G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 40 times

reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 11:25 PM by Reheat

Originally posted by johndoex
ReTreat tried to imply he "knows" people who will prevent me from getting an FAA Flight Physical. Yeah, he tries to destroy the livelihoods of anyone who questions the govt story (Nazi Germany anyone?). But as usual, its a lie, because he knows no one... and he certainly will not put his name on such a claim/lie... the guy is nothing but smoke...

He, he. Now, how could I or anyone else prevent you from getting a physical? That is a lie based on nothing but it's face.

I don't care whether you derive you livelihood from Janitorial Services or not, but you certainly should never fly passenger carrying aircraft. It's your judgment that is in question, not the fact that you question the Government. Pull the old Nazi canard, that will gain you a lot of supporters.

Originally posted by johndoex
He also tried to lie that i padded my logbook and then backpeddled. Is it any surpsie why ReTreat never puts his names to his claims/lies?

Well, maybe you shouldn't leave your logbook lying around in trash bins where it can be easily found.

Why don't you keep posting and then everyone will know why I wish to remain anonymous. In the first place, my credentials have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything. If credentials meant anything you wouldn't have a handful of perhaps otherwise respectable people with good credentials buying the snake oil you sell. That alone proves credentials mean very little.

reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 11:27 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Reheat

I did not say it did not indicate where the NTSB said AA77 was. You indicated the data came from the FDR when, in fact, it did not. My point was and still is that you don't have a clue about what you're posting and here you admit it.

Farmer made the pin locations from the lat/long coordinates out of the raw .fdr file. So, in fact, you're wrong, and I was right...as usual.

Quit your bluffing and huffing and puffing.

How would you know?

Because you are doing nothing but bluffing and huffing and puffing.

And you have been caught!

Besides, johndoex would tell me.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 11:30 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Stay on topic.

reheat,

Can you prove the updated math in the presentation wrong or do you concede it is correct?

reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 11:33 PM by Reheat

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Stay on topic.

reheat,

Can you prove the updated math in the presentation wrong or do you concede it is correct?

Maybe in 5 months I can come up with a bamboozle video. Bwhahahahahah

reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 11:36 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by Reheat

Ok.

So we can expect no straight answers from you.

You will avoid the information at all costs.

You will huff and puff and bluff until you are red in the face.

Meanwhile this simple 13 minute presentation exposes Ryan Mackey as a liar and the 9/11 attack a military deception.

Thanks for your input!

reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 11:39 PM by Reheat

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Farmer made the pin locations from the lat/long coordinates out of the raw .fdr file. So, in fact, you're wrong, and I was right...as usual.

Since the INS was 2000'-4000' in error care to explain how he did that? I'll even give you some time as I'm going to lunch now......

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Reheat]

reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 11:45 PM by johndoex

Originally posted by Reheat
He, he. Now, how could I or anyone else prevent you from getting a physical?

You cant, but you sure did try to imply that you may know people who would prevent it...

forums.randi.org...

So tell us ReTreat, who exaclty would be "interested"?

lol

Smoke and lies.. you're a joke..

I don't care whether you derive you livelihood from Janitorial Services or not,

You mean like your buddy Caustic Logic/Janitor who you think has a good grasp of the aviation information being argued? lol...

but you certainly should never fly passenger carrying aircraft.

The above coming from a man who never did and never will. Did you wash out of airline interviews ReTreat? Was it due to alcoholism?

It's your judgment that is in question, not the fact that you question the Government.

Consider the source...

These are the people on my side.. for some reason the lists seem to grow...

patriotsquestion911.com...

Who is on your side? Got any names? Faces?

Ohhh.. i know.. John Lear is our whole list according to people like you who refuse to debate the facts.. right?

that will gain you a lot of supporters.

See link above..

Well, maybe you shouldn't leave your logbook lying around in trash bins where it can be easily found.

My logbook is in my desk where it always is. Are you trying to lie again?

Why don't you keep posting and then everyone will know why I wish to remain anonymous.

paranoid are we?

In the first place, my credentials have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything.

I agree, since it appears you dont have any.

If credentials meant anything you wouldn't have a handful of perhaps otherwise respectable people with good credentials buying the snake oil you sell. That alone proves credentials mean very little.

Yep, we sell snake oil... thats why our lists grow with our peers.. and yours remain stagnant at 2 or 3 anonymous, paranoid, internet keyboard commandos who refuse to even debate P4T let alone register for P4T forums...

Keep up the good work ReTreat!

typo and clarity...

[edit on 18-9-2008 by johndoex]

reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 11:53 PM by johndoex

Originally posted by Reheat

Since the INS was 2000'-4000' in error care to explain how he did that? I'll even give you some time as I'm going to lunch now......

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Reheat]

If the INS was 2000-4000 feet in error, why do you and your cohorts keep attempting to use it for last recorded position for all parameters?

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Oh, we know... you only use it when it suits your theory...

The fact remains, the lat/long came from the .fdr file. You said it didnt. You were wrong.... again.

Enjoy your ... um... lunch..

typo

[edit on 18-9-2008 by johndoex]

reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 11:54 PM by newagent89

reply to post by Reheat

I like your position. Think about this: If the United States Federal Government wanted to launch an attack within, would it not be near flawless and any secret government activity invisible to any skeptic, engineer, or scientist? There would not be the hundreds of 'accidents that "prove" the conspiracy'. I mean, come on, if there was a drone or something would the government not realize that thousands would realize it, see it and cause a fuss and rile up other people not to support the government. Also, if they wanted to go into Iraq, why would they need 9/11? Where is all this oil that we supposedly got? I crave this delicious cheap oil!
I do not like this conspiracy stuff one bit. I think the president knew how easily the common people would be swayed to believe conspiracy theories and that is why he addressed it early on when his opinion polls were still up and people would listen to him. It didn't work out the way he planned. Still when it comes to Iraq, yes it was part of the war on terror, yes it was an easy and satisfying target for the war on terror, yes we will win. But if conspiracy theorists seriously believe that all eyewitnesses who don't line up with the conspiracy theory must have been brainwashed, then they should just curl up in a small ball and wait for big brother to come and eat their paranoid minds.

Paranoid is a good song, by the way.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by newagent89]

reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 12:03 AM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by newagent89

What are you blathering on about?

Respond to the topic please.

reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 12:03 AM by newagent89

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Reheat

Ok.

So we can expect no straight answers from you.

You will avoid the information at all costs.

You will huff and puff and bluff until you are red in the face.

Meanwhile this simple 13 minute presentation exposes Ryan Mackey as a liar and the 9/11 attack a military deception.

Thanks for your input!

There are wayyy too many simple 13 min., 20 min., 1hr., and 2hr. programs out there that make claims left and right. Those of us looking for truth are not predisposed to make any judgment but truly do look at it open-mindedly. Conspiracy theorists way too often use the logic that because thruthers do not accept their liberal viewpoint, then they are being closeminded. I agree with the poster who said that it is difficult for any of us to discuss these things even if it is our field because we are not skilled enough in analysis of information. It is a frustrating paradox of facts when people are hell-bent on denying ignorance. Quod est veritas?

reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 12:05 AM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by newagent89

You have still failed to respond to the topic.

You can do it!

I have faith.

reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 12:21 AM by russ1969

reply to post by Reheat

My question to you is what qualifies you to make a statement about how much The people on this site understand or not? The fact is the op presented What he and others think is a good argument Questioning whether or not a plane hit the pentagon. And the fact is that everything presented in the official reports do not give us a clear answer.

Now look at the link that the O.P has given and it is pilots for 911 truth. Did you look at the contributing members list? Here is the link to the list.pilotsfor911truth.org...

There are a lot of credible people on this list. People who know much more about what a plane is capable of and what its not. I also would like to know how many civilians on the ground claimed to see this plane hit the pentagon.

What we have here are more questions than answers. That to me is a tall tell sign That The truth has not been given and we are being fed So much bull We may never be able to see the truth.

So i ask member reheat, Show us something that proves the info in the post wrong. But please dont attack the O.P and all the members here By saying we dont have the knowledge To understand whats being presented. Are you trying to say you are the only one that understands?

reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 01:02 AM by TheAgentNineteen

Originally posted by Th0r
Nice post but why do people still post stuff like this, anyone with half a brain cell knows a jet did not hit the pentagon.

This is not a troll or bait or anything.

Well, then I guess the qualified USAF Witness that I know must be missing half of their brain-cells. I lived nearby the Pentagon when this happened, and I know plenty of witnesses who both worked at the Pentagon, and were nearby at the time. The USAF Witness was in the parking lot and saw the Boeing 757-223. I myself witnessed the recent aftermath, and what most of you "Truthers" fail to grasp is just how enormous the damage truly was.

First off, put the ridiculous missile theory to rest, no missile bounces between light poles.

Second, the idea of the damage not being consistent with an Aircraft much like the Boeing 757-223, is a complete fallacy. Some even go as far as stating that the "Hole" was not large enough for the impact which would have resulted from such an Airplane. These individuals never witnessed the damage firsthand, and they also fail to understand how small the plane is compared to the Pentagon structure.

BTW, I bet you also never knew that a French guy started the "9-11 Conspiracy" rumors within a month of the actual disaster. Yeah, and his only "Proof" was a satellite photograph of the damage.

reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 01:35 AM by truthquest

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Craig, I have two extremely important questions regarding your study.
1) What is the +/- accuracy level of the black box data?
1b) Where, *exactly* does the black box data place the plane at its closest point to the tower?
2) What is the +/- accuracy level of the tower location data?
2b) Where *exactly* is the tower by the data you have?

Also please tell me about your data sources in answering the question. The black box data is from where? Link to sources?

reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 01:39 AM by Lyrian

You guys have totally confused me with all this Tech. talk, if it was a Boeing that hit hit the Pentagon then why is the Government withholding Video evidence?

I have no idea what hit it, but the one photo taken just after fires were put out and the upper stories hadn't up to then collapsed, seems conclusive that a Boeing was not involved.

The hole in the Pentagon and the high/width of a Boeing...no way.

reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 02:01 AM by Agit8dChop

Its simple.
The US government has gone to great lengths to 'hide' what ever happened that day.

that means, that a boeing plane DID NOT hit the pentagon.

If it DID, then they wouldnt be hiding it, being thats their cover story.

ALSO, it has been shown since that event that various testimonies were scripted.. compared to the people who were either mistaken or confused. There's a big difference.

Id take the word of people who smelt cordite, over the word of a government employee who said a boeing hit the pentagon.

why?

Because its obvious one didnt, but its obvious there was an explosion of some sort.

If CraigRank CIT is right, or wrong. it matters not becuase its the minority now who believes a plane hit, and they are going to be the embarresed ones when time proves the whole thing was a sham!

People cannot simply 'believe' the governemnt for this long over this lie, its been proven over and over.

your either against this government, or your a Fascist sympathiser!

reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 02:12 AM by acura_el2000

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Ok, so that's the flight path, why would the plane need to "pull out" of the dive? It never needed to, nor did it.

The math might be correct that it would need 34G's to pull out, but there is no need for the plane to do so, as it would just deflect off the ground, and ram into the Pentagon anyway.

Your post has alot of logical information, however you need to look at all view points on the issue before becoming convinced on a certain one.

reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 02:17 AM by Agit8dChop

Isnt that what he's saying?

the plane pulled out because it 'didnt' hit the ground, it hit the pentagon level, meaning it wasnt in a dive but a horizontal flight pattern.

reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 02:30 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by acura_el2000
The math might be correct that it would need 34G's to pull out, but there is no need for the plane to do so, as it would just deflect off the ground, and ram into the Pentagon anyway.

Wow, really?

What evidence do you have that the plane would have deflected from the ground if it was not pulled out of the dive it was in?

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^