggio May 24 2008, 10:18 PM Reheat May 24 2008, 09:38 PM CIT's NoC theory has been shown to not be possible using proven aerodynamic principles. You have done no such thing as prove Paik, LaGasse, Brooks, Stephens, Boger wrong about where they all saw the plane fly on 9/11. Pure and simple. Your championed claims of debunking an artistic rendition which is not scientific in any form other than to attempt to create a visual image demonstrating the most likely area of flight for the plane that flew over the penatgon on 9/11 are nonsense. Quote: Using witness, Paik and postulating a flight path to conform to his description in conformity to the other witnesses at the Citgo Station it has been amply demonstrated that ANY flight path conceived not only does not subscribe to witness testimony, but as the witnesses roll in (according to CIT) the theory becomes more and more impossible. utter rubbish. your impossible demands that investigative reporters present flight data recorder quality numbers to scientifically prove the eyewitnesses are telling the truth without having a single known variable is insanity at its most unbridled. especially when we all know you don't hold to US gov or the NTSB to such standards. Quote: The testimony of Terry Morin sinks this theory once and for all. " Including his described position and the position of the aircraft it is simply not possible for ANY aircraft to perform in the manner theorized by CIT. i thought we were just discussing CIT's interviews? i don't recall terry morin being on that witness list anywhere. please catch me up to date. Quote: The recent witnesses from the ANC area add additional impossibility to the theory. It is aerodynamically impossible for ANY aircraft to fly from Paik's described position to Morin's described position to anywhere near NoC and then to anywhere near the impact point. hmmmmm all of the eyewitnesses in the media accounts are to the south of the impact spot. the road to the north of it had conveniently been shut down before the event happened which prevented a lot more people from being witnesses to the flyover. So if the plane doesn't hit the building then why would it have to fly directly above the impact spot? Quote: The presumed flyover witness adds an element of comedy to the theory as anything other than a helicopter would not be able to perform the type of maneuvers described. the fact that you call an eyewitness to a silver commercial airliner 50-100' off the ground over the Pentagon immediately after the explosion an "element of comedy" highlights your ignorance, stupidity, insincerity, & blind nationalistic support of a terrorist regime, your true motives. Quote: For those who will bring it up, I am not here to defend the "official theory" I am only here to discuss the CIT theory. "I've aerodynamically proven all the eyewitnesses are wrong without any known variable except there whereabouts for the plane they saw." "I find it an act of comedy that after the alleged impact of a silver commercial airliner at the pentagon that a police officer running out to see what happened and just happens to see a silver commercial airliner flying away at a very low altitude at the Pentagon, a plane he is told is a second plane that no other eyewitness reported, is something to be laughed at." Paraphrasing really puts things into perspective sometime. Quote: I am not here to consume SPreston's cartoons nor am I here to absorb insults. I will, however, address legitimate questions regarding my conclusions. no but you sure are here to pass them out arent you? "The presumed flyover witness adds an element of comedy to the theory " Where is your math to prove me wrong?



SPreston	May 24 2008, 10:30 PM Post #6
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Reheat CIT's NoC theory has been shown to not be possible using proven aerodynamic principles. Using witness, Paik and postulating a flight path to conform to his description in conformity to the other witnesses at the Citgo Station it has been amply demonstrated that ANY flight path conceived not only does not subscribe to witness testimony, but as the witnesses roll in (according to CIT) the theory becomes more and more impossible. The testimony of Terry Morin sinks this theory once and for all. Including his described position and the position of the aircraft it is simply not possible for ANY aircraft to perform in the manner theorized by CIT. The recent witnesses from the ANC area add additional impossibility to the theory. It is aerodynamically impossible for ANY aircraft to fly from Paik's described position to Morin's described position to anywhere near NoC and then to anywhere near the impact point. The presumed flyover witness adds an element of comedy to the theory as anything other than a helicopter would not be able to perform the type of maneuvers described. For those who will bring it up, I am not here to defend the "official theory" I am only here to discuss the CIT theory. I am not here to consume SPreston's cartoons nor am I here to absorb insults. I will, however, address legitimate questions regarding my conclusions. You are quite mistaken. The Over the Navy Annex and North of Citgo flight path is not only possible, but that is exactly what happened. It is the official Flight 77 FDR flight path through the light poles which is impossible and the faked loop southwest of the Pentagon which did not happen. Terry Morin's testimony is unverified. Terry Morin needs to be interviewed and certain aspects of his testimony clarified. The FBI approached him and possibly interfered with his testimony. Regardless, the other witnesses confirm the Over the Navy Annex and North of Citgo flight path and Terry Morin confirms the Over the Navy Annex flight path. There is no evidence that the FBI has interfered with the Over the Navy Annex and North of Citgo witnesses. The proof of the Over the Navy Annex flight path is what kills the official Flight 77 flight path deader than a door nail, and proves the light poles and aircraft debris were all planted and staged and the Pentagon interior damage staged and caused by planted explosives. It is a done deal. Official Flight 77 flight path through light poles and low and level across lawn totally impossible (click photo)



Reheat	May 24 2008, 10:32 PM Post #7
Reheat Posts: 137 Group: BANNED! Member #605 Joined: 05/24/08	Craig Ranke CIT May 24 2008, 10:26 PM Reheat May 24 2008, 09:38 PM The presumed flyover witness adds an element of comedy to the theory as anything other than a helicopter would not be able to perform the type of maneuvers described. The plane banked north of the former CITGO "reheat". You need to tell Sean Boger, Sgt. Lagasse, Sgt Brooks, and everyone else who describes this bank to their face that what they saw is impossible. and then it pulled up.... It happened Reheat. You fabricating values for speed, radius, descent angle or any other relevant factor that you do not and can not know does not prove what all the witnesses saw is impossible. Stop accusing all of the witnesses of being either delusional or liars or both. Where is your math to prove me wrong?



Reheat	May 24 2008, 10:35 PM Post #8
Reheat Posts: 137 Group: BANNED! Member #605 Joined: 05/24/08	Craig Ranke CIT May 24 2008, 10:29 PM It is not "CIT's Noc" it's the witnesses' NoC. Exactly, the witnesses destroy your theory your theory.



Craig Ranke CIT	May 24 2008, 10:37 PM Post #9
Posts: 1,475 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Reheat May 24 2008, 10:32 PM Where is your math to prove me wrong? Prove you wrong? What are you talking about? You have provided zero evidence in relation to the Pentagon attack. No fabricated values that you present can begin to discredit all the witnesses. Why do you insist on using a straw man argument as a means to accuse all of the witnesses of being either delusional or liars or both?
Posts: 1,475 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	May 24 2008, 10:39 PM Post #10
Posts: 1,475 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Reheat May 24 2008, 10:35 PM Craig Ranke CIT May 24 2008, 10:29 PM It is not "CIT's Noc" it's the witnesses' NoC. Exactly, the witnesses destroy your theory your theory. The north side evidence is not a theory. It is what the witnesses unanimously claim and prove. No fabricated values that you present can begin to discredit all the witnesses. Why do you insist on using a straw man argument as a means to accuse all of the witnesses of being either delusional or liars or both?
Posts: 1,475 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


SPreston	May 24 2008, 10:46 PM Post #11
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Reheat Where is your math to prove me wrong? Math? It is not possible to use math without numbers to plug into the formula. The eyewitnesses only had seconds to view the decoy aircraft. They could not possibly have any accurate numbers for your formula. Do these look like accurate enough measurements and estimates to use in a mathematical formula?



Reheat	May 24 2008, 10:47 PM Post #12
Reheat Posts: 137 Group: BANNED! Member #605 Joined: 05/24/08	These photos and videos are for troofers. To convince rational folks of the theory, you need to post a plausible flight path that is provable by conventional aerodynamics. If you can not do this you are a FAILURE in a Court System or in legitimate media of any kind. Your witnesses are not credible unless you can show that their statements are possible. So far, I have shown their statements are not possible. This continued posting of cartoons, verbose spinning, and word, words, words, is futile. Show some plausible math or flight path and someone other than troofers with no critical thought might believe you have a point. Otherwise, you are a fraud, a liar, and a charlatan.



Reheat	May 24 2008, 10:52 PM Post #13
Reheat Posts: 137 Group: BANNED! Member #605 Joined: 05/24/08	SPreston May 24 2008, 10:46 PM Reheat Where is your math to prove me wrong? Math? It is not possible to use math without numbers to plug into the formula. The eyewitnesses only had seconds to view the decoy aircraft. They could not possibly have any accurate numbers for your formula. I'm not asking for numbers from witnesses, I'm merely requesting numbers from those who support those witnesses. If the witnesses are correct there are numbers to support them. Got numbers?



Craig Ranke CIT	May 24 2008, 11:00 PM Post #14
Posts: 1,475 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Reheat May 24 2008, 10:47 PM Your witnesses are not credible unless you can show that their statements are possible. So far, I have shown their statements are not possible. This continued posting of cartoons, verbose spinning, and word, words, words, is futile. Look how you shamelessly accuse ALL of the witnesses of being "not credible" even though they are independently unanimous in the north side claim! The witness testimony is valid evidence so the images of their testimony are valid evidence as well. Your fabricated equations are NOT evidence, they are a straw man argument. You most certainly have NOT shown that their unanimous and very general north side claim is "impossible". You have merely fabricated values to create an impossible scenario and attribute it to the witnesses and "CIT". That is a classic straw man which is a logical fallacy. Faulty logic does not refute evidence and proves that you are NOT a true critical thinker or "rational folk". Quote: Show some plausible math or flight path and someone other than troofers with no critical thought might believe you have a point. Otherwise, you are a fraud, a liar, and a charlatan. Just look at your complete inability to communicate like an adult! "troorfers'! This is nothing but a personal attack. Eyewitness testimony is valid evidence. Your fabricated values have nothing to do with the testimony placing the plane on the north side. NOTHING. We are not obligated to fabricate values in order to validate the witnesses who unanimously and independently corroborate the north side claim.
Posts: 1,475 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	May 24 2008, 11:03 PM Post #15
Posts: 1,475 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Reheat May 24 2008, 10:52 PM I'm not asking for numbers from witnesses, I'm merely requesting numbers from those who support those witnesses. If the witnesses are correct there are numbers to support them. Got numbers? We are not obligated to fabricate values in order to validate the witnesses who unanimously and independently corroborate the north side claim. The north side claim has nothing to do with numbers. It has to do with where all the witnesses place the plane. Fabricating values to create an equation can not prove or disprove the north side claim. That can only be determined from the witnesses since the government has deliberately covered up all the video evidence.
Posts: 1,475 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


SPreston	May 24 2008, 11:14 PM Post #16
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Reheat These photos and videos are for troofers. To convince rational folks of the theory, you need to post a plausible flight path that is provable by conventional aerodynamics. If you can not do this you are a FAILURE in a Court System or in legitimate media of any kind. Your witnesses are not credible unless you can show that their statements are possible. So far, I have shown their statements are not possible. This continued posting of cartoons, verbose spinning, and word, words, words, is futile. Show some plausible math or flight path and someone other than troofers with no critical thought might believe you have a point. Otherwise, you are a fraud, a liar, and a charlatan. Reheat nor am I here to absorb insults ????????????????????? Really? You are not? Where have you shown their statements are not possible? Reheat I'm not asking for numbers from witnesses, I'm merely requesting numbers from those who support those witnesses. If the witnesses are correct there are numbers to support them. Got numbers? Two four six eight. Who do we appreciate? Will these numbers work? In the few seconds available, the eye witnesses could only come up with a few numbers. All they know for sure is that they saw this aircraft overhead and it flew Over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo and they thought it hit the Pentagon. But as everybody now knows, it could not possibly have hit the Pentagon could it? In fact the Bush Regime dares not let it hit the Pentagon from Over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo. Correct? In fact the Bush Regime already has a big problem with this proven faked FDR flight path below at the bottom. Correct? The Flight 77 FDR Fake Flight Path Edited by SPreston, May 24 2008, 11:19 PM.



Reheat	May 24 2008, 11:16 PM Post #17
Reheat Posts: 137 Group: BANNED! Member #605 Joined: 05/24/08	Craig Ranke CIT May 24 2008, 11:00 PM Reheat May 24 2008, 10:47 PM Your witnesses are not credible unless you can show that their statements are possible. So far, I have shown their statements are not possible. This continued posting of cartoons, verbose spinning, and word, words, words, is futile. Look how you shamelessly accuse ALL of the witnesses of being "not credible" even though they are independently unanimous in the north side claim! The witness testimony is valid evidence so the images of their testimony are valid evidence as well. Your fabricated equations are NOT evidence, they are a straw man argument. You most certainly have NOT shown that their unanimous and very general north side claim is "impossible". You have merely fabricated values to create an impossible scenario and attribute it to the witnesses and "CIT". That is a classic straw man which is a logical fallacy. Faulty logic does not refute evidence and proves that you are NOT a true critical thinker or "rational folk". Quote: Show some plausible math or flight path and someone other than troofers with no critical thought might believe you have a point. Otherwise, you are a fraud, a liar, and a charlatan. Just look at your complete inability to communicate like an adult! "troorfers'! This is nothing but a personal attack. Eyewitness testimony is valid evidence. Your fabricated values have nothing to do with the testimony placing the plane on the north side. NOTHING. We are not obligated to fabricate values in order to validate the witnesses who unanimously and independently corroborate the north side claim. Just as I thought, all you are able to is spin your tale of woo. The only logical fallacy being committed here is your inability to produce a plausible flight path (any flight path) that is compatible with your witness statements. You have repeatedly been challenged to do this and you can not. You invent a thousand reasons why you can't do this, yet none of them pass muster to normal thinking people. You will never be able to present this theory to any legitimate news organization and you will never be able to present it into a Court of Law as you would be laughed out of the building. CIT is a laughable bunch of clowns. Edited by Reheat, May 24 2008, 11:17 PM.



Craig Ranke CIT	May 24 2008, 11:27 PM Post #18
Posts: 1,475 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Reheat May 24 2008, 11:16 PM Just as I thought, all you are able to is spin your tale of woo. The only logical fallacy being committed here is your inability to produce a plausible flight path (any flight path) that is compatible with your witness statements. You have repeatedly been challenged to do this and you can not. You invent a thousand reasons why you can't do this, yet none of them pass muster to normal thinking people. You will never be able to present this theory to any legitimate news organization and you will never be able to present it into a Court of Law as you would be laughed out of the building. CIT is a laughable bunch of clowns. Well that didn't last long. You came, you insulted us and the witnesses, you spewed logical fallacies, and dismissed the evidence out of hand. Go back to jref pseudoskeptic because it's clear you are unable to communicate like an adult and that you fail at applying the most remedial critical thinking principles. So sad.
Posts: 1,475 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


SPreston	May 24 2008, 11:39 PM Post #19
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Reheat The only logical fallacy being committed here is your inability to produce a plausible flight path (any flight path) that is compatible with your witness statements. What is wrong with my decoy aircraft flight path in blue and yellow? It does not turn too sharply for an unknown type of commercial aircraft which should be able to complete the flight path at any reasonable unknown aircraft speed, and any reasonablly trained pilot or remote pilot should be able to follow the flight path easily enough. This is basically what the CIT eyewitnesses testified to. See, I even included the bank to the right from Sean Boger and the graceful bank from Mike Walter. Why don't you like it? Of course the decoy aircraft cannot be allowed to hit the Pentagon from this far north nor can it possibly hit the five light poles, but that is only a problem for the official flight path worshippers is it not? Decoy aircraft flight path Over the Navy Annex and North of Citgo according to CIT interviewed eyewitnesses (click photo) Edited by SPreston, May 24 2008, 11:42 PM.



Reheat	May 24 2008, 11:45 PM Post #20
Reheat Posts: 137 Group: BANNED! Member #605 Joined: 05/24/08	Craig Ranke CIT May 24 2008, 11:27 PM Reheat May 24 2008, 11:16 PM Just as I thought, all you are able to is spin your tale of woo. The only logical fallacy being committed here is your inability to produce a plausible flight path (any flight path) that is compatible with your witness statements. You have repeatedly been challenged to do this and you can not. You invent a thousand reasons why you can't do this, yet none of them pass muster to normal thinking people. You will never be able to present this theory to any legitimate news organization and you will never be able to present it into a Court of Law as you would be laughed out of the building. CIT is a laughable bunch of clowns. Well that didn't last long. You came, you insulted us and the witnesses, you spewed logical fallacies, and dismissed the evidence out of hand. Go back to jref pseudoskeptic because it's clear you are unable to communicate like an adult and that you fail at applying the most remedial critical thinking principles. So sad. Your "evidence" is nearly 8 years after the incident and is contradictory at best. Your convoluted efforts have been at best wasted. I'm confident now that you have lost this discussion that your comments depend on JFK rescuing you from a defeated debate. Until you can produce aerodynamic proof the your theory is plausible you are a laughing stock of both the truther and the debunker community. CIT is a fraud and a laughing stock of anyone who reads and understands your delusional BS.



Craig Ranke CIT	May 24 2008, 11:54 PM Post #21
Posts: 1,475 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Reheat May 24 2008, 11:45 PM Your "evidence" is nearly 8 years after the incident and is contradictory at best. Your convoluted efforts have been at best wasted. I'm confident now that you have lost this discussion that your comments depend on JFK rescuing you from a defeated debate. Until you can produce aerodynamic proof the your theory is plausible you are a laughing stock of both the truther and the debunker community. CIT is a fraud and a laughing stock of anyone who reads and understands your delusional BS. You come in here with shameless disrespect for the rules and zero regard for common decency while talking like a 12 year old basically begging to be banned because you were slapped in the face with logic, evidence and true critical thinking principles and try to claim that the mod has to save me? It's clear you are intellectually bankrupt and so are committing suicide by moderator as a cowardly cop out. See ya pseudoskeptic. Go live in your world of denial and perverted daily obsession with people you think are "delusional".
Posts: 1,475 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


SPreston	May 25 2008, 12:02 AM Post #22
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Reheat nor am I here to absorb insults Reheat CIT is a laughable bunch of clowns. Craig Ranke CIT You came, you insulted us and the witnesses, you spewed logical fallacies, and dismissed the evidence out of hand. Reheat you are a laughing stock of both the truther and the debunker community. Reheat CIT is a fraud and a laughing stock of anyone who reads and understands your delusional BS. Amazing. This is the government loyalist top scientist and mathematical formula presenter, casting insult after insult. He needs numbers from where there are no numbers. Use your magician's wand Reheat. Maybe that will produce your numbers. It has worked before. Sorry. From over the Navy Annex, this official flight path is just downright IMPOSSIBLE.



Reheat	May 25 2008, 12:27 AM Post #23
Reheat Posts: 137 Group: BANNED! Member #605 Joined: 05/24/08	Craig Ranke CIT May 24 2008, 11:54 PM Reheat May 24 2008, 11:45 PM Your "evidence" is nearly 8 years after the incident and is contradictory at best. Your convoluted efforts have been at best wasted. I'm confident now that you have lost this discussion that your comments depend on JFK rescuing you from a defeated debate. Until you can produce aerodynamic proof the your theory is plausible you are a laughing stock of both the truther and the debunker community. CIT is a fraud and a laughing stock of anyone who reads and understands your delusional BS. You come in here with shameless disrespect for the rules and zero regard for common decency while talking like a 12 year old basically begging to be banned because you were slapped in the face with logic, evidence and true critical thinking principles and try to claim that the mod has to save me? It's clear you are intellectually bankrupt and so are committing suicide by moderator as a cowardly cop out. See ya pseudoskeptic. Go live in your world of denial and perverted daily obsession with people you think are "delusional". What rules have I broken? Is it an insult it ask for proof is your theory? I didn't insult the witnesses, I have insulted you for your delusional crap that you call evidence. Delineate what fallacies I have committed. I dare you. What you call evidence is merely the recollection of people 7-8 years after the incident which is subject to recall abilities and is subject to interviewer input. Show me by example where I have been unable to communicate as an adult except by you stating it. Critical thinking skills? I have demonstrated that by questioning your inability to to prove your NoC theory with common aerodynamic principals. You are nothing but hot air until you can prove it. Got proof?



Domenick DiMaggio	May 25 2008, 12:35 AM Post #24
Posts: 2,091 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	Reheat May 24 2008, 10:29 PM Domenick DiMaggio May 24 2008, 10:18 PM Reheat May 24 2008, 09:38 PM CIT's NoC theory has been shown to not be possible using proven aerodynamic principles. You have done no such thing as prove Paik, LaGasse, Brooks, Stephens, Boger wrong about where they all saw the plane fly on 9/11. Pure and simple. Your championed claims of debunking an artistic rendition which is not scientific in any form other than to attempt to create a visual image demonstrating the most likely area of flight for the plane that flew over the penatgon on 9/11 are nonsense. Quote: Using witness, Paik and postulating a flight path to conform to his description in conformity to the other witnesses at the Citgo Station it has been amply demonstrated that ANY flight path conceived not only does not subscribe to witness testimony, but as the witnesses roll in (according to CIT) the theory becomes more and more impossible. utter rubbish. your impossible demands that investigative reporters present flight data recorder quality numbers to scientifically prove the eyewitnesses are telling the truth without having a single known variable is insanity at its most unbridled. especially when we all know you don't hold to US gov or the NTSB to such standards. Quote: The testimony of Terry Morin sinks this theory once and for all. " Including his described position and the position of the aircraft it is simply not possible for ANY aircraft to perform in the manner theorized by CIT. i thought we were just discussing CIT's interviews? i don't recall terry morin being on that witness list anywhere. please catch me up to date. Quote: The recent witnesses from the ANC area add additional impossibility to the theory. It is aerodynamically impossible for ANY aircraft to fly from Paik's described position to Morin's described position to anywhere near NoC and then to anywhere near the impact point. hmmmmm all of the eyewitnesses in the media accounts are to the south of the impact spot. the road to the north of it had conveniently been shut down before the event happened which prevented a lot more people from being witnesses to the flyover. So if the plane doesn't hit the building then why would it have to fly directly above the impact spot? Quote: The presumed flyover witness adds an element of comedy to the theory as anything other than a helicopter would not be able to perform the type of maneuvers described. the fact that you call an eyewitness to a silver commercial airliner 50-100' off the ground over the Pentagon immediately after the explosion an "element of comedy" highlights your ignorance, stupidity, insincerity, & blind nationalistic support of a terrorist regime, your true motives. Quote: For those who will bring it up, I am not here to defend the "official theory" I am only here to discuss the CIT theory. "I've aerodynamically proven all the eyewitnesses are wrong without any known variable except there whereabouts for the plane they saw." "I find it an act of comedy that after the alleged impact of a silver commercial airliner at the pentagon that a police officer running out to see what happened and just happens to see a silver commercial airliner flying away at a very low altitude at the Pentagon, a plane he is told is a second plane that no other eyewitness reported, is something to be laughed at." Paraphrasing really puts things into perspective sometime. Quote: I am not here to consume SPreston's cartoons nor am I here to absorb insults. I will, however, address legitimate questions regarding my conclusions. no but you sure are here to pass them out arent you? "The presumed flyover witness adds an element of comedy to the theory " Where is your math to prove me wrong? You quote my entire post and don't offer a rebuttal for anything I said and then demand I mathematically prove you wrong when you can't mathematically prove yourself right BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE FUCKING VARIABLES TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. JREFNeonazicon I am only here to discuss the CIT theory....... ...........I will, however, address legitimate questions regarding my conclusions. LIAR.
Posts: 2,091 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Domenick DiMaggio	May 25 2008, 12:39 AM Post #25
Posts: 2,091 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	Reheat May 25 2008, 12:27 AM What rules have I broken? I have insulted you for your delusional crap that you call evidence. this is the cream of the JREF crop?
Posts: 2,091 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
…
13