posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 12:40 PM
>>Just as predicted it is a combination of disregarding inconvenient
>>witnesses, illusions, incorrect radius calculations.
Incorrect. We calculated several paths based on witness statements
and used many different speeds to show the aerodynamic possibilities.
The radii were measured with scale USGS topography and accurate
arc measurement tools (unlike Reheat's mess).
>>The FIRST path shows the aircraft impacting near the helipad (pardon
>>me, flying over the helipad) That radius is close enough and the
>> calculations appear to be accurate.
They are accurate.
>>So that still rather extreme bank angle is planted in the viewers mind
>>as being aerodynamically possible at FDR speeds, no less!
It's an example to show how incorrect the loyalists are. It's an extreme
speed with a perfectly acceptable bank angle for a commerical airliner.
Point is; it's aerodynamically possible. Period.
>>Now, when it switches to the proper impact point, the razzle dazzle
>> crap begins. The radius is WRONG.
No, it's not. It's accurate to scale topography. Show us your corrections.
>>The radius for that flight path is approximately 7025'. That computes
>> to a bank angle of 67.4 degrees, 2.6 G's at 460 knots.
Show us your flight path and arc measurements. Until then you're just
>>That flight path from Paik CAN NOT be adjusted to an increased radius
>>and still pass North of the station and to the impact point. Of course, it
>>can be flown at a slower speed and that is implied throughout the >>cartoon.
Watch the video again. You are lost. The radius was DECREASED!
It went from 12,xxx feet to 11, 010 and is STILL aero possible.
>>They can draw any flight path they want if it ignores key witnesses.
>>What does that prove?
The flight paths were averaged from the witness drawings. We used
THEIR recreations and explanations. We also drew alternate paths to
cover all the bases. What does that prove? That is aero possible!
>> Note that no vertical pull-up was addressed at all throughout the entire
>> charade. There is a good reason for that.
The good reason is, the value is insignificant and more important, the
Annex is about 150 feet higher than the Pentagon roof top ASL.
The distance between the buildings is 2580 feet (edge to edge). We can
easily show a pull up and be WELL within aero limits of the alleged aircraft.
This is all addressed in the tech note. Your pull up excuse is a non issue.
>>Oh, and we'll also throw in a large aircraft at about 35 degrees of bank
>>after take-off executing an idiotic low altitude turn just to show them it
>>can be done. We just won't tell everyone that that's a lesser bank and
>> G than any of our postulated turns require when we adhere to what
>>the witnesses said.
That is false. The bank in the clip is well within most of the calculated
radii presented in the video. The video also shows a slower speed than
most of the calculations which indicates that an aircraft of that type can
sustain a slow , high bank turn without stalling.
By increasing the speed at a given bank, the stall factor becomes less of
You will also note that all calculted banks and speeds returned a g load
of less than 2 g's which leaves a nice buffer for anyone crying about
Again, this is also covered in the tech paper.
We really expected all the loyalists to cry when the video was released,
but this is too funny. Do you have any real pilots that can back up
your nonsense, or will you continue to pick out invalid points an spin
We're waiting for anyone to debate this in an open, live and broadcasted
Also feel free to visit the P4T site and debate with real pilots about your
[edit on 26-12-2008 by turbofan]