Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 03:16 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.


You are shifting the argument.

Reheat and all of your war-crime-apologist buddies claimed that ANY north side approach is impossible.

We proved them completely wrong with math and physics.

However much the plane pulled-up is entirely irrelevant to this because if the plane was ANYWHERE on the north side as unanimously claimed by all the witnesses, and proven possible by math, it proves it did not hit the building.

So all other minor details such as exact bank angle, exact pull-up, exact radius etc. are irrelevant and have plenty of room for a significant margin of error and it is unreasonable to expect eyewitnesses to accurately report such things anyway.

The point is that you have NOTHING to prove the eyewitnesses all simultaneously hallucinated the plane on the north side.

You are resorting to micro-scrutinizing the witness statements to hide the absolute proven fact that it is entirely possible for a plane to fly north of the citgo.

You have no choice but to admit:

MATH AND PHYSICS PROVE A NORTH SIDE APPROACH IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE FOR A CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT.

Period.

So unless you can point out the errors in the math presented, you have no choice but to concede.




posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

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

Which is hypocritical.

If the alleged plane flew NOC, then it contradicts the official story. None of the official data about the plane can be relied upon, including speed.

Forcing math calculations that use the official speed is absurd, when there is no basis for the official speed being true or plausible. Did it fly at 500mph? 400mph? 300mph? No one can really know, if the alleged flight path was NOC, as all of the official data would be bunk.

It's perfectly valid to create legitimate NOC flight paths using lower speeds that contradict the official SOC flight path.



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
double post and self deleated

[edit on 26-12-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So unless you can point out the errors in the math presented, you have no choice but to concede.



Okay, here it is

Since there are, in fact errors (using your logic) you have no choice but to conceed there was no fly over.



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
1st hand accounts are evidence and that is ALL we cite for the north side approach.


INCLUDING the fact that your witnesses saw the aircraft hit the building.


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


AND 11 of them state they saw the aircraft hit the building.


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


So stick with the thread then, and reconcile how your "math and physics" help a 90-ton airliner traveling 700 feet per second make that turn around the NEX service station to end up "50 to less than 100 feet" above the South Parking , unseen by anyone in the parking lot of a building that houses 25,000 people with thye lone exception of one (1) Pentagon policeman.

I know you don't like to and can't answer my questions, Craig, without anything but hand-waving, but I'd appreciate it if you could this time.



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 



A link to a bunch of baboons posting youtube videos and making potty joke images does not refute the math or evidence presented.

You can't even address the math let alone refute it.

You look desperate and your posting has become manic in tone.

Just relax and come back with a coherent argument or concede that the plane flew on the north side.



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So unless you can point out the errors in the math presented, you have no choice but to concede.



Okay, here it is

Since there are, in fact errors (using your logic) you have no choice but to conceed there was no fly over.


There is nothing wrong with that formula. Reheat used it for this path,
but now it's junk because we proved NoC is aero possible? LMFAO!

Too funny buddy.

I've already challenged Reheat and JOhn Farmer to support points for
a pull-up scenario so I can school them on G loading and aero possibilty
for yet another path.

Waiting...still waiting for the data guys. You supply it ,, and there will
be no crying about numbers.



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

INCLUDING the fact that your witnesses saw the aircraft hit the building.


So what's it going to be? NoC and staged light poles then?



Pick a story and stick to it.


AND 11 of them state they saw the aircraft hit the building.


See above.


So stick with the thread then, and reconcile how your "math and physics" help a 90-ton airliner traveling 700 feet per second make that turn around the NEX service station to end up "50 to less than 100 feet" above the South Parking , unseen by anyone in the parking lot of a building that houses 25,000 people with thye lone exception of one (1) Pentagon policeman.


Who said it flew 700 fps on the North side? What's your source?

Please do tell...


I know you don't like to and can't answer my questions, Craig, without anything but hand-waving, but I'd appreciate it if you could this time.


Please answer mine without hand waving.



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   

posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Regardless....this thread is about the MATH for the north side approach.


posted by pinch
So stick with the thread then, and reconcile how your "math and physics" help a 90-ton airliner traveling 700 feet per second make that turn around the NEX service station to end up "50 to less than 100 feet" above the South Parking


Where do you get 700 fps from?

200 knots would be 370.4 kph (230.1 mph) (337.5 fps)
250 knots would be 463 kph (287.7 mph) (421.9 fps)
300 knots would be 555.6 kph (345.2 mph) (506.3 fps)

The official Flight 77 at 464.9 knots (861 kph) (535 mph) (784.6 fps) never happened. There is no need to use the speed of an aircraft which was not even in Virginia. Correct?



The fraudulent Flight 77 FDR never happened
The faked 84 RADES Data never happened
The C-130 coming up from the southwest shadowing Flight 77 never happened



posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
So stick with the thread then, and reconcile how your "math and physics" help a 90-ton airliner traveling 700 feet per second

pinch, if the alleged plane flew NOC, then there is no way to determine its true speed. You can't rely on official government speeds being correct, if the plane flew NOC, as it contradicts the official story.



unseen by anyone in the parking lot of a building that houses 25,000 people with thye lone exception of one (1) Pentagon policeman.

How many of those 25,000 people work outside the building, with an open, 360 degree view of the skyline?



posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Funny how these GL's forget that employees work INSIDE the Pentagon
building and are not playing with themselves outside all day.


Anyone who saw the incident was immediately silenced, or disrgarded
from MSM.

The government planted their own props and scripted witnesses
(IE: Lloyd England) and threw it all over TV land.

Reheat/Farmer: We're still waiting for the pull-up data to prove once again
a north approach is possible.



posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
So what's it going to be? NoC and staged light poles then?


So what's it going to be? Your witnesses claim that the aircraft flew north of the NEX Service Station or your witnesses claim that the aircraft hit the building?

You cannot speak for them. You cannot bring out this ridiculous "they deduced the impact!" BS. You cannot say that what they say with regards to the aircraft hitting the building is untrue and maintain them as credible witnesses.

If your 11 "NOC + impact" witnesses had to recant one of those two seemingly irreconcilable events, which one do you think they'd dump? You really think they'd all of a sudden say "Ok...I guess the aircraft didn't really hit the building"?


I know you don't like to and can't answer my questions, Craig, without anything but hand-waving, but I'd appreciate it if you could this time.



Please answer mine without hand waving.


Are you Craig's surrogate now? Did he send you out to speak for him?

This whole discussion is precisely why no court case will ever come from the CIT sleuths. Their witnesses have *absolutely* no credibility - "deduced the impact" will get them laughed out of court every time.



posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Again Craig, you asked for a rebuttal here it is. For my ADHD challenged breathern: the bottom line is PFT/CIT use a two dimensional equation for a three dimensional problem. It's that simple.

Notice the absolute, unmitigated hostility. CIT/PFT demand the math be discussed but when an attempt is made to do just that, they - themselves - actually derail their own thread not by answering criticism, but by using pejoratives like "manic", hypocrites", "liars", "baboons", etc.

I submit that when people are that emotionally attached to an outcome, they forgo any hope or possibility of the objectiveness needed for a real "investigation". CIT/PFT "drop their pants" so-to-speak when confronted with the obvious, glaring questions.

CIT is right. This post is about the math and how they came to their conclusions. What's intriguing is the length CIT/PFT will go to avoid discussing the very topic they claim to demand be spoken about.

At any rate, this is nothing more than the latest, sad commentary by a handful of people who are more obsessed with what another handful of posters on JREF think, than actually doing anything to bring so-called "perps" to justice.



posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


At any rate, this is nothing more than the latest, sad commentary by a handful of people who are more obsessed with what another handful of posters on JREF think, than actually doing anything to bring so-called "perps" to justice.


Slightly A.P.,

I couldn't have said it better myself. The JREF'ers are telling them to dance... and they are doing the box step so eloquently.

Spreston has been sent there as a sort of messenger and is getting laughed right out of the thread.



[edit on 27-12-2008 by CameronFox]



posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
This is a very large external quote. Please pardon this as I think (for those wondering why skeptics are focused on CIT's own witnesses) this post does a very good job explaining a core, central problem with CIT/PFTs latest You Tube video.



This thread is supposed to be about the math presented by PfT. However PfT first presented a web page with math for a flight path that they dragged up putting the aircraft flying over the VDOT tower. That math was shown to be in gross error by Reheat and Mackey. PfT then complained that this was bogus because the flight path does not line up with the FDR data. A clear case of setting a goal post then moving it when it is inconvienient.

In the latest case they were tasked with showing the math for a flight path that would satify the eyewitness accounts. This they have accomplished by ignoring some eyewitness accounts completely, to the point of denying some of them even exist(nothing exists unless the CiT 'confirmed' it) and grossly rewriting details given by others, most notably Morin's but also Boger, Paik, Brooks, Lagasse and Turcois.

The plane was described as being over Morin and parallel to Columbia Pike whereas the range of flight paths shown never has the plane in a position by which Morin would be describing it that way.

Boger states clearly that he saw it hit the Pentagon and he was a mere several dozen feet from the port wing of the aircraft.

Paik points to the direction the plane went which corressponds to where morin says he saw it coming from and not along the path he drew of the Navy Annex which he(Paik) could not see from his location. Paik also states he thought it had clipped the VDOT tower.

Brooks, Lagasse, and Turcois all describe a very low, very fast passage of the aircraft and many describe the sound as having the engines at high throttle.

So whereas the math they present does seem to be accurate for the path they used, the path does not corresspond to the path described by their witnesses. Turcois states that the plane was no longer visible to him because it was below his line of sight beyond the embankment/roadway, many many others describe 'tree top' level or only a few dozen feet agl as it passed them.

PfT then needs to show that the aircraft can not only perform the turn but while doing so also perform a pull up and over from an altitude of say 45 feet agl as it passes over the highway
AND most importantly,
the CiT must show how such a manouver can be hidden from the view of every single solitary onlooker to the degree that some actually believed that the aircraft not only hit the Pentagon but that it hit the lower floors.


The source if you would like to read the entire thread for yourself.

Prediction: another cut/paste job of the what I call the "pointers".

[edit on 27-12-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

[edit on 27-12-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Notice to all members!

Please discuss the topic in a respectful way and stop the name calling of even moderate names. This will only escalate and that leads to bad things like posts being removed and post bans, and we don't want that.

This is an interesting topic that I'm sure members are interested in, and nothing turns them off more than bickering. Of course that is the objective of some I'm sure, so be smart and don't fall into that trap. You will be more convincing if you can prove your side of the debate while maintaining civility.

Thank you.



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 04:08 AM
link   
This video is a prime example of Truther pseudo-science and the modern manufacturing process of snake oil.

Are the maths correct? Absolutely. Are the applications of theory correct? Absolutely.

However between the 6 and 7 minute mark it is mentioned that all variables are being pre-supposed because it is impossible to know the exact values involved. The values are pre-supposed based on "eye witness testimony".

If you look at the average plotting of the NoC path as posted ad naseum on these forums and in the video, you can see that the path that is mathematically analyzed in the video is actually to one extreme of the data. A more valid scientific approach to the problem would have been to use the mean (average) plot based on all of the accumulated testimony.

P4T/CIT have chosen a specific flight path that is on the extreme of the reports, not the average, in order to justify all other mathematical formula that follow in the film.

This is akin to disqualifying all testimony that places the plane any further north than the flight path presented in the film, or weighting some eye witness testimonies greater than others. This weighting or the reason as to why the extreme observed flight path were used were never offered, other than it was the flight path that most conveniently fit the mathematical "evidence" that P4T/CIT is attempting to convince us is valid and scientific.

Why? The application of the maths involved becomes more arguable and at some points contradictory to certain "credible" eye witnesses when applied to the mean flight path.

This video was constructed not as summation or recreation of the eye witness testimony, but rather as an attempt to find some form of mathematical "proof" as to support the as of yet unsupported eye witness testimony already presented.

This is exactly like trying to argue that a crime fits the evidence as opposed to the evidence dictating the nature of a crime.

The more I see from P4T/CIT, the more I can't tell if P4T/CIT are simply under-educated and ill-informed or simply outright disinformation to discredit 9/11 research in general by spamming enough information to bubble to the top of Google searches on the event.

EDIT: We'll also completely ignore that all altitude measurements are figments of P4T/CIT's imagination since no accurate altitude measurements were ever taken or presented in any graphical plot. This simply adds to the pile of questions as to the ignorance or disinformation of P4T/CIT.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by cogburn]



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by cogburn
This video is a prime example of Truther pseudo-science and the modern manufacturing process of snake oil.


Ouch. This one is gonna leave a mark.

Nice post.



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

Again Craig, you asked for a rebuttal here it is. For my ADHD challenged breathern: the bottom line is PFT/CIT use a two dimensional equation for a three dimensional problem. It's that simple.



Nonsense. You clearly haven't been following this discussion.

The war-crime-apologists used the SAME formula to suggest that ANY north side flight path is impossible.

P4T proved them wrong and proved how they LIED and demonstrated how it is entirely possible. That is the context of how this argument started so stop trying to twist it.

If you think a different formula should be used.....provide it.

Prove yourself. You can't even verbalize your arguments and are merely relying on the frantic nonsensical posting from the war-crime-apologists.

So now that we have proven that it's entirely possible for a plane to fly north of the citgo and have provided accurate math to do so......are you trying to claim that it's impossible for the plane to pull up?

Guess what?

It's not.

That will be addressed in the tech paper but this continuous goal post moving is so predictable.



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
This is a very large external quote. Please pardon this as I think (for those wondering why skeptics are focused on CIT's own witnesses) this post does a very good job explaining a core, central problem with CIT/PFTs latest You Tube video.




So whereas the math they present does seem to be accurate for the path they used, the path does not corresspond to the path described by their witnesses. Turcois states that the plane was no longer visible to him because it was below his line of sight beyond the embankment/roadway, many many others describe 'tree top' level or only a few dozen feet agl as it passed them.






This is absolutely RICH!

They agree the math is accurate so they completely switch the argument!

1. Turcios does NOT say that which is why the war-crime-apologist liar you cited did not bother to quote Turcios.

2. Now that the math has been presented the liars resort to micro-scrutinizing the same witnesses they believe all completely hallucinated the plane in a completely different place from reality!

The irony is sooooo thick you could cut it with a knife.

So now they believe all the little details from Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios?

Ok great!

Then the plane was on the north side!

It's that simple.

We state that it is unreasonable to expect witnesses to mathematically accurate about any claims.

We state that it is the GENERAL claim that the plane was NoC that proves a deception. We don't rely on any single witness for any specific claim because we understand how witnesses are not computers and are quite fallible.

The war-crime-apologists reply by saying it is physically impossible for a plane to fly ANYWHERE NoC.

We prove them wrong and they go right back to the witnesses to micro-scrutinize specific little details (without even quoting them) while being forced to simultaneously suggest they all hallucinated the plane to begin with!

Think about the idiocy in this logic.

It's foolish and it simply demonstrates an absolute collapse of reason.

They've lost it and you are right behind them as you dutifully post their desperate illogical rants.





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join