84th RADES Data Proven Again

Originally posted by exponent
I'd like to post and apologise to Reheat and Beachnut. Craig is now taking responses to my scenario out of context in order to claim that you two have accepted his flight path is possible.

No apology is really needed, exponent. You can't stop dishonest people from taking things out of context. Heck, this whole charade is a FRAUD, why would one more fraudulent statement matter.

The aerodynamic math is not the only thing that has PROVEN this crap wrong. The OP proves it, but he comes along basically flooding the thread with noise, so that others might be distracted and not notice that he is inserting noise to influence the ignorant few who buy the CIT nonsense.

I hope he keeps that signature in which he "quote mines" what I've said. It's traveling evidence that he is the personification of dishonesty every time he posts. He wears that badge well as it is the very essence of what CIT is all about.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by exponent

 

Since you obviously admit that the math is sufficient and now it is simply up to how much bank is reported by the witnesses......

Please tell me what "degree" of bank these witnesses describe:

(you do realize that the official data/phyiscal damage requires NO bank or yaw and only a slight wing tilt to the LEFT or the complete opposite direction, right?)

You have to love it when witnesses confirm the FDR. Your interviews continue to support the FDR, RADES, RADAR, and the physical damage. These witnesses of yours support 77 hitting the lampposts and the Pentagon.

You are trying so hard to warp their testimony when they drew false paths, you then take false paths to support your fly over, not see by anyone in DC. Not one plane flew within 100 feet of the Pentagon roof on 9/11.

No, that is incorrect, the real path 77 took does not change much for small bank angles because the turn radius is in the miles. So the witnesses are really describing the changes the terrorist pilot is making because he is moving all over the place!

They describe the 6 degrees from the side, side to side, just like they saw.

0 0.4 0.4 1.4
2.5 3.2 3.2 2.8
2.1 1.4 0.4 0
0 0 0 -0.7
-1.1 -1.4 -1.8 -2.1
-2.1 -2.5 -2.1 -1.4
-0.7 -0.4 0.4 0.4
-0.4 -1.1 -1.1 -0.7
-0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.4
1.1 1.8 2.5 2.8
3.5 4.6 5.6 6.3
6.3 6.3 6 5.3

These are the actual bank angles on 9/11 of 77 4 per second. The wings are rocking, the witnesses are describing this, if you knew of this data, you would understand.

So why is this noticeable! Because real professional pilots do not rock the wings like this the passengers would be sick. This stands out! Many witnesses talk about this you are not listening. With a plane right next to you, 500 feet, 800 feet away, these small bank angles you never seen are big!

Your witnesses, many witnesses VERIFY the FDR. This is great your own work refutes your FDR is not real false statements. Your hard work is refuting your assumption 77 did not hit, but you are not changing you mind.

So what bank angles did the witnesses say; in degrees?

Since the last seconds on the FDR are not there, even supported by your CIT stuff when 1.5 DME is invoked. The final bank angles are not in the FDR, but trends see the terrorist at 6 degrees near the ground the wing tip moving about 6 feet up, wow. No wonder everyone confirms the wing rock and the banks up to 9 degrees in the last seconds of 77.

Bank angle allowed, the real path is a big tent!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Since you obviously admit that the math is sufficient and now it is simply up to how much bank is reported by the witnesses......

Please tell me what "degree" of bank these witnesses describe:

I have yet to complete my analysis of these claims, especially the contradictions between the plane's location. However, only two of your witnesses specifically report a bank, although they all (I believe) mention the aircraft turning (I am aware this requires a bank, but they do not mention angle, nor give any usable description). Darrell Stafford indicates an approximately 30 degree bank, however at one point he moves his hand and your video zooms in on it and cuts at approximately a 45 degree bank. This is somewhat deceptive editing. Donald Carter on the other hand, indicates a leftward bank and then a 'straight in' trajectory.

Take these responses as initial though, I need to locate these people properly on a map and I am quite interested in Mr Middleton. His account contradicts at least two of your other witnesses, one (I can't remember his name) who indicates the plane was 3ft above the Navy Annex on the southerly side and Mr Paik who indicates the plane was south of the Navy Annex also at extremely low altitude.

reply to post by exponent


There's Terry Morin who didn't describe any extreme banks plus makes mention of the light poles - his full account as written shortly after the event here

R.E. Rabogliatti was in his office at the Navy Annex. He "peered out of his office window and saw the airliner looming over the building. Later, recalling its screaming engines he judged that the pilot must have pushed the jet's throttle to the limit; he estimated its altitude at less than 150 feet."

Madelyn Zakhem, executive secretary at the STC, had just stepped outside for a break and was seated on a bench when she heard what she thought was a jet fighter directly overhead. It wasn't. It was an airliner coming straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level. "It was huge! It was silver. It was low -- unbelievable! I could see the cockpit. I fell to the ground.... I was crying and scared."

Plus a number of witnesses who were stopped in traffic near the Washington Boulevarde turnoff from I395.

From the original eyewitness accounts I'm having trouble interpreting any as describing anything other than the 'south side' or 'official' flight path. No mention of extreme aerobatics either, just a controlled highspeed descent through the light poles with minor attitude adjustments.



[edit on 30/9/2008 by Pilgrum]