Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible

Originally posted by 911files
The underlying assumption in the P4T analysis is a simple path which represents a segment of a circle. The math used is valid ONLY for such a segment.

Originally posted by 911files
Since I am NOT using it as an aeronautical term, it is whatever I define it as and although you don't understand mathematical definitions, that was done in great detail.

If you knew anything about mathematical definitions, you would know that the flight path used by P4T is defined as a minor arc, not as a segment.

Whatever happened to 9th grade geometry?

Circular Segment
Minor Arc

[edit on 12-1-2009 by tezzajw]

reply to post by cogburn


The image on page 5 does not show a plane 100 feet about the Pentagon.

How is this possible when the scale above the diagram states 1 cm=100 feet?

It's no wonder these guys are confused, they can't even figure out a grid.

reply to post by turbofan


The grid is not representative of 1cm:100ft? Does that not put the blue line indicating the bottom of the plane 60ft above the Pentagon? Would that not put the top of the plane at 75-80 feet, nearly 100ft?

If the grid is not intended to show the scale, then what dimensions should I resize the image so it's all accurate?

If all you have left is semantical arguments I'll wait for the next prolific posting by P4T/CIT.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by cogburn]

Originally posted by adam_zapple


"over the impact site" doesn't mean 100 feet away from it.

You are moving away from GENERAL details while requiring perfect accuracy down to the foot of specific details. That is unreasonable.

The difference is negligible from a distance several thousand feet away particularly from varying POV's.

I agree. None of their statements are infallible. Unfortunately, you don't apply this principle to all of their statements in the same manner.

Yes I do which is why you did not cite an example while making this false accusation.

Who decides which claims are "general" and which ones are not?

Common sense.

Things like exact heading, exact bank angle, exact speed, and exact location when it reaches the Pentagon are very specific and difficult to tell details.

Things like whether or not it was to the right, left, or directly over the witnesses are very general, simple details that would even be difficult for the witnesses to get wrong.

And virtually impossible for them ALL to get it so drastically wrong in the exact same way.

Originally posted by cogburn
The grid is not representative of 1cm:100ft? Does that not put the blue line indicating the bottom of the plane 60ft above the Pentagon? Would that not put the top of the plane at 75-80 feet, nearly 100ft?

Cog, anytime you would like to answer the questions posed to you regarding your above circular argument, feel free.

Mr. Farmer, so glad to see you here.

Can you tell me why you insist on using 460 knots for all of your calculations?

You do realize this presents a bank angle inconsistent with witness statements, don't you?

Shall we spool up the audio of Morin who says the aircraft wasn't moving
that fast?

Maybe we can loop the point where Morin says he's INSIDE the wings
for our dishonest members here.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple


"over the impact site" doesn't mean 100 feet away from it.

You are moving away from GENERAL details while requiring perfect accuracy down to the foot of specific details. That is unreasonable.

I don't require "perfect accuracy down to the foot" by the eyewitnesses, but I do require the calculations not to contradict what the witnesses claim.
You suggest that the fireball (which occurred at the impact point) obscured the witnesses' views of the airplane. This could not have happened if the plane was 100 feet away from the fireball.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I agree. None of their statements are infallible. Unfortunately, you don't apply this principle to all of their statements in the same manner.

Yes I do which is why you did not cite an example while making this false accusation.

It's not a false accusation, here is an example of you not applying the "always fallible" principle to claims made by Lagasse & Brooks:

There is room for error in all of their accounts but not enough room for error to place the plane south of Columbia Pike or the citgo.

Lagasse and Morin make this perfectly clear.

NONE of their statements are infallible...including those statements in which they state their "room for error".

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Who decides which claims are "general" and which ones are not?

Common sense.

Common sense is subjective and therefore highly susceptible to personal biases and prejudices and willl vary greatly from person to person. Unless you have an objective way of making this determination, this is introducing your personal bias into your results.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Things like exact heading, exact bank angle, exact speed, and exact location when it reaches the Pentagon are very specific and difficult to tell details.

Correct.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITThings like whether or not it was to the right, left, or directly over the witnesses are very general, simple details that would even be difficult for the witnesses to get wrong.

Assuming that any eyewitness claim about a traumatic event would be "difficult to get wrong" is not appropriate. None of their statements are infallible, regardless of how difficult or easy you might think it would be for them to get it wrong.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITAnd virtually impossible for them ALL to get it so drastically wrong in the exact same way.

NONE of their statements are infallible. Claiming that it's "virtually impossible" for them to be wrong is taking a giant leap of faith.

reply to post by cogburn


What an odd method of measure. When your boss asks you to measure
the height of a wall in order to select the proper ladder...do you include
your height as well?


Backpedal at it's finest I must say. Sorry the grid confused you, most
grade school and highschool students have no problem with that.

reply to post by adam_zapple


Somebody please point out which witness statements do not agree with
the tech note, or flight path(s).

Please refer to Terry's audio interview for his position.

Furthermore, you guys are all too quick to critisize after defaulting on
providing us with data points. Now's your chance to provide a reasonable
flight path based on witness statements and I'll calculate the numbers
for you.

Put up, or shut up as they say.

ETA: As requested weeks prior, don't forget the lat./lon. points for the arc down to five decimal
places!

[edit on 12-1-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by adam_zapple

I don't require "perfect accuracy down to the foot" by the eyewitnesses, but I do require the calculations not to contradict what the witnesses claim.

You just contradicted yourself.

If you didn't require accuracy down to the foot you wouldn't quibble about a mere 100 feet.

Most of the witnesses in question could not even see the Pentagon at all anyway!

Furthermore 100 feet is a relatively small number and a negligible difference for people who are several thousand feet away particularly considering the traumatic surprising event and the incredible diversion of the fireball.

You suggest that the fireball (which occurred at the impact point) obscured the witnesses' views of the airplane. This could not have happened if the plane was 100 feet away from the fireball.

Obviously that would depend on their perspective. I never said the fireball obscured the view of the plane from all POV's.

It WOULD however serve as a significant diversion from any POV that allows them to see the fireball.

The others were handled with a deliberately planted 2nd plane cover story.

I submit that 100 feet is a reasonable margin of error. Particularly when most of the witnesses couldn't see the alleged impact point at all and they were all several thousand feet away.

You have nothing to prove otherwise particularly from all the varying POV's.

NONE of their statements are infallible...including those statements in which they state their "room for error".

Fair enough.

That's why we don't rely on Lagasse and Morin alone and why further corroboration is so important. If you didn't realize it ONA and NoC has also been corroborated by Paik, Turcios, Brooks, Middleton, Prather, Stafford, Carter, Aman, De La Cerda, Stephens, and Boger.

Not a single independent witness we spoke with supported SoC.

At some point scientific validation becomes proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Common sense is subjective and therefore highly susceptible to personal biases and prejudices and willl vary greatly from person to person. Unless you have an objective way of making this determination, this is introducing your personal bias into your results.

Yeah so? You agreed with me below.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Things like exact heading, exact bank angle, exact speed, and exact location when it reaches the Pentagon are very specific and difficult to tell details.

Correct.

See?

Assuming that any eyewitness claim about a traumatic event would be "difficult to get wrong" is not appropriate. None of their statements are infallible, regardless of how difficult or easy you might think it would be for them to get it wrong.

That's why corroboration is so important.

You agreed with me regarding specific claims and it's clear that this other claim is more general than those specific claims.

Right?

So it should be clear by now we are using a scientific method to validate the more general claims while not relying on ANY of the more specific details at all.

NONE of their statements are infallible. Claiming that it's "virtually impossible" for them to be wrong is taking a giant leap of faith.

Fair enough.

That is why first-hand confirmation and independent corroboration is so important.

It is the scientific method used to validate eyewitness accounts and the fact that ALL of the independent witnesses we spoke with unanimously corroborate the GENERAL placement of the plane ONA or NoC is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a deception on 9/11.

Originally posted by turbofan

There is nothing wrong with the math. It has been endorsed and checked
by professors and pilots.

And is wrong.

Originally posted by turbofan
You know what else is funny?

Now that the Morin interview is released, the GL's are still in denial
and claim Terry was on the outside of the Annex's wings.

Tell us what confuses you about Terry's own statement, Turbofan. Is CIT that desperate?

Originally posted by RockHound757

Originally posted by cogburn
Those people seem to be a list of pilots and there's no credentials given for any of them having any experience submitting a paper for scientific peer review. Can you provide a link to that list?

Did you miss the Aeronautical Engineers and Aircraft Accident Investigators? It seems so... including the fact that the list continues to grow with courageous individuals willing to put their name on the "internets" only to be libeled, slandered and listed by people like you? Keep in mind, all those certificated by the FAA can be cross referenced at faa.gov.

You realize, of course, that both CIT and P4T have consistently contradicted there own work and each other and that we happily point it out.

In the meantime, carry on, as long as you accept the responsibility that Ranke and Robby Balsamo refuse to. That is, the burden of proof is entirely on their shoulders to demonstrate their claims and accept responsibility when they are shown to be wrong.

To date, they have refused.

Right now, we are watching the demise of both CIT and P4T. Apparently, you've decided to board a sinking ship. Unfortunately, we cannot throw you a life preserver.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Whatever happened to 9th grade geometry?

The 9/11 Truth Movement decided it was "inconvenient" just as it has with physics, chemistry, structural engineering, aerodynamics, and the respect for logic, reason, critical thinking, the scientific method, and the truth.

Aren't you glad you asked?

reply to post by jthomas


Nothing is confusing about Terry being within the Annex wings. He said
so himself. Have a listen.

By the way, where are all of these pros that are supposed to supply north
path data to me, and/or P4T?

Mr. Farmer? Cog? jThomas?

[edit on 12-1-2009 by turbofan]

You know what else I notice about Jthomas?

His avatar:

Notice how the boeing is nice and BIG and CLEAR

Why isn't that little blur in the DOD video as big?

Ever consider that the frame rate didn't capture the flyover?

Naaaa...of course not. It would be too convenient. Never mind the
fact that the date is wrong, and the obvious manipulation.

Anyway back on topic. Where's the north data points boys? It's only
a month overdue.

reply to post by tezzajw


Why thank you for posting the link which describes a circular segment and it various components.

I thought I would stop by and see if there was anything in the way of math posted, but I guess that is not what people wanted to talk about anyways. Turbofan, the reason I opt for 460 knots is because it is the lowest of the available estimates based on the 4 sets of ASR radar data, 2 sets of ARSR radar data, the NTSB data, two videos, multiple eyewitness accounts beyond Morin's account and estimates based on the damage at the Pentagon.

You guys are welcome to entertain any fantasy you wish. I just thought you might like some help with those radii values. But what do I know about it anyways. I live in the real world, not fantasyland.

This all for me gang. Good luck with whatever fantasy path is in vogue today.

Originally posted by 911files
I thought I would stop by and see if there was anything in the way of math posted, but I guess that is not what people wanted to talk about anyways.

Its all on page 8 and 9, has been repeated twice for you and linked, yet you continue to ignore it as if your errors dont exist. Oh well, others can read.

Turbofan, the reason I opt for 460 knots is because it is the lowest of the available estimates

...yet exceeds Max Operating limits of a 757 by over 110 knots. Watch the P4T presentation to understand why manufacturers establish Max Operating limits for aircraft.

based on the 4 sets of ASR radar data, 2 sets of ARSR radar data,

The radar data 911Files admits was manipulated, combined with the fact speeds have also been shown to be in excess of Mach 1 in such data and altitudes over 50,000 feet.

the NTSB data,

460 kts is not a "low estimate" based on NTSB data. Please stop lying.

two videos,

Unsourced...

multiple eyewitness accounts beyond Morin's account

Not one eyewitness describes any type of speed except for Morin. It is also impossible for an eyewitness to determine speed. Your statement is intellectually dishonest.

and estimates based on the damage at the Pentagon.

460 kts is not a "low estimate" based on damage at the pentagon. Please stop lying.

You guys are welcome to entertain any fantasy you wish. I just thought you might like some help with those radii values.

Anytime you wish to click links, perhaps you will obtain the help you need for your radii values. Others will and have read.

But what do I know about it anyways. I live in the real world, not fantasyland.

You complain of being personally attacked, but it is you who is doing the attacking as anyone can readily read. Too bad you cannot delete your posts here as you did your blog...

This all for me gang. Good luck with whatever fantasy path is in vogue today.

If you decide to come back, please have a basic understanding of "G-Force" and "G-Load" (they are the same), and corrected sag calculations. The links are provided for you.

Edit: Fixed quote tag

[edit on 12-1-2009 by RockHound757]

Originally posted by 911files
Why thank you for posting the link which describes a circular segment and it various components.

No problem, 911files. I'm more than happy to give you a refresher lesson in Year 9 Geometry.

Turbofan, the reason I opt for 460 knots is because it is the lowest of the available estimates based on the 4 sets of ASR radar data, 2 sets of ARSR radar data, the NTSB data, two videos, multiple eyewitness accounts

Please provide the calculations for the alleged speed of the alleged plane based on the multiple eyewitness accounts. Include all references to the specifics of those witness accounts.

You mention that 460 knots is a lower bound, so which of the estimates is it based upon - the radar data, the NTSB data, the two videos or the multiple eyewitness accounts?

reply to post by turbofan

ETA: As requested weeks prior, don't forget the lat./lon. points for the arc down to five decimal
places!

Okay, Turbo, I'll bite.

38.868954,-77.059595 as described by Roosevelt Roberts Jr.

It doesn't have to be that point exactly, any location in lane 1 should suffice.