Craig has also responded, but I don't think I will dignify his post with a significant response. Craig you are simply equivocating and complaining that I require more than eyewitness verification to accuse many hundreds of people of complicity in mass murder.

Strawman.

you claim that eyewitness accounts are corroborated, but make no effort to find if these accounts do conflict. For example your argument for Mr Middleton is that he could not see the plane if it were on the southerly flight path, but you do not apply this same logic to Mr Paik. Mr Paik was surrounded by buildings limiting his field of view to the north in much the same way as Mr Middleton was limited to the south. Despite the fact these two people describe flight paths which are at odds you simply claim they corroborate each other.

So now we have to find conflicts? Ah, because you are the authority and the goal posts weren't moved enough huh? We have to capitulate to your demands huh?

We've always said Paik could not see the plane after it passed over him, but he puts it heading right to the north side flight path in his directional deduction, which would corroborate Middleton. In fact, he drew on an overhead satellite shot. We've pointed out that Middleton deduced the plane coming down southgate road, but saw it fly and bank on the north side of the Citgo.

Ex, you're flounderin'.

I am not trying to claim you are afraid of my calculations, I simply find it amusing that despite your theory being "proven" it does not seem to hold up to even amateur physics based analysis.

What theory? There is no theory. Witnesses all place the plane on the north side of the Citgo.

"Amateur physics based analysis"? Really? An amateur physicist looked at this? Why not a professional aeronautical engineer? Or a professional pilot?

What speed did this amateur physicist use? Did he obtain the black box data to the NoC attack jet and we just don't know about it or did he use "unreliable witness memory" to determine those types of values?

Ex, people read what you are writing, then they watch the interviews, then they realize how wrong and desperate you are. Seriously, you can't be serious can you?


The plane was on the north side. You can't move a plane.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Strawman.

I apologise if it was, but I don't think it is.

So now we have to find conflicts? Ah, because you are the authority and the goal posts weren't moved enough huh? We have to capitulate to your demands huh?

You are not required to capitulate to my demands, and I am not any authority on this matter. You have so far failed to bring this to any actual authorities so I am simply pointing out problems I have with your theory. If you don't want to convince me then that's fine, convince someone who actually matters.

We've always said Paik could not see the plane after it passed over him, but he puts it heading right to the north side flight path in his directional deduction, which would corroborate Middleton. In fact, he drew on an overhead satellite shot.

Could you post that please?

Ex, you're flounderin'.

I'm a small flatfish? Only joking!

What theory? There is no theory. Witnesses all place the plane on the north side of the Citgo.

I'm not going to go into the fact that all of these witnesses also claim that the plane impacted The Pentagon, my previous posts speak on this matter.

"Amateur physics based analysis"? Really? An amateur physicist looked at this? Why not a professional aeronautical engineer? Or a professional pilot?

I am only an amateur physicist, Beachnut is a professional pilot, and I believe that R Mackey is a professional engineer. Your requirements have been met.

What speed did this amateur physicist use? Did he obtain the black box data to the NoC attack jet and we just don't know about it or did he use "unreliable witness memory" to determine those types of values?

I used a variety of speeds if you remember, and requested them from you to try and make my analysis more reliable. You and JDX have both refused.

Ex, people read what you are writing, then they watch the interviews, then they realize how wrong and desperate you are. Seriously, you can't be serious can you?

I am as serious as can be. I guess this is just an attempt to rattle my confidence.

The plane was on the north side.

I doubt it.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Strawman.

I apologise if it was, but I don't think it is.

I think it was and your apology is accepted.

So now we have to find conflicts? Ah, because you are the authority and the goal posts weren't moved enough huh? We have to capitulate to your demands huh?

You are not required to capitulate to my demands, and I am not any authority on this matter. You have so far failed to bring this to any actual authorities so I am simply pointing out problems I have with your theory. If you don't want to convince me then that's fine, convince someone who actually matters.

There is no theory, Exponent. I am not sure how many times you have to be corrected on this. So now it is shifted from finding conflicts to taking it to the authorities. Ok Gotcha.

We've always said Paik could not see the plane after it passed over him, but he puts it heading right to the north side flight path in his directional deduction, which would corroborate Middleton. In fact, he drew on an overhead satellite shot.

Could you post that please?

Post what? It's been posted plenty. It is visibly obvious. Why would we need to prove we've said that? We've been there. We know what he could see and what he couldn't see.

What theory? There is no theory. Witnesses all place the plane on the north side of the Citgo.

I'm not going to go into the fact that all of these witnesses also claim that the plane impacted The Pentagon, my previous posts speak on this matter.

Ah back to the old circle again huh? Ok I'll play along AGAIN.

So they saw it impact but didn't see it on the north side. Is that what you are implying? How did it impact approaching from the north side?

"Amateur physics based analysis"? Really? An amateur physicist looked at this? Why not a professional aeronautical engineer? Or a professional pilot?

I am only an amateur physicist, Beachnut is a professional pilot, and I believe that R Mackey is a professional engineer. Your requirements have been met.

Beachnut is a professional pilot? Is he registered in the FAA database under Beachnut? Have you even read the incoherent, rabidly and purposefully deceptive posts of Beachnuts? He is no "professional pilot". There is no proof of such. RMackey is a "NASA Scientist" who was proven wrong on the official flight path. He never even commented on whether commented on the NoC flight path being impossible.

I doubt it.

You have no reason to.

Have you even watched the interviews Ex?

[edit on 25-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by beachnut

All the paths drawn, 6 years after based on 6 year old memories are not physically possible.

George Aman and Darrell Stafford described the same banking north side flight path to the Center for Miltiary History within the first weeks of the attack.

Lagasse described being on the "starboard" side of the craft in 2003.

So you are wrong.

Besides, if this was a nothing but a case of faded 6 year old memories......their accounts would not match!

Corroboration is the scientific process used to validate eyewitness claims.

This simple right or left claim has been unanimously corroborated which scientifically proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true.

Your unreasonable doubt and blanket dismissal based on your clear confirmation bias is irrelevant.

Originally posted by beachnut
All the paths drawn, 6 years after based on 6 year old memories are not physically possible.

The statements were not made 6 year after 9/11. Why are you unable to understand the CMH interviews told to you time and time again? Why do you ignore such information? The statements were verified 6 years after the initial interviews conducted by the CMH. Do you understand the difference?

The 1.5 DME stored in the INS,

INS is based on IR sensors. There is no such thing as an "INS" storing DME. Are you confusing FMS with INS?

does not trump the INS.

DME trumps INS/IRS everytime in accuracy. Do you disagree? And if so, care to put your name on such claims? When was the last time you flew INS/IR? We have several A320 jetBlue pilots who laugh at you everytime you make such absurd claims. It is also the reason you refuse to debate us on such claims, other than from behind your screen. Keep up the comic relief. We know for a fact you'll never be in an airplane again as PIC.

The INS is 1500 feet off near the Pentagon, down from 2000 feet off at takeoff.

INS cannot realign itself in flight. Are you sure you're a real pilot? When was the last time you flew? Not to mention the fact you are lying regarding 1500-2000. It was more than 3000 off, first flight of day, out of IAD. Stop moving the goal posts. Even Reheat doesnt claim your BS. (he at least tries to spin it to make sense... 2000-4000). Beachnut, you and Reheat conflict. You both conflct with real world application. We can see why you no longer fly, and havent in many years, refuse to debate P4T who have many current and qualified Airline pilots, and why Reheat refuses to put his name to his claims.

The DME must be stored by FARs at 1 mile resolution.

The FAR's also says Private Pilot Practical can be taken at 40 hours total time to fly passengers. When was the last time you seen such occur? Beachnut, are you familiar with FAR minimum requirements? The 1 mile resolution is a minimum requirement. How many times does it need to be repeated to you?

77 FDR stored DME at 0.25 NM resolution. This means 1.5 DME is not 1.5 NM from DCA.

Source? If you reply with RO2. Did you decode it? If not, why are you relying on our (P4T) decode? Im telling you, you're wrong if you rely on RO2. If you do not rely on RO2 for your above claim, please provide your personal decode and narrative of the decode as we have. Your strawmans are getting stale. Beachnut, why are you unable to decode the raw file and P4T can? (we all know why...)

Your AIM reference is BS. You never quote the full reference and real pilots who actually shoot approaches qauled on Cat III aircraft know why you will never quote full reference.

Do a study on the DME on 77, you will find on 9/11 it was averaging about 0.35 NM accuracy.

On a Cat III certified Crew and Aircraft? What are you smoking? Where is your source? RO2? Who decoded RO2? What cant you decode RO2? What is the diclaimer from the people who decoded RO2? Can you answer any one of these questions or will you dodge?

Do your own analysis or pay an engineer to do it for you.

We have several, including calls into L3. Why havent you called them? Ohhh. .thats right, a salesman who sells their product to fleets worldwide knows less about L3 products than "Beachnut" on ATS. (rolleyes)

As you know the DME accuracy can be as high, close in, just under 1/2 mile and 3 percent of the distance far from the station. The best accuracy close in, 0.0 DME to 8 DME is 0.23 NM. An actual distance of Flight 77 of 1.85 NM from DCA can be stored as 1.5 DME.

You're becoming incoherent again Beachnut. Try sourcing your claims next time.

My flying license is good for life. I was flying aerobatics in supersonic jets at the age of 23, a left seat Aircraft Commander/Aircrew Commander/(Equal to a Captain on an airliner) at the age of 26, flying missions and passengers in a 300,000 pound class jet aircraft all over the world. How old are you? 38?

P4T core members can be verified at faa.gov. "Beachnut" cannot.

Beachnut, according to you, you are an FDR Expert, a pilot, a heavy transport commander, a TERPS engineer in Desert Storm, a Steel expert (when debating WTC), an Electrical engineer (yet unfamiliar with EPPROM, getting schooled by an auto tech familair with data storage). Beachnut, according to you, you are an expert on every argument you have ever argued on the net! Wow. Why do you spend so much time on the net then? You can claim "expertise" on message boards, but it doesnt mean its true. The fact you refuse to debate real experts who can be verified, and constantly move your goal posts when exposed (not to mention delete posts), speaks volumes. The only "expertise" i see from you based on post count across the net, is perhaps a expert forum poster. And even then, many of your posts are incoherent. lol

The interviews were great, but the paths they drew are not possible to fly. That means 77 was not where they said it was.

And you have interviewed with them confront such claims? I look forward to your interviews on location.

So CIT says all the paths are wrong too? Which one is it? Which path is the right one?

Beachnut, you didnt even know which path was Middletons when the path was drawn in the OP! You didnt even need to watch the video (as its clear you still havent).

Beachnut, you have been wrong so many times, i guess that is why you spend every hour of the day and night online with people you think have "nothing"? So you can eventually get something right?

Have a great night...

Rob

Originally posted by exponent
The identity of the craft is irrelevant

How very wrong this statement is.

Exponent, I expected better of you than to state this.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So you are wrong.

Boger saw 77 impact the Pentagon. And all your witnesses agree, 77 impacted the Pentagon.

Originally posted by beachnut

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So you are wrong.

Boger saw 77 impact the Pentagon. And all your witnesses agree, 77 impacted the Pentagon.

How can you trust that? It's based on a six year old memory?

But, yes, if you are going to accept that he saw a northside flight path, then realistically you should accept that he saw something impact with the Pentagon.

As I understand it though, the crux is that the damage pattern, external to the pentagon, and internal, does fit the pattern of the official flight path.

However, there is independently collected and verified tesimony from impartial eyewitnesses to a flight path markedly different from that stated by the official story. Until a greater degree of equivalent proof is presented, I have to accept this as a very real possibility, and that a massive deception occured on that day.

Not that I agree with all of the CIT conclusions, but the unrefuted testimony presented for the NoC flightpath does make for a very damning scenario as far as the official story goes.

Originally posted by almighty bob

Originally posted by beachnut

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So you are wrong.

Boger saw 77 impact the Pentagon. And all your witnesses agree, 77 impacted the Pentagon.

How can you trust that? It's based on a six year old memory?

But, yes, if you are going to accept that he saw a northside flight path, then realistically you should accept that he saw something impact with the Pentagon.

As I understand it though, the crux is that the damage pattern, external to the pentagon, and internal, does fit the pattern of the official flight path.

However, there is independently collected and verified tesimony from impartial eyewitnesses to a flight path markedly different from that stated by the official story. Until a greater degree of equivalent proof is presented, I have to accept this as a very real possibility, and that a massive deception occured on that day.

Not that I agree with all of the CIT conclusions, but the unrefuted testimony presented for the NoC flightpath does make for a very damning scenario as far as the official story goes.

I agree, with you. I don't accept right now the conclusions CIT has come to regarding this, but the eyewitness testimony they have uncovered seems very credible and contradicts the official flight path in a very critical way. What this means is anyone's guess at this point. I think CIT has went through a process of elimination to arrive at the theory they have, but perhaps if the conclusion was left for a later date more people could have filled in their own blanks as to what happened.

It seems that there was a plane flying North of the CITGO gas station, and obviously the damage does not fit that flight path, so what else could have happened?

I think they have begun to unravel something and everyone needs to step back and take a deep breath and just think it all through, for myself I am mystified at this point.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by talisman]

Originally posted by johndoex
INS cannot realign itself in flight.

Oh, it can't huh?

Why is it that VOR/DME was used to UPDATE the INS in these applications in 2001? If that isn't a realignment, what is? It torques the gyros and it's done to improve accuracy. Note that it is VOR/DME, not just DME. Most aircraft now have GPS and that is now used for updating INS' in flight simply because it's more accurate.

It's pretty obvious you have never flown with an INS system. Ask your buddy Jeff Latas as he's flown with them.

If you used the term INITIALIZE in flight you would be correct. At least in these applications. I have flown with an INS that could be INITIALIZED in flight. It took a long time and was rarely accurate, but it could be done.

Your feeble attempt to indicate there is conflict between beachnut and I is truly entertaining. My dog even laughs!

Beachnut is correct and you are wrong, again.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by Reheat]

Originally posted by talisman
I think they have begun to unravel something and everyone needs to step back and take a deep breath and just think it all through, for myself I am mystified at this point.

No one would be mystified at all if you could do the aerodynamic physics to confirm or deny what the witnesses say.

If you can't do the math get an Engineer or a Pilot who can do the math to show you how what the witnesses say is impossible. My analysis is linked in my signature. I invite you or anyone else to point out where it is incorrect.

Exponents' example posted earlier is just an example. He only used two of the witnesses to show the ONLY possible flight path that could be flown North of the Citgo Station. Even it shows high bank angles and high G that NO ONE DESCRIBED. However, when all of the witnesses are put together and multiple flight paths at varying speeds are attempted they ALL FAIL.

Starred and flagged. Keep fighting the good fight Craig, and CIT, as well as PFT

Any evidence provided by the government cannot be trusted. Beachnut(excuse me, I had said Reheat, edit, my mistake) did you examine this DNA yourself? No, you just believe what you are told.

At least Craig is out there talking to people who were actually there, all you do is sit here and run your mouth, and repeat the "official story", that is called hear-say.

I am in agreance due to the damage I saw with my own eyes to the pentagon that a Boeing of that size is incosistant. I think people believe the plane hit the building because they had already heard about it on the radio, or saw on TV, the second plane hitting the WTC. I would imagine Mr. Boger seeing the plane basically coming right at him, ducked and covered, just like anyone else within a half mile of the pentagon probably did, before the actually impact (ie flyover, and missile strike).

The damage I saw before the roof collapsed was much more consistent with that of a missile, than an enourmous passenger jet, with two what 9 foot? titanium engines on either side. Nah, a plane of that size would do more damage and leave more debris than the neat hole we saw before the roof collapsed, and the neat punchout hole.

Why doesn't the government just release any footage from ANY of the 86 cameras that could have shown this plane, and validate thier tale???? Why because they can't, the plane isn't where they claim it was.

They give us 4 images showing an explosion (no plane), then a couple years later a 5th showing a white plume of smoke crossing the pentagon lawn(still no plane). It's laughable at best to trust that type of information. It's an insult to anyones intelligence.

Ask yourself with the Nation under attack, why was the Secretary of defense video taped, being the 6th man getting in the way, of carrying a guy off the Pentagon lawn? Don't you think he might have had something "else" to attend to?? Like the USA being under attack?

Let's not forget Mr, Rumsfeld also told us flight 93 was shot down, so the government has already proven to lie about the circumstances around one of the hijacked planes, it's not a stretch that they would also lie about another.

Thanks again Craig for putting in some actual footwork. I hope one day you find your answers.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by Nola213]

[edit on 26-9-2008 by Nola213]

[edit on 26-9-2008 by Nola213]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Beachnut is a professional pilot? Is he registered in the FAA database under Beachnut? Have you even read the incoherent, rabidly and purposefully deceptive posts of Beachnuts? He is no "professional pilot". There is no proof of such. RMackey is a "NASA Scientist" who was proven wrong on the official flight path. He never even commented on whether commented on the NoC flight path being impossible.
[edit on 25-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Great evidence. You know I have an ATP, instrument rated pilot at 23, flying heavy jets at 23, the left seat (equal to captain in the airlines) heavy jets at 26. I am sure johndoex has an ATP and flies left seat heavy jets. Great evidence.

Did you tell Middleton he points to the south path and what that means to you?

Did you tell all those guys who drew the paths that physics makes it impossible for those to be flown?

Was seeing a plane up close the reason they moved it in their heads to closer? Those on Columbia Pike had it easier, 77 was over them.

If you forgot to tell them the flight paths were impossible, are you going back to correct them?
What illusion made them move the flight path closer to them, and make physically impossible paths?
Are you under the impression the witness statements are wrong due to time, and you just use what fits your agenda?

On of the interviews has one guy point each time asked to the south flight path, but someone keeps saying north side, he points to the south path, then a north side comes out. Is this good practice when taking witness statements? Is that common to lead a witness like that when investigating things like this?

[edit on 26-9-2008 by beachnut]

Originally posted by beachnut
It has been proven 77 impacted the Pentagon. You can't refute with facts any of the evidence. Where is your evidence. All the parts are from 77 and you have not even one piece of evidence to refute it

Show me where all of the parts have been proven to come from Flight AA77?

Reheat showed me one unsourced picture of something unidentifiable and expected me to 'believe' that it was from AA77!

I don't want to believe something, beachnut, so show me your evidence that proves those alleged parts are from the alleged Flight AA77.