Prove or disprove a Pentagon fly-over., page 8

privacy

Pages: << 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 10:59 AM by Reheat

Originally posted by tezzajw

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?

I'll simply this for you.....

Original Poster - Here is an FAA/NORAD endorsed flight path that shows the final portion of AA 77's flight.

Supporter - Yea, that's very good.

Me - the flight path is not endorsed by the FAA/NORAD because there is no data to back it up. Challenged supporter to support the claim.

Supporter - empty rhetoric

Bystander - support your claim that the animation is not valid. Translation = "Prove a negative".

Me - I happen to know the origin of the animation, but will not post the proof of my information due to privacy issues. Prove the authenticity of the animation (original claim) and it will be settled.

Bystander - You are committing a logical fallacy by failing to support your claim.

Me - My claim would not be an issue had the original poster supported the original claim.

Further translation of this.....

Original Poster - I'll post whatever I want to support my delusions and not answer when the claim is questioned.

Supporter - I dunno'

Bystander - I support the Original Poster because it supports my delusion and I believe what he has posted. On the other hand you are committing a "logical fallacy" by not supporting your questioning of the original claim. You must support your claim because it might destroy my delusion and I don't believe it.

Me - Shakes head in disbelief and 'sighs'.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Reheat]

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 11:45 AM by weedwhacker

I saw, on page seven, a lot of personal sniping.

I am not a Mod, obviously. Still, I see this and am slightly ashamed.

LaBtoP has shown great skill in researching this. I am most gratified by his/her mention of the bank angles. For the non-aviators, a sustained level turn will result in an increasing G-load, depending on the angle of bank, and irrespective of airspeed (the variable with airspeed is the turning radius).

An average, comfortable for most people angle of bank of 30 degrees (airliners generally limit to 25 degrees) sustains a G-force of 1.3.

At 60 degrees, the G-force is 2.0.

It is an exponential graph, from 'zero' bank (1G) to 90 degrees (infinity).

Bank angles and G-forces I've described are, again, assuming a 'steady-state' holding altitude and airspeed steady.

A diving, banking turn will result in different G-forces. Anyone who has actually flown an airplane will know this, as you can 'feel' it....if you just 'know' about flying from your desktop MS Simulator...well......

BTW, when I mentioned the '90-degree' flying....we've ALL seen airshows where specific aerobatic airplanes can 'knife-edge' for short periods. Actually, the fuselage, in those instances, is providing the lift --- along with the thrust vector from the incredibly huge powerplant!!!!

I just wanted to leave a short lesson on aerodynamics....although I am limited here, in this forum. Have no visual and face-to-face aids to further explain.

NOW....the 'flyover' theory has, I believe, been thoroughly left on the rocks to die a slow and painful death.

It has been interesting, to see the many and varied twists and turns some have promoted, when faced with the most simple explanation -- what we have seen, what was observed, what is known.

AAL 77 was used as a 'suicide bomb', a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" by a cadre of devoted terrorists in an orchestrated plot on 11 September, 2001.

These evil people saw a window of opportunity, and took advantage of it. They were driven by an ideological determination that, to them, made sense. It is and was sick thinking, on their part, but given the history of religious convictions we've seen over the history of mankind, it was not unprecedented in its severity.

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 12:34 PM by turbofan

reply to post by Reheat

Funny Mr. Reheat forgets to attach the entire interview:

www.youtube.com...

Notice where Paik says the body of the plane flew; how it almost hit the
roof of the building(s), and also drew a path over the Annex.

Reheat is complete disinfo. He should also watch the entire NoC video
that I co-produced which kills his theory.

He should also listen to the Morin audio which exposes more lies from
Mr. Reheat.

Stop listening to a child with mom's internet account people!

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 12:36 PM by turbofan

reply to post by weedwhacker

What speed are you basing these angles / g's on?

[edit on 29-5-2009 by turbofan]

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 01:38 PM by Reheat

Originally posted by turbofanReheat is complete disinfo.

In any legitimate "debate" you LOSE with that comment. Then, you have the gall to wonder why people won't engage in a silly Internet based debate with you.

These issues are not a debate subject at all. The debate was settled several years ago and it's over, except for a handful of delusional "terrorist apologists" who spew venom against Governments, Companies, and innocent people with nothing more than delusional "personal incredulity" issues and contrived anomalies instead of reasoned, real evidence.

By default you accuse thousands of complicity in mass murder without a shred of real evidence both at the Pentagon and elsewhere.

You have been involved in constructing a fraudulent scheme of events at the Pentagon, for which there is no evidence, only mutually contradicting witness statement that are not in any way shape or form supported by any physical evidence.

If one turns off the Internet, you are gone, because you have no valid evidence of anything, which has not been adequately shown invalid by both private and Government supplied evidence at the Pentagon, an Internet audience is the most you can hope to achieve with your delusions.

The very reason that you and those like you only exist on the Internet is because you have nothing at all, except the most unreliable of all evidence, witnesses with conflicting accounts that would be blown out of the Courtroom in any legitimate legal system in the world.

Your contrived aerodynamics, which you are crowing about would be defeated in a Courtroom in about 5 minutes of expert testimony. More likely, as is the current situation it will never see the light of day in any Courtroom simply because it has no merit.

You and those you support have been unable to show even a hint of a witness to your contrived flyover delusion in almost 8 years. It's pretty simple to explain why? It very simply didn't happen....

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Reheat]

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 01:51 PM by Wally Hope

Originally posted by Reheat
The debate was settled several years ago and it's over, except for a handful of delusional "terrorist apologists" who spew venom again Governments, Companies, and innocent people with nothing more than delusional "personal incredulity" issues and contrived anomalies instead of reasoned, real evidence.

Oh so why are you still here then, debating this?

What real evidence? I have yet to see any, most of it was carted away and hidden.

It's like the creation/ID argument, you either see the real evidence ignored by the government, or you base your opinion on faith that you're being told the truth by said government.

Why do you put so much faith in government? Government is made up of people, and they are just as likely to be corrupt as anyone. To believe the government is all truthful and working for us, is extremely naive and shows a complete lack of historical perspective.

Those of us who can see the government for what it really is are not blinded by their lies. Read and understand some real history and you will see who is really delusional.

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 03:08 PM by turbofan

reply to post by Reheat

blah, blah, blah, "Mr. ReHeat".

You are nothing. You are a hopeless, anonymous, wanna-be.

Post up your pilot credentials which can verified, or just give up
against those with the real thing.

You also fail to provide logical answers to any questions presented
to you.

Your helpless attempts at providing data are trumped by real people
on camera, and expert analysis.

Please come back and answer my questions about smoke and 24 knot
winds which might explain how debris is blown around at 1000 feet.

Please tell all of us that Paik really meant "the other side of the road"
when he clearly states and draws against in his REAL interview.

Liar.

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 03:22 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by turbofan

TF.....as I said, airspeed is irrelevant. Bank angle equals G-force, in a sustained level turn. You should know this, if you are a pilot.

Drop the nose, through a 60-degree banked turn, and there will not be a sustained G-force!

Anyone who has at least a Commercial Pilot's license knows what a 'chandelle' is. It is a requirement, in the practical (or used to be)...of coujrse, today, I believe that one has to also have an Instrument Rating (and, this is a good thing!!) in order to have a Commercial License.

For an ATP, one needs to have all of the ratings mentioned, plus a minimum of 2,500 hours, plus the skills set shown by passing the various written tests to get to that point.

I earned MY ATP in 1979. (Back then, it was called AN 'ATR'). SO, if anyone wishes to challenge my experience as an aviator, I welcome it.

I have flying experience dating from 1974....so, I think I have some ability to understand and comment on matters relating to aviation.

The point of THIS thread, regarding a Pentagon 'fly-over', has been shown to be de-bunked. There is nothing that anyone has brought into the discussions that comport with this notion.

No matter how many people attempt to 'twist' and 'obfuscate'....they just fail.

We can see the impossibility of high-speed turning radii, and as I have explained, the impossibility of a high-speed "fly-over" followed by a quick 'landing' at KDCA. (Which would have been against the flow of traffic, for that day and time...) (Someone would have noticed.....!!!!!!!)

The majority of 9/11 "truthers" simply speak from some sort of delusion. A few dis-jointed and unconnected "factoids" that are used in order to 'break apart' the official story.....just because certain aspects have been, due to the criminal nature of the events, restricted from public knowledge....this, this is the 'crack in the door' that has been pounced upon.

I will be one of the first to jump on the bandwagon when we see real proof of actual Government complicity in some sort of "evil conspiracy".....but, I just cannot see the Bush and Cheney cabal as being able to orchestrate anything of this magnitude!!!!

It 'fell into their laps'. They, Bush and Company, used 9/11 to further an agenda that was likely in planning once 'installed' into office. 9/11 just made it easier to "spin" the Iraq invasion....remember, Bush Junior wanted to exact revenge on his Daddy's Nemesis....

"Heh, Heh!!! SEE, Daddy?? I did it!!! Proud of me now???? Heh, Heh....."

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 03:31 PM by Boone 870

reply to post by turbofan

Reheat is complete disinfo. He should also watch the entire NoC video that I co-produced which kills his theory.

Is this the same video that claims to be "eyewitness compatible" but leaves out the most important witness of all, the flyover witness?

He should also listen to the Morin audio which exposes more lies from Mr. Reheat.

You should have listened to the DCA Tower recording before you put your name on a video that implies the "flyover/decoy jet" landing against traffic on the same runway at the exact moment that SkyEx 2020 was landing. How embarrassing!

So, Turbofan, are you co-producing PFT's 'NORAD Standdown: smoking gun-blow the lid off of the official investigation edition' video?

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Boone 870]

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 04:36 PM by turbofan

reply to post by weedwhacker

Oh no worries, I know how accelerometers function having owned one
for several years, and also doing the math for the NoC Tech paper.

Let me rephrase to be more clear:

What source are you basing the angles/g's upon? How did you come up
with those numbers? Are you simply making a point about g loading
in general?

[edit on 29-5-2009 by turbofan]

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 04:46 PM by turbofan

Originally posted by Boone 870
Is this the same video that claims to be "eyewitness compatible" but leaves out the most important witness of all, the flyover witness?

So you believe in the flyover witness, but you don't agree there was a
flyover? I'm a little confused by your contradiction.

You should have listened to the DCA Tower recording before you put your name on a video that implies the "flyover/decoy jet" landing against traffic on the same runway at the exact moment that SkyEx 2020 was landing. How embarrassing!

Is that so? Do you have me quoted as stating the landing runway, airport,
and time of the flyover jet?

No. Do you know why? Because I never made such a statement.

Go on and play with your friends at the "J", and figure out the flavour
of the week for the next FDR excuse.

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 05:24 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Boone 870

Is this the same video that claims to be "eyewitness compatible" but leaves out the most important witness of all, the flyover witness?

Not sure what video you're talking about but the one by Pilots for 9/11 Truth titled "9/11: THE NORTH FLIGHT PATH: Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible" most certainly does cover the flyover witness you are referencing, Roosevelt Roberts Jr.

Google Video Link

Realize that we have 2 expert witnesses (marine aviator Terry Morin and heliport tower air traffic controller Sean Boger) as well as another corroborating witness (William Middleton) who all estimated it was over 10 seconds for the plane to travel from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon.

That is MUCH slower than the 460 knots reported by the NTSB.

The independent verifiable evidence proves a deception.

You can cite data controlled by the suspect all day long but that can never refute what has been independently validated via the scientific process of corroboration from the honest witnesses on the scene.

Why do you insist on maintaining pure unadulterated faith in what you were told by the government as a means to dismiss the good people of Arlington who actually watched the event go down and prove a deception?

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 05:27 PM by Boone 870

reply to post by turbofan

So you believe in the flyover witness, but you don't agree there was a
flyover? I'm a little confused by your contradiction.

Allow me to correct myself: Is This the same video that claims to be "eyewitness compatible" but leaves out the most important witness of all, the alleged flyover witness?

Is that so? Do you have me quoted as stating the landing runway, airport, and time of the flyover jet?

No, no quotes. But I did assume that you would be partially responsible for the contents within the video. Did I assume incorrectly?

No. Do you know why? Because I never made such a statement.

im-ply

1. to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated: His words implied a lack of faith.
2. (of words) to signify or mean.

Go on and play with your friends at the "J", and figure out the flavour of the week for the next FDR excuse.

I noticed that a member of the "P" started a thread over at the "J" looking for someone to debunk his latest quote mined jewel regarding a NORAD standdown. Is that going to be included in the new PFT video? Are you going to endorse this view if you are co-producing?

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 05:48 PM by turbofan

reply to post by Boone 870

You must mean Runway # 15 @ DCA? Interesting note indeed. The landing location/time of the flyover jet has not been a part of my focus
as it weighs very little against the overwhelming evidence of a military
deception. Whether "AA77" landed at DCA, or another airport does not
matter much when a flyover has been proven.

The arc with a radius of ~ 5100 feet shown in the clip does include R.R.'s statement. It is aerodynamically possible.

Once again, do you agree with his flyover account, or not? You seem to
be pushing this witness in particular as if to have a 'smoking gun'? I
don't see your point really?

I will review the content for P4T's next presentation, and may well endorse
the study. For now, I am not involved and do not plan to co-produce.
We'll wait and see.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by turbofan]

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 06:23 PM by Boone 870

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Craig, could you point out at what time in the video PFT discusses the flyover jet being over Lane 1 in the south parking lot 10 seconds after the explosion?

Realize that we have 2 expert witnesses (marine aviator Terry Morin and heliport tower air traffic controller Sean Boger) as well as another corroborating witness (William Middleton) who all estimated it was over 10 seconds for the plane to travel from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon.

Some of these eyewitnesses may be of a different skin color than I am, so I choose to withhold my opinion. I would hate for questions of race to be brought up again, right, Craig?

That is MUCH slower than the 460 knots reported by the NTSB.

Now wait a minute, when I brought up discrepancies with Chaconas' time recollection you, or another member of CIT, told me that a witnesses' time recall could not be trusted. What gives?

You can cite data controlled by the suspect all day long but that can never refute what has been independently validated via the scientific process of corroboration from the honest witnesses on the scene.

You can cite seven-year-old recall memory of not only contradicting, but self-contradicting (in one case) witnesses all day long, but that can never refute what was recorded the day of the event.

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 06:25 PM by tezzajw

Originally posted by Reheat
Me - I happen to know the origin of the animation, but will not post the proof of my information due to privacy issues.

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

Why would you do that, Reheat? You made a claim and didn't support it?

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 06:47 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by turbofan

TF....one doesn't need accelerometers to know the G-forces in a TURN.....ANYONE who knows how to fly knows the G-forces involved.

turbofan.....please ASK your airline pilot friends about what they are tasked, in the Simulators.

HERE is what we are tasked: We are told to make a 180 degree turn, at a 45 degree angle of bank. This is a basic airmanship skill, and must be +- 100 feet and +- 10 knots airspeed.

Here's a clue, to make it work....you must add power, in the turn...and remove power, at the end of the turn....in order to make the airspeed be the same....it is A PRECISION event.....and only IF you know how to fly, will you understand.....

I am sorry, when I try to explain what should be already understood.

A pilot will understand.....

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 07:00 PM by turbofan

Originally posted by weedwhacker
TF.....as I said, airspeed is irrelevant. Bank angle equals G-force, in a sustained level turn. You should know this, if you are a pilot.

Drop the nose, through a 60-degree banked turn, and there will not be a sustained G-force!

Maybe I'm overlooking the obvious with your post. You are simply stating
that by dropping the nose, the aircraft will accelerate and increase g's
while banking.

OK...so, what is the point then? Are you saying that the NoC flight
paths are not accurate because changes in altitude through the arc
were not accounted for?

Are you implying that these unaccounted g forces would be too much
for the aircraft/pilots to overcome?

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 07:16 PM by Boone 870

reply to post by turbofan

You must mean Runway # 15 @ DCA? Interesting note indeed.

Same runway, different headings.

The arc with a radius of ~ 5100 feet shown in the clip does include R.R.'s statement. It is aerodynamically possible.

"Over Lane one" was not mentioned in the video. Any reason for that?

Once again, do you agree with his flyover account, or not?

"Flyover witness" is CIT's claim, not mine. Roberts is a second plane witness, he says so himself.

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 07:19 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by turbofan

Turbo....you are just missing the point.

ANYONE who knows how to fly, will know that bank angles will be dependant on whether you are pulling up, or not....in the flight envelope....I just cannot explain IT ANY BETTER, THAN this....

It keeps coming down to this baloney, when we see some sort of MS Flight....SIMULATOR, that hAS nothing to do with real flying....SO, we see a perpetuql nonsense based on an ignorance.....