Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible

page: 15
13
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by cogburn
Just a quick update...

No takers for a formalized debate from P4T/CIT in a neutral setting. I guess we'll let that speak for itself.

Carry on.


Actually Cogburn, I said I would debate P4T/CIT in a neutral setting once they demonstrated something tangible to debate. However, I have seen nothing to debate except silliness. All I have seen so far on this thread is people wanting to split hairs over nomenclature, or argue about circular segments (which is exactly what I meant by the way, a circular path defined by a chord length and sagitta that define it as unique from others).

For example, I derived Newtonian physics equations which I stated on the front end would be different from aviation equations to avoid any argument over me not being a pilot. So instead of "n" (the aviation term) I used "N" and DEFINED it. If you google load factor, you'll find that others use different notation as well, depending on the one deriving the equation. That is common for anyone who derives their own equations and is done to distinguish between them and "off the shelf" equations. If I wanted to, I could just spell it out "Load Factor", or assign something completely off the wall, like "P4T". The notation is entirely at the discretion of the author, as long as he/she defines the equation fully, which I did. Such silly critiques simply demonstrate the inability of some to understand the concepts they google. Show me the math and real world measurements (not "measured in this software" stuff) which establish the range of values used, or that show my range of values wrong. In the meantime, it is easy to measure how far the arc deviates from a linear path (chord) and with that sagitta value, the radius is empirically defined (mathematically).

P4T claims no theory, so what is there to debate? P4T and CIT completely dismiss empirical data, so again, there is nothing to debate since the evidence is excluded. Come to the table with real meat-and-potatoes and I might show up for dinner. In the meantime, it is a complete waste of my time even to write this post.




posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
In the meantime, it is easy to measure how far the arc deviates from a linear path (chord) and with that sagitta value, the radius is empirically defined (mathematically).

Blah blah blah, it's all bunk when there are no real fixed co-ordinates known for the alleged flight path.

Here's something that I want to know, as I'm not a pilot, why does the alleged flight path have to be a circular arc? Can't planes make non-circular turns in real life? I'm not that stupid to understand that the answer would be yes.

Why couldn't it be a parabolic, hyperbolic, cubic, etc flight path? I understand that a circular arc is the easiest to evaluate, however, I would guess that the alleged flight path was probably not circular, which would account for some deviations against the eyewitnesses.

For the purposes of this thread, P4T have shown that a circular arc flight path will work. Detractors have stated that these circular arc flight paths don't all fit with some witness statements. Well of course it won't. If the plane flew a parabolic flight path, then some witnesses will be a little off with their estimated positions.

Don't get stuck inside the box (in this case, a sphere) when thinking about possible flight paths.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
As P4T/CIT refuses to participate in an unbiased, structured debate as to if a plane hit the Pentagon, I'll demonstrate why the flight path presented is absolutely worthless to either you, me, or 99.9999999% of the public at large and the fundamental waste of time and resources it represents. It'll also serve sum up my verdict on the document. (I guess this means I'm changing my argument again.
)

In the interest of brevity, I'll refer to the P4T/CIT information as "The Arc".

First one may assess the target audience of the document. It's been said ad nauseum that the information was to refute the opinions of detractors who stated that the The Arc was physically impossible and there was no other purpose. It implies, in its very nature, that the quality of the detractors was so great that it warranted the expenditure of time and effort in order to prove the opposing opinions as false. Outside of an extremely small community, I'm not sure to whom this document is intended to appeal. I'm sure the JREF'ers are absolutely ecstatic that they have become the basis upon which a piece of the greater P4T/CIT truth would be built. If I'm mistaken and there were others that questioned such a flight path in anything more than a generally dismissive manner, I'm unaware of it. The question of the exact aerodynamic possibility of an NoC flight path has only ever been a passing topic here on ATS at the most.

Now that I've stated my opinion on the audience, let's assume that we are they and take a look at the nature of the information presented.

Rather than simply present information that proves The Arc possible for the variables presented (mandated aerodynamic load force limit maximums and other physical constraints of commercial airliners), the effort is made to tie The Arc to selective witness statements as justification for various assumptions. Let me state this quite clearly: had the math been presented without the inclusion of witness statements the goal of the document would have just about satisfied with the maths provided. Subsequent arguments would then only lie within the extremes and around that points of debate could be constructed about the assumptions made in the mathematics. It would have been an infinitely more air-tight case than what was presented.

For reasons P4T/CIT will have to supply, it was decided to supply selective portions of witness statements that on face value seem to support the mathematically derived flight paths. It was not stated that these witness statements were used to construct the flight path, only that it is provided as support of such a flight path after the fact. This of course begs the question as to what it was that other witnesses said that disqualified them for inclusion. The next obvious question would be that if so few of the collected witness statements support the flight path, why pose the NoC/Arc argument at all?

When questioned on this, the response from P4T/CIT was to the effect that they simply and arbitrarily eliminated portions of witness testimony so that it fit the information being presented.

Again, why include it at all?

What we have presented to us as fact (evidence?, truth?, theory?) is an ill formed argument that is intended to be judged within a vacuum by a very limited audience. Take it outside of its extremely limited context and it has absolutely no bearing in reality or furthering 9/11 research. Perhaps that's why my points were either misunderstood or ignored. I was just reviewing the information as a normal, intelligent person.

One may further wonder as to the purpose served by posting such information on ATS for comment (and then decry its members for asking valid questions) given the limited audience for which it was intended.

There's all kinds of fun data one can extrapolate from this adventure if one applies the exact same level of logic presented in the P4T/CIT information. Let's see how much it cost to generate this information intended to refute a limited number of detractors.

With the help of Salary.com, and a little math based on the average salary of a captain of a large commercial aircraft, assuming only 1 pilot worked on this document it cost $57.98 an hour. If it took 3 business days to complete, that's $1391.52 for the project. Assuming our pilot is compensated at market value for his time, that's the sale of 70 DVDs at $19.95. I'm sure that potential consumers would be quite unanimous in their support of this effort.

With such frivolous application of sparse resources, it's obvious why P4T/CIT turned themselves into a cottage industry to support themselves: refuting frivolous claims from equally fringe groups is mighty costly indeed.

Still waiting for that U2U.

EDIT: No JREF members were harmed or mistreated in the writting of this post in observation of ASPCA guidelines and the laws of the state of California, Missouri and the District of Columbia.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by cogburn]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by pinch
 


As usual you do not have a source for your claims.

And you are off topic.

I guess it's safe to say that pinch, like cogburn, agrees that the premise in the OP is correct and that the math presented by P4T is accurate and that a north side approach is entirely possible.

Thanks for your input fellas!


Actually Craig, it is spot on topic.

How can we trust an organization such as PfT or CIT on its mathematical presentations when they've proven, time and again, they can't even understand the basic procedures in a standard airfield departure document such as the Camp Springs One departure out of Andrews AFB?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   

posted by 911files

For example, I derived Newtonian physics equations which I stated on the front end would be different from aviation equations to avoid any argument over me not being a pilot.

Show me the math and real world measurements (not "measured in this software" stuff) which establish the range of values used, or that show my range of values wrong. In the meantime, it is easy to measure how far the arc deviates from a linear path (chord) and with that sagitta value, the radius is empirically defined (mathematically).



I was wondering; have you checked out taking a remedial course in highschool physics 101? Perhaps we older people do not have that option?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by cogburn


In the interest of brevity, I'll refer to the P4T/CIT information as "The Arc".



As is typical with you the rest of your long-winded off-topic rhetoric-filled hollow rant is rendered moot by the entirely false premise that you began it with.

This is why any online debate with you outside of these topical threads will be refused.

But the offer stands for a recorded phone call debate any time.

How about tonight?

But the presentation does not address only one single arc nor do any of the witnesses so to refer to either as "The Arc" is disingenuous.

Witness accounts are subjective with plenty of room for error which is why P4T presented a variety of arcs in their presentation that was designed to defuse the deceptive yet furious propaganda campaign launched by anonymous pseudo-skeptics that ANY north side arc at ANY speeds for ANY aircraft is impossible.

But like Tezz just added....we don't even know if it was a perfect arc as it may not have been.

We will NEVER know the exact flight path but thanks to P4T we do know that there is nothing impossible about many of the potential hypothetical scenarios presented based on witness statements.

Yes that's right based on SUBJECTIVE witness statements that are NOT required to be mathematically accurate down to the foot and that ALL have a significant amount of room for error.

That is the inherent nature of eyewitness testimony that you refuse to accept when desperately trying poke holes in this argument.

So what do say?

Recorded phone call debate tonight?

The premise will be.....

Does the available independent verifiable evidence support a north or south side of the gas station approach of the Pentagon attack jet?









[edit on 15-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
Actually Craig, it is spot on topic.

How can we trust an organization such as PfT or CIT on its mathematical presentations ..


I suppose only those who do not understand the math would have to "trust" the presentation. It looks like you fall into that category.

Many detractors have already determined/conceded P4T math is accurate, but they also didnt understand why their G-Force/Load calculations came up short. Until P4T released the tech paper demonstrating how to solve for the proper vector.

Its all on page 8 and 9 and following pages of this thread.

Anyone who would like a formal debate with P4T, is really pretty simple. P4T has an open invitation for debate. Just email them with a claim from their website you would like to debate and im sure they'll work out the details with you. Proposing a challenge on ATS to start a new thread on topics already debated on this thread proves only to waste time.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Here's something that I want to know, as I'm not a pilot, why does the alleged flight path have to be a circular arc? Can't planes make non-circular turns in real life? I'm not that stupid to understand that the answer would be yes.


Great point Tezz. I suppose this is why a variety of arcs were presented by P4T. One minor arc "in the green"* could be combined with any other arc at a given point, thereby making the full path non-circular and more conform to witness statements depending on opinion of the reader and their interpetation of witness statements.

For instance, the lower bank arcs could apply to the initial path, but when passing the navy annex to the NoC, the higher bank arcs "in the green" could then take over and apply.

* "in the green" as presented in the pdf tech paper as aerodynamically possible - witness compatible

Edit for typo

[edit on 15-1-2009 by RockHound757]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
P4T claims no theory, so what is there to debate? P4T and CIT completely dismiss empirical data, so again, there is nothing to debate since the evidence is excluded..[snip]..In the meantime, it is a complete waste of my time even to write this post.


You say there is nothing to debate as you "waste" your own time typing this post after breaking your own promise to leave this thread (and even this forum) in the past while also literally dedicating all day and night to personally attacking us and spinning the information elsewhere.

But when you did address the math and physics problem presented in the topic you abandoned all logic and reason by insisting on using the official data for speed even when you know the north side aircraft in question had to have been altered out of the data!

Think about that 911files.

Please think about that and if you decide to "waste" some more time here please attempt to explain how you can possibly reconcile asserting such blatantly faulty logic.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockHound757
*snip*
For instance, the lower bank arcs could apply to the initial path, but when passing the navy annex to the NoC, the higher bank arcs "in the green" could then take over and apply.
*snip*

Is it safe to assume that the reason why you presented graphics of two independent flight paths as opposed to an equation that illustrates all possible values (and then a plot of that equation) is because calculus is too hard? I could understand that. You'd have to derive it yourself as opposed to science-by-google.

I'd hate to see what happens when you (literally) try to figure drift into the equation. Damn those easily attainable and super tricky real world environmental variables. It definitely does make this exercise easier when you ignore them altogether.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by cogburn]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Contrary to what is occurring here, this is not the "Squabble" thread..

It is:

"Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible"

If you are going to debate on ATS contact a Debate Moderator, if you are going to do it some other way, go to your U2U's.

This is not the place for that.

Now, PLEASE on with a Discussion...

Semper

[edit on 1/15/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I have a suggestion...

Why not use our debate forum and settle this under set rules and sans outside interference?

I'll even pony up 20,000 points to the winner (debates are judged by an anonymous panel of members, all who will be selected based on not participating in the 9/11 forum).

Oh, the allure of bragging rights... I mean really... this is the kind of victory that will score chicks...

Seriously... I'd like to see it settled.


[/offtopic]

[edit on 15/1/2009 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by cogburn
Is it safe to assume that the reason why you presented graphics of two independent flight paths as opposed to an equation that illustrates all possible values (and then a plot of that equation) is because calculus is too hard?

Given that the alleged plane flew a smooth, continous curve, then it's flight path could be modelled by a differentiable function. There is no requirement that the alleged plane had to fly an alleged flight path with a constant radius.

If there were enough fixed and confirmed data points, then it's easy to use regression to model any equation required for a flight path. The more known data points, the more accurate the equation. Similarly, the flight path could be a hybrid function, where the end points are smooth, with respect to gradients. A plane that pulls out of a turn to straighten up exhibits a hybrid function, as it flys the transitional arc to a linear path.

Calculus would nail the alleged flight path, with ease, if there were enough confirmed data points.

It's easier to model a circular arc, but it's not necessarily what actually happened and probably wasn't what happened. I doubt that the automated controls (and certainly not the manual controls) of a plane can make a perfectly circular turn, when there would have been some cross-shear effects from the wind, screwing up the 3-D vector displacement of the plane.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by RockHound757


Anyone who would like a formal debate with P4T, is really pretty simple. P4T has an open invitation for debate. Just email them with a claim from their website you would like to debate and im sure they'll work out the details with you. Proposing a challenge on ATS to start a new thread on topics already debated on this thread proves only to waste time.


See above regarding debate.

I have been informed "cog" nor any other have emailed P4T to challenge debate of any claim made on their site thus far. Just passing along the info.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by RockHound757

I have been informed "cog" nor any other have emailed P4T to challenge debate of any claim made on their site thus far. Just passing along the info.


Cap'n Bob,

As desperate as 9/11 Deniers like you want attention from credible people, there is no reason in the world anyone would.

You have to earn it.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by RockHound757
I have been informed "cog" nor any other have emailed P4T to challenge debate of any claim made on their site thus far. Just passing along the info.


Why should they - or anyone for that matter?

Fits off, in re-iteration, why should anyone "debate" anything with an organization that purports to be aeronautical experts but who don't understand the very basics of a published standard departure such as Camp Springs 1, something that the greenest flight student will learn in his first week in a course rules brief?

Second, a "debate" is a discussion of competing viewpoints. We've been told repeatedly by CIT and PfT that they do not *have* a viewpoint and offer no "theory", but are merely passing on "evidence" gained by their unique (cough cough) investigative style. "Debating" someone who has no viewpoint on a particular subject is really pretty silly. Kind of like the battle of intelligence with an un-armed P4T rep.

So....what IS the CIT and PfT viewpoint? What IS your theory as to what occurred? Here's your chance, Cap'n Bob! Get it out.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
Second, a "debate" is a discussion of competing viewpoints. We've been told repeatedly by CIT and PfT that they do not *have* a viewpoint and offer no "theory",

Come now, pinch. Have you ever witnessed a debate take place? When you were at high school, were there debating teams that you could join to sharpen your wits and your critical thinking?

Source: dictionary.com

a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

Here's the proposition, pinch: Did Flight AA77 fly South of Citgo and impact into the Pentagon on 9/11, as per the government story?

For the affirmative, that could be you, pinch, as this is what you believe. Note that I am not baiting you to take this position, as I am only using you as an example.

For the negative, that could be CIT or P4T. Again, I am not stating that they should do it, they are being used as examples.

Note that there is no requirement for CIT or P4T to provide an alternate proposition. The debate only involves arguing for, or against, the original proposition.

An alternate debate topic could be: Is it possible for a jet to fly ONA and NOC while taking a flight path that represents most of the eyewitnesses?

You could argue the negative for this one, while CIT or P4T would argue the affirmative. Get it?

pinch, it seems that in your rush looking through the dictionary to define an aeroplane as a missile, you forgot to correctly define what a debate is.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by tezzajw]





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join