It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Prove or disprove a Pentagon fly-over.

page: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on May, 28 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


That little graphic just displayed by SPreston shows:

* A turn radius of 2313.7'

* A bank angle of 82.6 Degrees

* A G force of 7.8 G's

This is at the speed supported by the FDR. Don't you think the wings would fold?





You just make up your nonsense right out of the blue don't you Reheat? Creating specious nonsense even though you know real living verified eyewitnesses have PROVEN that the aircraft could not possibly have been flying at 460 knots and that it flew Over the Naval Annex?

Bluffing your way along as your precious 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY self-destructs right before your eyes regardless your frantic dishonest efforts to salvage it.



That flight path almost perfectly matches the new FAA approved flight path doesn't it? Are you going to now pompously inform us that the Federal Aviation Authority does not know how to model an aircraft flight path? Are you going to snidely brag that you know so much more than the untrained people at the FAA who could not possibly have your extensive training nor your years and years of combat flight experience?

FAA flight path


1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive

But the FAA still got the speed wrong didn't they Reheat? Apparently they are unwilling to knock heads with your 9-11 perps and admit that the real aircraft was flying that flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo much much slower than the official disproven aircraft, and that the real living eyewitnesses to the real NOC flight were correct in their estimation that the real aircraft was flying much much slower and banking to the right high above the light poles in its path and high above the Pentagon 1st floor which it could not possibly have hit. The FAA just has the aircraft go poof high above the light poles and before it reaches the Pentagon roof don't they Reheat?

Perhaps the FAA did not want Tricky Dick Cheney coming after them with a hunting weapon.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I just want to know why the GL's LOVE to use the FDR speed for the
North Approach?

Nonsense.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by rhunter
 


I see, since you can't produce any data the FAA/NORAD might have used for the animation you must logically agree that it is not an FAA endorsed product. Thank-you for participating.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


LabTop, might I suggest that you use radar data to calculate a speed. You do know it's available, don't you?

Trying to calculate an aircraft's speed based on radio calls is akin to trying to measure the speed of light with an abacus!


You really and truly need to find some other hobby.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Well, I can assure you I'm not going to post the email without permission. And I don't intend to get permission.

While we're at it, I can't seem to find any data this "flight path" is based on. Perhaps you would be kind and help me as I'm busy today and don't have the time to look for it. Did someone just pull it out of their posterior?

That would solve everything, wouldn't it?



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


SPreston, your arguments are so convincing that I've really tried to help you out here. I mean I'd really like to support your overwhelming and solid evidence that the aircraft was flying slower, but I can't seem to find a good solution.

You see, if the aircraft was traveling at 250 KIAS (which is pretty darn slow) it STALLS in a bank angle of 67.5 degrees at 2.6 G's.

Since I know you can't calculate this yourself, perhaps you could get one of the experts at pffft to help you.

Oh, BTW, before I forget, what witness described these SHOW STOPPING BANK ANGLES again?

I know you can do it, so, pali pali and post the information. You have most of the day as I'm busy today, but I'll check back later to be educated on your expertise.....

Thanks

ETA: You're not doing very well at this, so I expect better results from you that you've demonstrated in the past.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by Reheat]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
You know "Mr. Reheat-" 3 more posts in a row and you win a seekrit-special prize!

I heard that back in WW2, they used to "strafe" in the South Pacific, but apparently missiles are "smarter" than .50 BMG rounds... go figure... Maybe 20mm and 30mm cannon are "smarter" still...

Now going back to the Pentagon- do you have any witnesses (and/or hopefully photos and/or video) of that lightpole "in" Lloyde's cab for us, so that we can either establish or refute that part of the "story?" Then we could move on to a whether/not discussion of this "fly over" from the OP.

Oh, you AREN'T going to tell me that the "official" flight path is "off-topic" on this hypothetical "fly over" business are you now, "Mr. Reheat?"

Proposition A: A Boeing 757-200 series that was hijacked by a group of Muslim extremists flew into column 14 (per ASCE/FEMA) into the west face of the Pentagon at or about the first floor ceiling level.

Proposition B: There was a HUGE explosion/fireball at the Pentagon, many/all witnesses were confused due to the "battle zone" effect of what happened there in close proximity, and the corporate Media filled in the American Public "brain" with "all the details."

Proposition C: something else happened.

BTW, in the interests of efficiency, I am thinking of "simplifying" my further/future communications with "Mr. Reheat" into TRUE/FALSE, YES/NO questions. Maybe I should number then too...



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter
Now going back to the Pentagon- do you have any witnesses (and/or hopefully photos and/or video) of that lightpole "in" Lloyde's cab for us, so that we can either establish or refute that part of the "story?" Then we could move on to a whether/not discussion of this "fly over" from the OP.


Oh, I did not know your were the director of how this thread progresses. When did that happen? I'm sure you're highly qualified for that position.

Since you want to change the subject matter currently under discussion regarding the animation, am I to presume that you've conceded it has no basis in reality? Surely, one issue at a time is better and we should settle that before moving on. No?

Ok, then, I'll cooperate this time, since you don't seem to have anything else to say about the animation and seem to be willing to concede that it's being used to show a deceptive flight path......

Yes, I understand how Lloyde and his taxi cab are important to you. I don't know much about it, other than what he has said and while there were witnesses, as far as I know they have not been discovered following the event. I know of no photos other than the ones which show the pole on the ground along with the taxi cab's smashed windshield with a lot of broken glass. leaves, and twigs lying around. Do you know of any photos of anyone staging this? How did all of that happen? If you need help you might refer back to R. Mackey's comments about it.......

Thanks....



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Well, I can assure you I'm not going to post the email without permission. And I don't intend to get permission.

Reheat admits that he can not support his claim that the animation was 'artistic license'. Thanks for the admission, Reheat.



While we're at it, I can't seem to find any data this "flight path" is based on.

Keep track of who you're trying to argue with, Reheat. I never claimed any flight path. Get with the program, please.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
So- "Mr. ["expert"] Reheat"- did you select Proposition A, B, or C above?

Perhaps you can tell us of your "flyover"[or not] FAA RADAR experience where/when you "are sure" about exactly what happened on 9/11 sometime soon...



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Reheat
Well, I can assure you I'm not going to post the email without permission. And I don't intend to get permission.

Reheat admits that he can not support his claim that the animation was 'artistic license'. Thanks for the admission, Reheat.


You could easily prove me wrong by finding data to support the animation.


Originally posted by Reheat
While we're at it, I can't seem to find any data this "flight path" is based on.



Originally posted by tezzajw
Keep track of who you're trying to argue with, Reheat. I never claimed any flight path. Get with the program, please.


Why are you commenting on this subject in the thread, then?


Let's just review this for a minute and most rational people will see how utterly stupid it really is.

As a result of a FOIA and additional legal action the FAA released a bunch of information in it's possession. This include a host of radar data along with this little animation gem being exploited by delusional frauds. NONE of the radar data shows the flight path being illustrated by the animation.

I've seen no one here post or examine any of the radar data, but this animation has been posted several times and is being used in this thread in an attempt to prove a flyover.

Why is it that the animation is trusted as VALID, yet the radar is NOT? Both were released by the same Agency. The proper name for this is called confirmation bias. Among other things it's also called "Cherry Picking" evidence and the cherry pickers are not necessarily illegal aliens picking fruit, they are right here in this thread.

Is it any wonder Government Agencies don't release more information? Everything that's released is either "mocked" as fake or manipulated or exploited to support delusions.

Welcome to "truther" world, where it is not and never was about the truth at all.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
You could easily prove me wrong by finding data to support the animation.

Reheat is using a logical fallacy to avoid supporting his claim that the animation is 'artistic license'.

I haven't claimed anything about the animation, Reheat. You have.


Let's just review this for a minute and most rational people will see how utterly stupid it really is...

The rest of Reheat's rant avoids supporting his claim that the animation was based on 'artistic license'.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
"Mr. Reheat" needs to watch, "The North Flight Path" which destroys his
nonsense. It is produced and reviewed by professionals with real names
and certifications/degrees as opposed to a child behind a keyboard.

Here's a quick look; be sure to watch the entire presentation:

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter

Originally posted by Reheat
I'm waiting for YOU to post the radar data that you contend supports the animation. You just said it was released, so post it. Your link is broken now, but I looked at it yesterday and it DOES NOT include radar data, it's merely a listing of what was released.
...
There is no correlation between any radar data and the animation, period. Why do you need someone to interpret it for you, anyway? Not capable yourself? I assure you that all of the radar you've mentioned does exist, yet you won't/can't post it to prove your assertions. THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES!


To hopefully shorten an already long (and growing) thread (with all these multiple posts made by some), rather than I guess which post "Mr. Reheat" means, perhaps "Mr. Reheat" can quote where I ever stated "the radar data supports the animation" or even "fly over" specifically. I don't remember doing that. I have noticed that many "Mr. Reheat" posts seem to be based upon implications and assumptions and ...


Critical Thinking mini-lesson 12

false implication

The fallacy of false implication occurs when a statement, which may be clear and even true, implies that something else is true or false when it isn't. For example, if I write in my 30-day evaluation log of an employee that on May 15th she was on time for work, someone reading the log might infer that this was unusual and that usually the employee did not arrive on time. Perhaps she is always on time but by indicating her promptness just once I can give the false impression that she is usually late for work.


False implication fallacy

Mr. Reheat also appears to have a propensity for ALL CAPS, boldface, large text, and sometimes all of the above when he is presumably upset:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm not going to do the BIG & BOLD thing here (or say "FAILED")- I don't crave attention like some apparently do- but just to add in context and for clarification:


Originally posted by rhunter
My point was that FAA radar (edit: data) was simultaneously released with that FAA animation as part of the same FOIA package. Perhaps Mr. Reheat should concentrate more on what is stated outright rather than "implications." Guessing games are something of a losing proposition, I have found so far.

There may or may not be a correlation- it remains to be seen/proven, and I haven't seen any documentation either way (but I have been watching since Sept./Oct. 2008 on this FAA release though). I have been waiting for a comprehensive review/write-up of that FAA data, but I haven't seen one anywhere.


"Mr. Reheat" has apparently assumed all kinds of things about what I know or do not. I'm quite confused as to what he bases any of these assumptions upon. I would like to see "Mr. Reheat" present some supporting documentation for his assumptions sometime soon or "cease and desist." His triple posts (or more on multiple threads apparently) are taking a lot of time for the ATS readers, I'm sure. WOW!


Originally posted by Reheat
No, it's not off-topic. People are using the animation in an attempt to prove a flight path supporting a fly-over. You contend that it's supported by something, maybe, and I'll telling you it's not. The animation is simply "artistic license" used by a software engineer to demonstrate software capability. You claim the animation is supported, so the burden of proof is on you and you have FAILED, so far.
...
Funny stuff!!!!! You expect me to read through a thread by a bunch of know nothings with an agenda? Thank again! There is no falsification of any FAA radar data and the 84th Rades data is correct and valid......

Although I do not expect you to do any particular thing (as you appear to already have "all of" the "answers"), here you go, Mr. Reheat- links to those FAA RADAR data files previously distributed by a "John Farmer:"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I didn't have the original files, but I was able to get someone to upload those to a server (with the very-thin documentation provided IMO, as I understand the communications loop so far).


Now all ATS members- we need to be very careful not to go "off-topic" here- "weedwhacker" and "Mr. Reheat" are very sensitive about this!


Originally posted by weedwhacker
"EVERY little bit of data helps....and, it's important that each bit isn't tainted by nonsense.....

Pure, true data, not 'innuendo' nor 'personal opinion' that has been colored by others' should be considered as "facts"....but, all too often, this happens to be the case."


www.abovetopsecret.com...

This means that (weedwhacker and) I don't want to see any more unsupported opinions on this thread- or some people might get upset, and for Pete's sake- no more nonsense talk about Fred Astaire and Madonna! Since Reheat has already given me warnings/ultimatums on other threads here about "on topic" off topic," and "wrong thread," I think he might actually believe himself to be part of the Moderating staff here at ATS. Shhhh- we don't want to spoil his fun!
He has a wonderful imagination, I have noticed so far, BTW.


Originally posted by Reheat
I see, since you can't produce any data the FAA/NORAD might have used for the animation you must logically agree that it is not an FAA endorsed product. Thank-you for participating.


Thank you for "paying attention," "Mr. Reheat"


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Oh, I did not know your were the director of how this thread progresses. When did that happen? I'm sure you're highly qualified for that position.

Please quote where I stated that I was "director of how this thread progresses," "Mr. Reheat."



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Reheat
You could easily prove me wrong by finding data to support the animation.

Reheat is using a logical fallacy to avoid supporting his claim that the animation is 'artistic license'.


And what logical fallacy is that? If you're speaking of the Burden of Proof fallacy, I think you'll notice that the animation is being used (with added notations not in the original) as an FAA/NORAD endorsed flight path. There is NO PROOF of either FAA or NORAD endorsement. Therefore, the original Burden of Proof lies with the poster who posted it and those who support it.

If verifiable proof of the data used to arrive at the flight path is presented, that's proof. There has been none! Therefore, the Burden of Proof rests with the original poster and YOU are committing the Logical Fallacy of shifting the Burden of Proof, not me.

Another point to make is that the animation shows the aircraft impacting the Pentagon. Therefore, the animation DOES NOT support a flyover. In addition, it is an implausible flight path for a transport category aircraft due to bank and G limits. Not a single witness has claimed to have seen this type of show stopping bank angle. Furthermore, the 911 Commission knew about this animation, where it originated, and who made it, so it is no revelation and it's no smoking gun discovered by Internet sleuths.

If the above is not enough, the NTSB is the ONLY Government Agency who investigated the flight path. Neither the FAA or NORAD would have a clue about the final flight path because the aircraft was below radar coverage.

You can ask a thousand times and I will not violate the privacy of the person who sent a private email by posting it on a public forum. After all, it's only a cheap Internet bickering point and the email would immediately be labeled as fake anyway. I have posted the name of the Company who made it and their contact information is posted and readily available. Remember, it needs to be verifiable proof.

BTW, you're not doing very well at this, are you new or is there another excuse?



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I am referring to to math -- shouldn't be too difficult -- angle of bank versus airspeed equals radius of turn. EVERYONE should know this already.

Reference: A small airplane, at about 120 knots airspeed...a 30 degree angle of bank, is close to a 'Standard Rate' turn of about 3 degrees per second.

Modern jets, in normal OPS, limited to 25 degrees of bank, and at higher airspeeds, are generally assumed to complete a "half-standard" rate-of-turn, by ATC. Thus, the radius of the turn is accounted for, by Controllers.

Doesn't matter WHO is flying a B757 or B767....the math is the math.

Here you go, weedwhacker, courtesy of ATS's own "turbofan"- call it a late Christmas present:

The North Approach, Technical Supplement to "9/11: The North Flight Path"
pilotsfor911truth.org...

NoC Tech Paper

Here is an online bank angle calculator for you too:
www.csgnetwork.com...

eta:

Credentials are included at the request of the host, however those credentials make no difference in the content of the paper or the numbers calculated. Anyone with the ability to accomplish aerodynamic math could do the same, be they a janitor, a brain surgeon or a nuclear scientist.


"Debunking"

[edit on 29-5-2009 by rhunter]

[edit on 29-5-2009 by rhunter]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Therefore, the Burden of Proof rests with the original poster and YOU are committing the Logical Fallacy of shifting the Burden of Proof, not me.

Reheat, how many more times are you going to willingly destroy logic?

You made a claim that the animation was 'artistic license'. The burden of proof is upon you to support that claim.

Asking me to disprove your claim is a logical fallacy.

You should take the same advice that I gave to jthomas and pinch and sign up for a course in logic. You need it.



You can ask a thousand times and I will not violate the privacy of the person who sent a private email by posting it on a public forum.

Neutral readers of this thread will note Reheat's repeated admission that he can not support his claim that the animation was 'artistic license'.

Why would you make a claim that you can not support, Reheat? You chastise other members for doing so, yet you resort to doing the very same thing.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter

Here you go, weedwhacker, courtesy of ATS's own "turbofan"- call it a late Christmas present:

The North Approach, Technical Supplement to "9/11: The North Flight Path"
pilotsfor911truth.org...

NoC Tech Paper

Here is an online bank angle calculator for you too:
www.csgnetwork.com...


I see you have been deceived by this fraudulent attempt to prove something. Well, it does prove something. It proves that pffft and minions can devise a flight path out of thin air to deceive those who don't understand the full story.

First of all, I have never said the stupid NOC flight path was impossible. I have always said it was impossible when complying with witness statements. There is a huge difference. I have been misquoted, taken out of context, and "cherry picked" all typical of frauds with an intent to deceive.

The math as far as I've have determined in this cartoon and document is correct. However, the correct nature of both stop there. I have measured the turn radii of the flight path depicted and they are larger than I have determined. That results in a looser turn, more shallow bank, less G that a tighter turn would produce. Perhaps the reason is that the LEFT side of the screen is blurred and not clear leaving doubt as to the specific origin or the beginning of the calculations. But, that's not the complete deceptive part....

Edward Paik's statements and visual indications more closely fit with the SOC approach, which rational people know occurred. Below is the ORIGINAL .gif from the video depicting his hand motions. Note that he points straight down Columbia Pike. As he begins to turn, his hand moves Northward and that results in the fraudulent label for the graphic, "Edward Points North".



He was given an OVERHEAD view to draw his line and he drew it from his position directly toward the Pentagon, which passed South of the Citgo Service Station. It's likely that Edward had never seen an overhead view of the area and simply guessed at the direction of the aircraft in relation to the overhead view. He indicated that he thought the aircraft had clipped the VDOT tower, which in combination with his visual hand motion straight down Columbia Pike are more supportive of an SOC flight path.

Edward's hand motions and his verbal description fit precisely with the next witness, Terry Morin. Morin's stated position has been manipulated and twisted from the very beginning of his original interview with CIT. He is perhaps the most qualified of any of the CIT witnesses, but he is "thrown under the bus" for these calculations to fit the FRAUD.

The animation you've linked above COMPLETELY DISREGARDS these two witnesses' statements. Yes, it is a good example the ability to create aeronautical plausibility for FRAUDULENT and DECEPTIVE purposes. These two witnesses had to be disregarded in order to create the deception that the NOC flight path as illustrated is "witness compatible" "aerodynamically possible".

My analysis of these witnesses shows that the aircraft simply can not get to a position as viewed by the Citgo area and ANC area witnesses in order to have IMPACTED the Pentagon as all of them said. It could easily get there on a Southerly flight path, but because of position perspective they were mistaken regarding the direction of the origin and exact flight path of the aircraft.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join