Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   

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


*SNIP*

I will show you how YOU ARE the one using faulty logic sprinkled with venom to make completely irrelevant and of course ENTIRELY incorrect points.




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


Ah! Ok great! Thanks for the vote of confidence! Did you check the maths yourself?

I have a feeling you didn't.



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".


Quite correct.

That is why I have always said the demands for "math" by the *SNIP* have been unreasonable to begin with.

Witnesses are not computers and they are NEVER mathematically accurate.

We only rely on them for the extremely general claim that the plane was NoC.

Nothing mathematical about that.



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.


Wow!

You must have watched a different presentation! They did not analyze only 1 flight path which completely destroys your entire argument here.

Plus they absolutely DID take the average! They anticipated this absurd argument and provided math for MULTIPLE paths!

Are you sure you watched it?

They did everything possible to account for all of their (and apparently your) excuses.

They moved the flyover point south, direct and north of the "impact hole"

They used e^n's path and broke it down.

They used averages of witness drawn paths.

They showed bank angles corresponding to witness accounts, and those above and below compatible statements.

They used extreme paths, they used conservative paths.

They used extreme speeds and conservative speeds.

They exposed Reheat's incorrect and dishonest flight radii.

And furthermore they even provided the math for a path that accounts for flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts Jr in the south parking lot that has the plane over the ANC parking lot which is as far north as ANY of them placed it.


full image

This proves you did not even bother to watch the entire presentation and that your ridiculous response is way out of line and inappropriate.

This is EXACTLY how you would argue things the first time you came around these parts with a bunch of illogical rants and uneducated irrelevant arguments.

There isn't anything more that you could possibly want out of this presentation that wasn't already included.

Ignoring what was presented or stopping after the first 7 minutes to compose an out of line vitriolic response based on a FALLACY makes you look just as ridiculous as you did when you tried to argue a NoC impact!


Why don't YOU provide the flight path and math if you think the multiple examples covering all scenarios provided by P4T aren't fair?




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.



Since of course once again I have just shown the entire premise of your post to be based on a blatant false claim the rest of your obviously pent-up/seething rant looks pretty foolish.

Look at the example in the image above.

It came from the presentation.

You are either lying or you couldn't sit through all 19 minutes for whatever reason.




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.


No it wasn't.


It was created to prove how the lies of the war-crime-apologists do not prove the witnesses were all simultaneously hallucinating the plane on the north side.

Math is not necessary to validate eyewitness accounts.

Intellectually honest people understand this is achieved via the scientific method of corroboration and of course everyone knows that it has been unanimously validated with this approach.

*SNIP*


Mod edit: Off topic personal attacks removed. Read my u2u for more info.

[edit on 12/28/2008 by Hal9000]




posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Don't worry about convincing me; convince a jury. After all, the goal is bringing those responsible for the mass murder of over three thousand innocents to justice, right?

I only ask because it appears your focus is on snazzy editing, You Tube videos, ATS and most importantly JREF forum posters.

Again, if this about "the truth" why the absolute obsession with demanding approval from your detractors? Who cares what the handful of people paying attention think? If the no-plane "movement" is growing as 9-11 CT'ers like to claim, why not move beyond simple internet forum posting boards?



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
For a little more explanation, in very simple terms, please click here to see where the "fly-over" aircraft should be, and isn't.


Much hand waving will ensue.



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


They have been demanding math for many many months and I have ignored them because I do not care and their demands were irrelevant.

When P4T announced they were working on this piece I STILL said I don't approve of the argument because it is irrelevant.

Now that P4T has provided the math proving how their demands were irrelevant you are going to get on ME for it?

Spare me the lame arguments puh-lease.

I work hard every day of my life obtaining and presenting independent verifiable evidence.

You work hard every day of your life trying to argue with me.

I never said that CIT alone would be able to expose the entire world wide psychological deception nor should such a thing be solely our burden.

Plus you don't KNOW what we have done or will continue to do to obtain justice beyond compiling this MASSIVE body of evidence proving a deception so you have no basis to place judgment on us about this.

In fact if you are willing to level criticism in this regard at all it can only be because you understand how the evidence has merit.

Plus you should also understand how this is no regular crime.

The fact that the media and authorities are reluctant to even entertain evidence of a world wide psychological war crime that has permanently altered global politics and world history implicating the very people that employ them shouldn't be surprising.

We aren't fooling ourselves here and we don't think a crime of this nature can easily be exposed by a couple of citizen investigators with no money.

But we'll keep trying!

Thanks for your concern and your support!



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
So, there you have it. CIT and PFT claim to have it all solved.

Craig, what's next? Your puppeteers at JREF are not convinced at all. But do you care? When is CIT taking their evidence to the courts? You have been asked this over and over. Yet, you continue to flood internet forums with your videos and PFt cartoons. The one media outlet that offered you a chance made you look like a couple of, well you know. What will you do now? Go back on the Howard Stern wrap up show? Plaster your evidence on more internet radio stations?

Time to buck up Ranke. Grab your evidence and save us all from the evil government. Or will you wait for another challenge from a handful of skeptics at JREF and dance the dance they want you to?



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Again, a large external quote that I think sums up CIT's "theory". And this makes sense to people? This is reasonable or even remotely plausible?




According to the Citzen Investigation Team, the Government or whomever wanted to fool the world into thinking American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, along a certain heading that took it through several light poles and low over the freeway just prior to impact.

To do this, They executed the following:

* They flew an aircraft over the Pentagon
* The aircraft traveled along a different heading entirely, on the opposite side of a visible landmark (viz. the Citgo station)
* The aircraft passed nowhere near the light poles in question
* The light poles were sabotaged anyway, in some completely different fashion than aircraft impact
* One light pole was staged to penetrate the windshield of a car, in traffic, again despite the actual aircraft not passing anywhere near overhead
* A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by
* The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual
* The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77
* A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft

And, finally,

* The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.


Source



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
So did anyone finally figure out the true resolution in frames per second of the security cameras? Some claim they ran at at least 15 frames per second, thus indicating that the pentagon picked only very selective stills from the camera footage, and then re-edited the stills into the video they released. But I seem to recall someone else saying that they indeed only captured 1 frame or less per second, which is why they may not have captured the "plane" at all, other than what was shown.

I wouldn't mind getting some confirmation either way on this. But it still begs the question of the camera footage obtained from the roof cameras, and why they won't release any of that.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


I work hard every day of my life obtaining and presenting independent verifiable evidence.

You work hard every day of your life trying to argue with me.

I never said that CIT alone would be able to expose the entire world wide psychological deception nor should such a thing be solely our burden.

Plus you don't KNOW what we have done or will continue to do to obtain justice beyond compiling this MASSIVE body of evidence proving a deception so you have no basis to place judgment on us about this.

In fact if you are willing to level criticism in this regard at all it can only be because you understand how the evidence has merit.

Plus you should also understand how this is no regular crime.

The fact that the media and authorities are reluctant to even entertain evidence of a world wide psychological war crime that has permanently altered global politics and world history implicating the very people that employ them shouldn't be surprising.

We aren't fooling ourselves here and we don't think a crime of this nature can easily be exposed by a couple of citizen investigators with no money.



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Off topic argument from incredulity.

Faulty logic does not refute scientifically validated evidence.



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican


But it still begs the question of the camera footage obtained from the roof cameras, and why they won't release any of that.



To be honest we are WAY past that and of course we already know why they won't release them.

But there is strong evidence PROVING manipulation of multiple data sets released after the event so because of this clear precedent we have no choice but to preemptively reject any and all data that has been controlled and provided for solely by the suspect.

CIT does not call for the release of any government controlled information due to the conclusive independent verifiable evidence that already exists proving a deception.

In fact we don't even call for a new investigation.

We unequivocally state the that there is enough evidence already that we should be calling for grand juries and/or congressional hearings with subpoena power for the explicit purpose of figuring out exactly who to indict as well as for an indefinite and immediate suspension of the "war on terror".

A new "investigation" will only lead to a new cover-up.



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by CameronFox
 


I work hard every day of my life obtaining and presenting independent verifiable evidence.


Well, I suggest you take a break from chasing your fantasy. You are wasting your life. Don't you have a girlfriend that misses you?



You work hard every day of your life trying to argue with me.


This is not hard, nor is it work to me. This is a form of entertainment. You, Aldo, and Rob entertain me.


I never said that CIT alone would be able to expose the entire world wide psychological deception nor should such a thing be solely our burden.


No, you never did, but think about it craig... you ARE all alone in this. Besides a small hand full of conspiracy theorists.... no one is listening to you.


Plus you don't KNOW what we have done or will continue to do to obtain justice beyond compiling this MASSIVE body of evidence proving a deception so you have no basis to place judgment on us about this.


As I am not a stalker, I would not have any way of knowing your daily activity's. Frankly, I really don't care. If you were to walk up to me and I were a media person, I would guarantee you that you would be escorted out of my office with staff member from Belveue waiting for you.


In fact if you are willing to level criticism in this regard at all it can only be because you understand how the evidence has merit.


Quite the opposite actually.


Plus you should also understand how this is no regular crime.


I agree with you. 911 was the worst terrorist attack on American soil. You feel sorry for Osama Bin Laden for taking the blame. Who is the "apologist" here?


The fact that the media and authorities are reluctant to even entertain evidence of a world wide psychological war crime that has permanently altered global politics and world history implicating the very people that employ them shouldn't be surprising.


"World Wide Psychological War Crime".... Wow Craig.


We aren't fooling ourselves here and we don't think a crime of this nature can easily be exposed by a couple of citizen investigators with no money.


Try putting more hours in at your real job...save you money...and donate it to your favorite charity. You are wasting your life.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by CameronFox]



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

But there is strong evidence PROVING manipulation of multiple data sets released after the event so because of this clear precedent we have no choice but to preemptively reject any and all data that has been controlled and provided for solely by the suspect.


As always, you reject anything and everything that refutes your fairy tale.


CIT does not call for the release of any government controlled information due to the conclusive independent verifiable evidence that already exists proving a deception.


Once again, you don't want anything released that will prove the flyover theory bunk.
For example:
1. Security camera: Proved there was not a flyover
2. Doubletree Video: Proved there was not a flyover


In fact we don't even call for a new investigation.


I wonder why???


We unequivocally state the that there is enough evidence already that we should be calling for grand juries and/or congressional hearings with subpoena power for the explicit purpose of figuring out exactly who to indict as well as for an indefinite and immediate suspension of the "war on terror".


Although I disagree with the so called war on terror, the war in Afghanistan is just. (managed improperly)

You, Aldo, and a few others are the only ones that feel there is any merit to constitute a grand jury or congressional hearing regarding a flyover at the Pentagon..



A new "investigation" will only lead to a new cover-up


Or, show you what you have been refusing to see for years. A plane hit the Pentagon!



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
For all these people talking trash about the video and flight paths:

I challenge you (as I did "Reheat" and John Farmer) to supply me with
data points for a path that you feel is reasonable based on witness statements
and drawn flight paths.

1. Supply the lat/lon points down to 5 decimal places for the arc length and
depth.

2. Show us where you want the pull-up to take place using a scale diagram
of the flight path from a topical AND profile view.

3. Give us the plane's altitude (ASL) , tree heights, Annex roof height (ASL)

We'll use YOUR values so they're no crying and complaining to once again
prove that a north flight path is possible.

We've been asking Farmer and "Reheat" for these data points for a few
days, but they have not done so and continue to cry while singling out
460 knots as they only speed presented in the video.

Again, please note:

If you want to use FDR parameters such as speed to support your case,
you must also use the altitude, pitch, etc.

You cannot just pick out one parameter and reject the rest as certain
clueless debaters have done.

Good luck



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
CIT does not call for the release of any government controlled information due to the conclusive independent verifiable evidence that...


all your witnesses claim the aircraft hit the Pentagon.

Thanks for the hard work, Craig.



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
all your witnesses claim the aircraft hit the Pentagon.
Thanks for the hard work, Craig.

All your witnesses claim the aircraft flew NOC, which contradicts the official story.

Thanks for the hard work, Craig.



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
But there is strong evidence PROVING manipulation of multiple data sets released after the event so because of this clear precedent we have no choice but to preemptively reject any and all data that has been controlled and provided for solely by the suspect.


Well, that's certainly one approach. But with each new gov falsehood that is debunked by excellent work like your Pentacon, we're one step closer to figuring out who those people are.


CIT does not call for the release of any government controlled information due to the conclusive independent verifiable evidence that already exists proving a deception.

In fact we don't even call for a new investigation.


Well, if we had one, I'd feel totally comfortable with you leading the whole enchilada.
And take Alex Jones and his bullhorn with you just for good measure!



We unequivocally state the that there is enough evidence already that we should be calling for grand juries and/or congressional hearings with subpoena power for the explicit purpose of figuring out exactly who to indict as well as for an indefinite and immediate suspension of the "war on terror".


Citizens Grand Juries have tried to assemble before, but people just keep losing interest due to differences of opinion on what exactly all this means. Here is just one example:

profile.myspace.com...


A new "investigation" will only lead to a new cover-up.


Maybe, but that depends on who's doing it. If there was one, you still have the problem of all that evidence being destroyed, no longer there, or being tampered with.

I'd like to see a petition for redress of grievances built around CIT's stuff. And more built around others info too, like P4T. A mounting legal case could be building when the petitions are continually ignored. At a minimum an open ended database of those should be assembled. Maybe one built around the Pentacon investigation could be an anchor point, because to me, it makes the hardest hitting, most rock solid argument that at a minimum the FDR data and simulation was false. And I loved that you used the Pentagon police! That was just too cool, man. And I bet it would sway an impartial jury to at least 60% if not 90 or more.

But obviously there are still quite a few that profusely disagree with you in just about everything you do. Here we do have the benefit of the ignore button.



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Right on man thanks a lot for your support and vote of confidence.

Honest intellectuals like you can tell we aren't fooling around.

I only answer these debunker wannabes because I know I can and because it keeps the information in people's faces.

They're at least good for one thing!



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


*post removed by me*

I had a whole response here until I realized that there is little point in contributing anything further to this thread.

By posting in the first place I broke my rule about arguing with fanatics.


[edit on 29-12-2008 by cogburn]



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig, before you attempt to leverage argumentative fallacies with me, you need to understand their application.

My argument is not based on personal belief this is your theory:



According to the Citzen Investigation Team, the Government or whomever wanted to fool the world into thinking American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, along a certain heading that took it through several light poles and low over the freeway just prior to impact.

To do this, They executed the following:

* They flew an aircraft over the Pentagon
* The aircraft traveled along a different heading entirely, on the opposite side of a visible landmark (viz. the Citgo station)
* The aircraft passed nowhere near the light poles in question
* The light poles were sabotaged anyway, in some completely different fashion than aircraft impact
* One light pole was staged to penetrate the windshield of a car, in traffic, again despite the actual aircraft not passing anywhere near overhead
* A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by
* The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual
* The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77
* A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft

And, finally,

* The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.




[edit on 29-12-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
All your witnesses claim the aircraft flew NOC, which contradicts the official story.
Thanks for the hard work, Craig.


And 12 out of 13 insist the plane hit the pentagon. Thank for reminding everyone of this, again.

So, again, we have witnesses that are used to 'prove' FLT 77 flew over the pentagon based off of their recollections of flight paths, years after the fact, and at the same time dismiss their conclusions based on those flight paths. That is, all but one believe the plane to have hit the building.

CIT is asked to prove, based on their own witness accounts' that the proposed flight path is even aerodynamically possible. After some time PFT/CIT releases their first attempt at math and in short order glaring flaws are discovered (namely multi-tens of "G" maneuvers not possible by the aircraft - let alone any aircraft - in question). The problem? It's flat-out not possible for any aircraft to fly even a median flight path based off of their own witnesses. PFT/CIT eventually admits the mistake in May of this year. That's seven months ago.

Why the large delay in correcting what should be a simple math problem? This is my opinion only: they were deciding how to make the math fit their story, plain and simple. So what we have is a goal-post shifting of the impact point, a path not indicative of their own witnesses, ignoring some witnesses testimony, very artful interpretation of what others said, acting as though any eye-witness not personally interviewed by CIT as "invalid" and a lot of hand-waving.

Again, don't take my word for it. Unfortunately for CIT, it's all out there for anyone to self-investigate.

Just one more thing: CIT/PFT make a big ado out of Mr. Farmer's formerly antagonistic relationship with skeptics (specifically JREF posters) and now his new-found position of respect within that community. The meat of the nut: Mr. Farmer made some very bad (as in factual) claims and received a lot of criticism. He has since reevaluated those claims, made corrections and is recognized as a truly honest person. See, it's not the claim, it's the correctness of the claim. The facts. He remains a 9-11 CT'er. However, he wont entertain flights of fancy as fact, hand waving, shoddy math and preposterous, ludicrous notions of 'no plane' nonsense. And that, my friends, is why CIT/PFT hate him so.


So, in conclusion, we are at a crossroads. Skeptics,like me, have said our peace. In my opinion, any further discussion will be nothing more than "neener-neener" bickering.

Choose to believe whatever you choose to. All the information is out there for your perusal. Don't take my word for it. Don't take CIT/PFTs word for it.

[edit on 29-12-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join