Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Is it just me or does the CIT flightpath on at least 2 occasions in their cartoon show the plane hitting 2 trees?
Were those trees moved by the NWO the same day that the NWO removed the light poles WITHOUT A SINGLE SOUL seeing them?
I am just asking questions.




posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 12:26 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Why does everyone who says, "CIT Witnesses all say the plane hit the Pentagon" totally forget the official story stating that AA77 knocked down the light poles?

Can you guys not come up with a solution to satisfy the entire equation?

Was it NoC and Pentagon impact with staged light poles, or 13 people made
up a story from the depths of their fantasies and all 13 have a similar
flight path.

What are the odds of that? Think about it.


Does it really matter? *Everyone* who was in a position to see the aircraft hit says the aircraft hit. The brutal truth that the CIT Sleuths and the PfT boys don't want to pony up to is that the aircraft did not fly "north of the NEX service station" because the light poles were knocked down by the aircraft.

What has always befuddled me (perhaps you can explain it, TF), is how the CIT and PFT boys always characterize any misstatement from anyone or any degree of error in the description of what happened as a "lie". Like most other things that come out of the CIT/PFT sound machine, it is becoming a bit of an over-used trite boilerplate. Those 13 people didn't make up stories from the depth of their fantasies (as you so poetically oput it) - they simply erred in their description of where the aircraft was. Simple as that. They didn't lie...the aren't making crap up...they aren't inventing stuff....they are simply wrong. The physical evidence and the scores of other witnesses and evidence show that clearly.



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


I ran the numbers through my calculator and got figures close to those you quoted IE 7000' radius and near 70 degrees of bank. I don't require online calculators to determine this as it isn't such a difficult problem to analyse and if I get the time to actually view the latest production I may try to see where the discrepancy is.

It's somewhat odd that this conjectured flight path is now being claimed to be 'proven' as a possibility while the path through the poles is similarly 'proven' impossible. Both claims are from the same source - hmmm



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Slightly A.P.,

I think the most important line from that post is this:


Note that no vertical pull-up was addressed at all throughout the entire charade.





They did ignore many witness statements regarding the bank angles:


The plane looked as if it were coming in for a landing — cruising at a shallow angle, wings level, very steady.

-Phillip Thompson


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 ......The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB).........The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110).
-Terry Morin


"We saw what I estimate to be about the last seven seconds of the flight. It was a straight-in flight, angled slightly down, and there was--there was no intent to turn or to maneuver in any way. It was headed straight for its target
-Mitch Mitchell


seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon..............He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo, tower
-Albert Hemphill


At first I thought it was trying to crash land, but it was coming in so deliberately, so level...

-Mike Dobbs


''It came in in a perfectly straight line,'' he said. ''It didn't slow down. I want to say it accelerated. It just shot straight in.''

-James R. Cissell


"Then it shot straight across from where we are (the sheraton) and flew right into the Pentagon.

Deb Anlauf

source



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Cameronfox, those witnesses you listed accounts' have not been confirmed/verified and even Albert Hemphill alleged statement places the plane on the NoC route(over Navy Anex). It's also very probable that some witnesses would be in a position making it difficult to decifer the aircraft's bank angle, especially since all you have listed are unconfirmed media accounts not directly from their own mouths.



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
This thread is about the math.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave several examples of potential north side flight paths that are all entirely possible and provided the math to prove it.

It's excellent to see how not a single pseudo-skeptic has doubted the accuracy of his math!



So what do they do?

Go back to some unconfirmed out of context WITNESSES STATEMENTS that do not place the plane on the south side!

Absolutely priceless.

The witnesses are who prove a north side approach.

That's why the pseudo-skeptics demanded the math to begin with.

Now they have their math so they try to go back to witnesses as a means to dismiss the math!

Too much. Funny how the irony eludes them.

Fact:
The official flight path has been proven impossible.

Fact:
It has been proven that the independent witnesses unanimously support a north side approach.

Fact:
This new presentation provides the MATH to prove a north side approach entirely possible.

After all the huffing and puffing of the war-crime-apologists for math, it is up to them now to prove the math incorrect or congratulate P4T on a job well done.

Otherwise they have no argument.

This much is clear.








[edit on 26-12-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 


Are you kidding me? Does it really matter?

If the light poles were not knocked down by "AA77", you would consider
this insignificant?

You do recall that your government claims the aircraft knocked down the
poles? How can anyone let such a significant piece of the story slide?
I just don't understand the loyalists.



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


Precisely.

They amount to nothing but out of context media quotes.

2nd hand accounts are not evidence.

1st hand accounts are evidence and that is ALL we cite for the north side approach.

In fact there isn't any proof that the witnesses he cited even EXIST!

We know for a fact that the confirmed witnesses who were really there and really exist unanimously support a north side approach.

Besides.....none of those out of context statements specifically place the plane south of the citgo anyway!


Regardless....this thread is about the MATH for the north side approach.

The math has been presented.

The onus is on them to now prove the math incorrect or concede like intellectually honest adults.



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
>>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
dreamin' buddy.

>>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
an issue.

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
structural limits.

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
them?

We're waiting for anyone to debate this in an open, live and broadcasted
forum.

Also feel free to visit the P4T site and debate with real pilots about your
false claims.

[edit on 26-12-2008 by turbofan]



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


You know what else is funny? They want to jack up the speeds and refer
to the FDR data which does NOT support the NoC!

If they want us to use the FDR speed, then they must consider the
altitude, heading, bank, etc.

It seems the just want to pick certain parameters of the FDR to make their
stories fit (IE: Speed) and disregard anything else (IE: Alt, heading, bank, etc.).

Oops, you can't have it both ways Reheat.

Wow, I 'd love to get you in a live radio debate.
Care to accept?



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pinch
 


Are you kidding me? Does it really matter?

If the light poles were not knocked down by "AA77", you would consider
this insignificant?

You do recall that your government claims the aircraft knocked down the
poles? How can anyone let such a significant piece of the story slide?
I just don't understand the loyalists.


What is it with these hypocrites? They have approved the Pilots For 9/11 Truth math now, and they want to pretend the light poles are not important? What about Reheat's math which now turns out to be a swamp of stinky hogwash? Two days ago they were staking their reputations on Reheat's ridiculous red herring math. Now what? These pseudoskeptics are the strangest people who ever lived. They move the goal posts every time they turn around.

So are these government loyalists sticking by the government OFFICIAL STORY or not sticking by the government OFFICIAL STORY? Sheesh.



[edit on 12/26/08 by SPreston]



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


It's excellent to see how not a single pseudo-skeptic has doubted the accuracy of his math!





Fact is, the only reason Captain Bob made yet another cartoon was to attempt to silence the members of the JREF forum. The folk there told him to dance, and like a puppet he danced.

Turbofan who is now a member here was laughed at at the JREF forum so committed a suicide by mod as predicted. HE even appealed to other forums to get professionals to agree with him. He failed there as well.

To suggest not a single skeptic here has not shown the math to be inaccurate does not mean it is or isnt. There is much being said and laughed at over at the JREF forum. You should know this because you guys still frequent the forum. Thus the only reason why math was attempted.



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
>>Turbofan who is now a member here was laughed at at the JREF forum
>>so committed a suicide by mod as predicted.

That is a false claim. I have screen shots of the PM history between
an immature member and myself. Basically, Bobert cried to a mod
when I told him off in private for posting BS in a tech thread.

The screen shots are in my hands, and you can all read how this "suicide
by mod" is just an attempt to spin. Point is, if Bobert was man enough
to handle his PM's instead of crying, I'd still be schooling the members
of JREF.

>> HE even appealed to other forums to get professionals to agree with
>> him. He failed there as well.

MacGyver is not an FDR expert (self admitted). He has refused to show how
a transient could get passed filter circuitry and initiate an erase process
as outlined by the Intel documentation which I supplied.

He failed. not me. I'm still waiting for his explanation and confrontation
about the Intel Strata Flash documentation which clearly kills his theory.

>>There is much being said and laughed at over at the JREF forum. You
>>should know this because you guys still frequent the forum. Thus the
>>only reason why math was attempted.

Incorrect. The math proves NoC and exposes the faceless no-names
that try to cover the OGCT. The tech note, math, and video will serve
as a tool to shunt futher lies coming from JREF. It will also serve as a
resource for researchers and those who wish to contact their local authorities,
news, government officials, etc.

Nobody on JREF has been able to prove the math wrong. They are just
crying and complaining because we proved NoC is aerodynamically possible.

They want us to use FDR speeds from a source which does not support
NoC.

They want us to show pull up force required for a building that is already
lower in elevation than the Annex.

They just keep crying behind their monitors while picking out useless info.

We can easily show that a pull up (ascent) is well within 757-200 limits
using several examples. The problem is, then they'll cry about the colour
of the grass...or the lack of brain cells they have.

It's all covered in the tech note in any case. We'll wait for them to scream
once we release that.



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

We can easily show that a pull up (ascent) is well within 757-200 limits
using several examples.


Then do it. It's part of the bogus claims made by CIT and the flock at PFT.


Also, Turbo, learn to use the quote tags. They are used the same way here as at the JREF forum.



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
They resort to micro-scrutinizing the eyewitness accounts as if none of them are allowed to be remotely incorrect even by a few feet.

This is yet another source of their blatant hypocrisy in this argument.

When it comes to the official path they are willing to accept that all the witnesses were wildly mistaken and witnessed the same thing that just so happens to be drastically different from the official alleged reality.

But when it comes to the north side now all of the sudden they require all the witnesses to be be mathematically accurate computers with brains locked on a network together despite their drastically different perspectives etc.

For the billionth time the witnesses only need to be GENERALLY correct for a deception to be proven.

North of Columbia Pike.

Over the Navy Annex.

North of CITGO.

They don't have to be mathematically accurate to be reconcilable with each other and it is unreasonable to expect them to be.

But the evidence proves the plane was on the north side and now the math proves this is perfectly possible for a CONVENTIONAL aircraft.

However the decoy jet used in this proven military black operation was most likely NOT a conventional aircraft anyway.

It would be silly to assume that it was.






[edit on 26-12-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

We can easily show that a pull up (ascent) is well within 757-200 limits
using several examples.


Then do it. It's part of the bogus claims made by CIT and the flock at PFT.


Also, Turbo, learn to use the quote tags. They are used the same way here as at the JREF forum.




Relay this message to Retreat and Farmer:





John Farmer and "Reheat"

Supply the points to consider for the pull-up that you feel are most suitable based on witness accounts. Support your reasons for these points.

We will take those points and calculate the force required to pull up over the Pentagon.

You must supply the data in order to remove all excuses for bias on our part. We will once again prove NoC is aero possible.



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I could be wrong, but part of the math was to include the plane being able to pull up and over the pentagon. This was not done in the most recent cartoon. However, Turbofan has stated that it is in written documentation.



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


You know where to find them... have one of your minions relay your messages. I am not your middle man.



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
I could be wrong, but part of the math was to include the plane being able to pull up and over the pentagon. This was not done in the most recent cartoon. However, Turbofan has stated that it is in written documentation.



You are wrong (as usual).

The pull -up math is insignificant. As you will see in the tech note based on
elevations, topography, etc.

We're waiting for "Reheat" and John Farmer to give us supported points
for the math so there will be ZERO excuses.

I'm not scared, but I have a feeling we'll be waiting a while for either
of them to give us reasonable data points based on witness statements.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join