Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible

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,

RIght...

So you want to use speed from data that doesn't support the north
approach huh?

Well how about all of the other parameters then? Shall we add altitude
to your weak case for using 460 knots?

Can you name a single witness that obsevered a 60+ degree bank angle?

I'd LOVE to get you in a live debate. You wouldn't last a second with me.

Go play with your Latex fantasy math and impress Randiland.

P.S. Those of you presenting data points should list at least three to
complete the arc and arc depth/height. I know Farmer wont, he can't
even grasp the CSV file data...460 was not the lower bound

911flaws

Edit quote tags and make fun of Farmer's lies.
[edit on 12-1-2009 by turbofan]

[edit on 12-1-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by Boone 870

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.

Sorry but the plane does not have to fly over lane one.

That is nothing but you unreasonably expecting eyewitness accounts to be mathematically accurate down to the foot.

Well they are not Boone. Eyewitness accounts are typically quite fallible and we understand this.

Roosevelt Roberts' account does not need to be completely accurate or even remotely accurate.

The fact that he saw a plane immediately after the explosion at less than 100 feet at all is the important point of his account.

Clearly he is confused by what he saw and has trouble reconciling it in his mind.

That is ok and perfectly understandable given the circumstances.

But the bottom line here is whether or not you choose to completely dismiss his account the north side plane still had to go somewhere.

Roosevelt Roberts did not see the approach at all and is not included in the list of 13 witnesses who independently corroborate the fact that the plane flew NoC or ONA.

reply to post by turbofan

P.S. Those of you presenting data points should list at least three to complete the arc and arc depth/height. I know Farmer wont, he can't
even grasp the CSV file data...460 was not the lower bound

Why limit the arc to three data points? CIT/PFT claims that the latest presentation is witness compatible yet they leave out the most important eyewitness.

The first three points can be at any location along the generally corroborated and excepted flight path as depicted in the video (ONA-NoC-impact vicinity) with the addition of any point where any part of the decoy jet intersects any part of lane one.

I used 38.868954,-77.059595 because you asked for a coordinate point with at least five decimal points, but I'm flexible.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Sorry but the plane does not have to fly over lane one.

Sorry, Craig, but it does. Roberts was specific about lane one, I'll quote him again:

Right, around the lane one area and it was like banking just above the uhh lightpoles like.

Right, around the lane one area and it was like banking just above the uhh lightpoles like.

It seemed like ahh when I saw it, by the time I got to the dock it was already in the parking lot in lane one, and it was so low large you couldn't miss but seeing it.

That is nothing but you unreasonably expecting eyewitness accounts to be mathematically accurate down to the foot.

Well they are not Boone. Eyewitness accounts are typically quite fallible and we understand this.

Roosevelt Roberts' account does not need to be completely accurate or even remotely accurate.

See my last post to Turbo.

The fact that he saw a plane immediately after the explosion at less than 100 feet at all is the important point of his account.

Clearly he is confused by what he saw and has trouble reconciling it in his mind.

That is ok and perfectly understandable given the circumstances.

But the bottom line here is whether or not you choose to completely dismiss his account the north side plane still had to go somewhere.

Craig, you accept less than 100 feet, less than 10 seconds, commercial aircraft, and after the impact but dismiss "over lane one." Why is that?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

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.

It's not the eyewitnesses that have to be this precise, it's the placement of the plane if you expect the explosion to fool anyone. If the explosion takes place 100 feet away from the plane, people like Turios aren't going to be "fooled" and the planes impact is not going to be "obscured by the fireball". Your own path contradicts your theory.

[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.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITObviously that would depend on their perspective. I never said the fireball obscured the view of the plane from all POV's.

Specifically from Turcio's POV...if the fireball occured 100 feet away from the plane that would be a problem.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITI 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.

Acceptable margin of error for an eyewitness statement, yes...but that's not to say that 2 events happening 100 feet apart will appear to happen in the same place to the eyewitness.

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 all of those people mentioned mention seeing the plane north of the citgo AND over the navy annex. Better check that list again.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Not a single independent witness we spoke with supported SoC.

2 words: Lloyd England

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
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?

The point was that you can't use "common sense" to decide which claims are more accurate than others. You need an OBJECTIVE way to measure them.

..continued below...

Originally posted by Boone 870


Craig, you accept less than 100 feet, less than 10 seconds, commercial aircraft, and after the impact but dismiss "over lane one." Why is that?

Because eyewitness accounts are typically quite fallible and we understand this.

This is why we only rely on them for GENERAL details that can be corroborated. Lane 1 is a very specific detail. The fact that he saw a plane AT ALL immediately after the explosion is corroborated by all the north side witnesses whose GENERAL north side claim proves the plane did not hit.

Roosevelt Roberts' account does not need to be completely accurate or even remotely accurate about lane 1 or exactly where the plane came from or flew.

The fact that he saw a plane immediately after the explosion at less than 100 feet at all is the important point of his account.

Clearly he is confused by what he saw and has trouble reconciling it in his mind.

That is ok and perfectly understandable given the circumstances.

But the bottom line here is whether or not you choose to completely dismiss his account the north side plane still had to go somewhere.

Roosevelt Roberts did not see the approach at all and is not included in the list of 13 witnesses who independently corroborate the fact that the plane flew NoC or ONA.

Common sense Boone. Independent verifiable evidence trumps government provided data.

reply to post by adam_zapple


You are off topic and you are simply making statements without any evidence to back them up.

I submit 100 feet is a reasonable margin of error and a negligible difference for the deception to effective to most.

But they had a deliberately planned 2nd plane cover story for the ones they didn't fool.

The fact that they all saw the plane on the north side proves it.

You have presented no evidence to prove otherwise besides your blanket denial.

Now either demonstrate how P4T was wrong or concede you agree with the premise of this thread because you are WAY off topic.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

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.

But corroboration doesn't make them correct. (See my comments regarding perspective, etc)

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You agreed with me regarding specific claims and it's clear that this other claim is more general than those specific claims.

Right?

The location of a plane moving 200-500mph requires knowledge of quite a few specific details, especially when the delimiter (north or south of the citgo) is so small, especially compared to the wingspan of the aircraft.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITSo 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.

You don't have an objective way of determining which claims are "general". Certainly "exact speed" "exact heading" etc are quite specific and their specificity can be determined by the values given...ie 257mph. However the claim "north of citgo" isn't defined by any particular measurements. North is how far north? More of the fuselage north but some south? Entire fuselage north?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

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.

This is an untrue statement. Lloyd England doesn't corroborate either claim.

The only claim that your eyewitnesses unanimously corroborate is that the plane hit the Pentagon.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by adam_zapple

 

You are off topic and you are simply making statements without any evidence to back them up.

I submit 100 feet is a reasonable margin of error and a negligible difference for the deception to effective to most.

The eyewitnesses reported a fireball at the impact point...not 100 feet away. Your calculations should reflect this.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
But they had a deliberately planned 2nd plane cover story for the ones they didn't fool.

Pure speculation.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Now either demonstrate how P4T was wrong or concede you agree with the premise of this thread because you are WAY off topic.

I'm responding to your posts. It's not my fault if you don't like the answers.

Main point being, the flight path you guys calculated the aerodynamics for isn't the flight path your eyewitnesses reported.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by jthomas

 

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

Have a look:

"I then realized that I was wearing sunglasses and needed to go back to Lot 3 to retrieve my clear lenses. Since it was by no means a short walk to my car, I was upset with myself for being so distracted. Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5, I was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4 when I became aware of something unusual. I can’t remember exactly what I was thinking about at that moment, but I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left."

www.geocities.com...

I dare you to draw what he did, Turbofan, knowing that CIT has refused to.

Then I want you to tell us which statement is correct, the first or the second, and why you think we should accept one as credible and the other not.

This should be fun!

Originally posted by turbofan
You know what else I notice about Jthomas?

His avatar:

Notice how the boeing is nice and BIG and CLEAR

It's a representation of what would have been seen according to CIT. And it's what human eyes would have seen -- if a flyover had ever taken place. Do you now deny that, Turbofan?

AND JUST think of all those eyewitnesses around the Pentagon that have never surfaced who would have easily seen a flyover from all around the area had one occurred.

You've never been able to explain WHY there are no eyewitnesses, Turbofan, have you? Of course not. CIT knows full well that the "flyover" theory flunked a long time ago. It was a fairy tale that crashed and burned on takeoff, no pun intended.

Am I not correct, Turbofan?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Roosevelt Roberts' account does not need to be completely accurate or even remotely accurate about lane 1 or exactly where the plane came from or flew.

You're setting up a pretty wide set of parameters for Roberts' account, Craig. Turbofan asked for specific coordinates now you're saying that it doesn't have to be remotely accurate???

How about this, even though he used the intersection of I-395 & Rt. 27 as a reference to support lane 1, you can place the decoy jet anywhere over south parking between the yellow lines in the image below:

What the heck, go farther south of the parking lot if you must.

reply to post by Boone 870


Roosevelt Roberts is not a witness to the approach at all and could not see the citgo gas station from his location at all either.

His account is therefore irrelevant to any approach "flight path".

Here is merely a witness to a plane immediately after the explosion at less than 100 feet.

We have acknowledged that his exact placement of the plane and flight path immediately after the explosion seems confused.

This is understandable given the circumstances.

Now you can assert that he completely fabricated his account of this "2nd plane" to the Library of Congress in 2001 and to us in 2008 if you like but that does not change the north side evidence proving the plane didn't hit the building one bit.

The north side plane had to go somewhere.



[edit on 13-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by adam_zapple

You don't have an objective way of determining which claims are "general". Certainly "exact speed" "exact heading" etc are quite specific and their specificity can be determined by the values given...ie 257mph. However the claim "north of citgo" isn't defined by any particular measurements. North is how far north? More of the fuselage north but some south? Entire fuselage north?

This is the only statement worth commenting on.

The NoC and ANC claims do not have to be exactly defined.

That is the point.

The GENERAL corroborated detail of ANYWHERE NoC or ANYWHERE directly ONA is irreconcilable with all official reports, data, and the physical damage proving the plane did not hit the building.

There is plenty of room for error in the eyewitness accounts of NoC and ONA but there is absolutely ZERO room for error in the official flight path.

The plane has to be completely south of Columbia Pike and completely south of the citgo lined up perfectly with the light poles for the official story to be true.

There is no way around this fact.

This is why even Terry Morin's proven false "parallel" flight path deduction in conjunction with his ONA claim would STILL prove a deception on 9/11 if accurate.

Originally posted by adam_zapple

This is an untrue statement. Lloyd England doesn't corroborate either claim.

Uh wrong.

Perhaps you missed our latest interview with Lloyde.

The ONLY direct claim that Lloyde England has made regarding his location was north of the citgo.

He's pretty darn sure of it too!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple

You don't have an objective way of determining which claims are "general". Certainly "exact speed" "exact heading" etc are quite specific and their specificity can be determined by the values given...ie 257mph. However the claim "north of citgo" isn't defined by any particular measurements. North is how far north? More of the fuselage north but some south? Entire fuselage north?

This is the only statement worth commenting on.

The NoC and ANC claims do not have to be exactly defined.

That is the point.

They do when it's possible for some of the plane to be north of the citgo while another part of the plane is south of the citgo.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITThe GENERAL corroborated detail of ANYWHERE NoC or ANYWHERE directly ONA is irreconcilable with all official reports, data, and the physical damage

Agreed. It's also irreconcilable with other non-official reports.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
proving the plane did not hit the building.

Whoops! Here's where you run into a problem. Saying that the plane did not hit the building means you have to contradict every eyewitness, every piece of physical evidence, every published report (official or otherwise), etc. How, exactly did you apply your "scientific method" to this theory?

A more plausible explanation would be that a few people in a certain area miscalculated the trajectory of the plane as it passed over them at several hundred miles per hour. This wouldn't require you to contradict any of the above, save the accuracy of a small number of eyewitness statements. Why didn't you consider this possibility in your evaluation of the evidence?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITThere is plenty of room for error in the eyewitness accounts of NoC and ONA but there is absolutely ZERO room for error in the official flight path.

There is always expected room for error with eyewitness accounts, regardless of which side they support.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITThe plane has to be completely south of Columbia Pike and completely south of the citgo lined up perfectly with the light poles for the official story to be true.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITThis is why even Terry Morin's proven false "parallel" flight path deduction in conjunction with his ONA claim would STILL prove a deception on 9/11 if accurate.

"Proven false"? By what? Eyewitnesses who reported something else?

If we apply that logic to your theory, then the flyover is proven false.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple

This is an untrue statement. Lloyd England doesn't corroborate either claim.

Uh wrong.

Perhaps you missed our latest interview with Lloyde.

The ONLY direct claim that Lloyde England has made regarding his location was north of the citgo.

He's pretty darn sure of it too!

Is this different than what he claimed in prior interviews?

Originally posted by adam_zapple


They do when it's possible for some of the plane to be north of the citgo while another part of the plane is south of the citgo.

No they don't because this would STILL be irreconcilable with all official reports, data, and the physical damage proving the plane did not hit the building. As you agreed.

Whoops! Here's where you run into a problem. Saying that the plane did not hit the building means you have to contradict every eyewitness, every piece of physical evidence, every published report (official or otherwise), etc. How, exactly did you apply your "scientific method" to this theory?

You are contradicting yourself.

You agree there is zero room for error in the official account and that the plane being ANYWHERE NoC or ANYHWERE ONA is irreconcilable with all official reports, data, and the physical damage.

This means if you accept he evidence as valid it proves the plane did not hit.

There is no way around this fact.

A more plausible explanation would be that a few people in a certain area miscalculated the trajectory of the plane as it passed over them at several hundred miles per hour.

You are switching the discussion mid-post.

If you accept the NOC or ONA evidence as valid it proves a deception as you just agreed.

This wouldn't require you to contradict any of the above, save the accuracy of a small number of eyewitness statements. Why didn't you consider this possibility in your evaluation of the evidence?

Of course we considered it which is why we continued to seek out further validation.

As it stands the NoC approach has been unanimously verified from all independent witnesses we spoke with from all surrounding perspectives.

Even Sean Boger in the heliport tower!

Eventually eyewitness claims, when independently corroborated enough times, become proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is the level of validation we have obtained.

It would be illogical to dismiss all of these confirmed accounts as anomalous particularly when the official flight path has been proven impossible.

Originally posted by adam_zapple


Is this different than what he claimed in prior interviews?

I am not aware of him ever making any other claims regarding his exact location.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple


They do when it's possible for some of the plane to be north of the citgo while another part of the plane is south of the citgo.

No they don't because this would STILL be irreconcilable with all official reports, data, and the physical damage proving the plane did not hit the building. As you agreed.

I never agreed that any of this proved that the plane didn't hit the building. I agreed that these eyewitness statements are inconsistent with all of the other data.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Whoops! Here's where you run into a problem. Saying that the plane did not hit the building means you have to contradict every eyewitness, every piece of physical evidence, every published report (official or otherwise), etc. How, exactly did you apply your "scientific method" to this theory?

You are contradicting yourself.

You agree there is zero room for error in the official account

No...there is always accepted room for error in eyewitness accounts.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
and that the plane being ANYWHERE NoC or ANYHWERE ONA is irreconcilable with all official reports, data, and the physical damage.

This means if you accept he evidence as valid it proves the plane did not hit.

If I accept that the NOC or ONA claims are accurate, that would be the case. (see quote below)

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

A more plausible explanation would be that a few people in a certain area miscalculated the trajectory of the plane as it passed over them at several hundred miles per hour.

You are switching the discussion mid-post.

You say their statements prove the plane didn't hit...I say their statements indicate that they're wrong.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

This wouldn't require you to contradict any of the above, save the accuracy of a small number of eyewitness statements. Why didn't you consider this possibility in your evaluation of the evidence?

Of course we considered it which is why we continued to seek out further validation.

How did you determine that the eyewitnesses who report NOC or ONA were not either inaccurate or mistaken?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Eventually eyewitness claims, when independently corroborated enough times, become proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

You don't really believe that, or you would accept that the plane hit the pentagon "beyond a reasonable doubt" since that claim is corroborated by many more people than NOC or ONA, and is also supported by the physical evidence which isn't subject to the same downfalls as eyewitnesses are.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It would be illogical to dismiss all of these confirmed accounts as anomalous

These accounts are a minority. Of hundreds of people who reported seeing the plane, and out of thousands who were on the scene, a small handful reported something that contradicts every other piece of evidence presented. The case for eyewitness errors is strong.....especially when we see them making other errors in the video.

I'm not suggesting that they simpy be dismissed...but they certainly aren't strong enough to use to reject every other piece of contradictory evidence....doing so is a prime example of circular logic at work.