Prove or disprove a Pentagon fly-over., page 9

privacy

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

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 07:30 PM by turbofan

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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....

Ok, fine...but what point are you debating with this fact? This is what
I'm confused about.

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 09:28 PM by rhunter

Originally posted by Reheat

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....

Really, Mr. Reheat? Have you read the webpage linked in your signature file? I even quoted the "janitor" part on this very thread, hoping that you might get a clue... I even linked it here with "Debunking." You didn't even appreciate the publicity for your "debunking?"

What single "flight path" did "pffft" endorse in this "cartoon" you talk about? If there was a single "flight path," then why would there be "radii"? Do you understand plural case?

"CIT's NoC theory has been shown to not be possible using proven aerodynamic principles." - Reheat

Reheat on possibilities

What "animation" did I link to on this thread "Mr. Reheat?" Could you go back and quote where I linked to any "cartoons" on this thread?

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 09:38 PM by rhunter

Originally posted 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.....

So clearly, Mr. weedwhacker didn't read pages 1, 4, and 5 of the document that I provided a link for then a couple of pages ago? I included the original quote in my reply to "Mr. Reheat" just now. Perhaps some people should actually click the "linky" and read this time- it is only 10 pages...

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 09:59 PM by Reheat

Originally posted by rhunter

"CIT's NoC theory has been shown to not be possible using proven aerodynamic principles." - Reheat

Do you "pick fruit" for a living? Yes, I know you linked to the remainder, but wanted the impact of what you quoted to make your point. Sure, I understand perfectly....

Here's the rest of that paragraph....

Paik and postulating a flight path to conform to his description in conformity to the other witnesses at the Citgo Station it has been amply demonstrated that ANY flight path conceived not only does not subscribe to witness testimony, but as the witnesses roll in (according to CIT) the theory becomes more and more impossible. The testimony of Terry Morin sinks this theory once and for all. Including his described position and the position of the aircraft it is simply not possible for ANY aircraft to perform in the manner theorized by CIT.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Reheat]

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 10:03 PM by rhunter

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by rhunter

"CIT's NoC theory has been shown to not be possible using proven aerodynamic principles." - Reheat

Do you "pick fruit" for a living?

No. Do you lie for a living?

(That is a rhetorical question in response to yours Mr. Reheat. After all, "Please do not post your own personal information. You should be aware that any personally identifiable information you submit here can be read, collected, or used by other users of these forums, and could be used to send you unsolicited messages. We are not responsible for the personally identifiable information you choose to submit, and may remove it at our discretion.")

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 10:22 PM by Reheat

reply to post by rhunter

Ya got anything additional on the flyover yet, it appears to be a dead issue just like all other "truther" inventions?

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 10:31 PM by rhunter

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by rhunter

Ya got anything additional on the flyover yet, it appears to be a dead issue just like all other "truther" inventions?

Have you quoted where I ever said there was a "fly over" yet, "Mr. Reheat?"

Perhaps you should read up on formal logic, as tezzajw has recommended for some around here. You would do well to start with logical fallacies IMO.

reply posted on 29-5-2009 @ 10:54 PM by Reheat

Originally posted by rhunter

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by rhunter

Ya got anything additional on the flyover yet, it appears to be a dead issue just like all other "truther" inventions?

Have you quoted where I ever said there was a "fly over" yet, "Mr. Reheat?"

Perhaps you should read up on formal logic, as tezzajw has recommended for some around here. You would do well to start with logical fallacies IMO.

I suspect reading comprehension is not a virtue for some around here. After all, the title of the thread is "Prove or disprove a Pentagon fly-over" and no where I see in the above question does it indicated whether you support it or not.

Oh well, I guess you don't have anything then.... I suppose maybe you're just posting for S and G's, but be it far from my intention to assume anything.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Reheat]

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 08:58 PM by rhunter

Originally posted by LaBTop
"Fine tune" of the CIT animations together with their interviews to make sure it is an accurate representation of their witness statements.

1. Look first at this animated excerpt of the Edward Paik interview, as an animated-Gif by Craig Ranke :

i14.photobucket.com...

Hey- speaking of reading comprehension and Edward Paik, "body this way." That is interesting...

eta: I wonder if he could have meant fuselage when he said "body?"

[edit on 30-5-2009 by rhunter]

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 09:11 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by rhunter

A 'fuselage' is known, by pilots, to be the "body" of the airplane.

Actually, a 'body' as a term is NEVER in...edit here....trying to use English.... no pilot will use this term at least NO AMERICAN pilot will use....."body" in lieu of 'fuselage'.

Just hoping to explain.

There are certain terms and words that only pilots understand. We don't use the baloney BS junk that you hear in mainstream HollyWood movies. That crap is best left to, well....HollyWood mainstream writers!!!

SO, just so you know....whenever you see some idiotic HollyWood film that tries to show something about aviation....it is usually garbage.

I am thinking, off the top of my head...."Die Hard Three"....and just about any movie with Harrison Ford as a US President, in danger on Air Force One!!!!! It is BS, it is HollyWood!!! Get over it!!!!!!

"Fuselage" is actually a French word. But, it does describe the "body" of the airpane, if you wish to describe the 'body' as the bit you sit in when you buy a ticket.

OR, when you learn Except, there is a bit more involved in flying, and I hope everyone understands that much....

[edit on 5/30/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 09:25 PM by Reheat

reply to post by rhunter

I understand why you've shown the manipulated .gif, which was composed after the interpretation of Paik's account was questioned. Here's the original.....

[edit on 30-5-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 30-5-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 30-5-2009 by Reheat]

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 09:49 PM by rhunter

Originally posted by Reheat
I understand why you've shown the manipulated .gif, which was composed after the interpretation of Paik's account was questioned. Here's the original.....

Uh, I quoted the OP of this thread "Mr. Reading Comprehension," in the interests of staying on-topic. Actually wouldn't the "original" be distributed by the people who actually went to Arlington and interviewed Mr. Paik on video?

Here is the original Edward Paik interview from August 2006 BTW.
www.youtube.com...

YouTube Link

This has been discussed for a couple of years now, and Edward Paik's own drawings have been posted many times.

Try here for "originals:"
www.thepentacon.com...

Powerhouse's claims about Edward Paik, and his flight path
z3.invisionfree.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Question for CIT regarding Edward Paik
s1.zetaboards.com...

s1.zetaboards.com...

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 10:07 PM by rhunter

Hey look! An animated GIF. Is this finally proof that leprechauns are real?

Leprechauns Gone Wild

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 10:09 PM by weedwhacker

I am astonished that people still argue about the "CITGO"

It is a Gas station, that has changed names....regardless, it is NOT available for use by civilians....I have driven to it, because I actually live in the area.

We have seen many ATS members spout off, about this and that. I will be the first to acknowledge that any esteemed ATS member in good standing has a right to express his/her self. No one will refute that right.

However....great experiences demand great results. Bring on the experience.....and let's see the results.

I have EDIT....the 'f' is very near the 'v' key..... explained MY experience.......and, I think I have shown my knowledge.....so, bring it!!!!

[edit on 5/30/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 10:22 PM by rhunter

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I am astonished that people still argue about the "CITGO"

Well apparently, "Mr. Reheat" just has a chronic need to argue- so what can one do? He has even been known to follow people from thread to thread here.

Reheat on the prowl

I used to date a girl like that for a while. She was almost pathological in several respects. I had to move to get her to eventually leave me alone.

Now what do "f's" and "v's" have do do with the price of tea in China again, weedwhacker? I missed the "point" there. Does it have anything to do with Fred Astaire and Madonna?

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 12:19 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by rhunter

Funny thing is, critical thinking skills still abound.

To ascertain that a 'rogue'.....or any sort of "foolish" flyover could have been accomplished, on 9/11....as some sort of co-ordinated event...I mean, REALLY???????

Just LOOK at the possible inhabitants of such a scenario!!!!!

George W. Bush???? He's an idiot!!!!! Seriously, can't anyone see what a MORON he is????

Rumsfeld....OK, smarter than Bush....but then we have the Cheney aspect....still, put the brains together....Cheney'Rumsfeld.....WAY smarter than Bush!!!!!!!!!

Sorry.....GWB was the idiot. It's almost....as the cartoon asks..."Where's George"???

Well..we knew where he was. Sorry that he was never duly elected....but, THAT will come out in due course

.

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 02:02 PM by rhunter

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.

Good point weedwhacker. This thread derailed from the "prove or disprove" part several pages ago. We really should stick to data and not "personal opinion" here and anecdotal "evidence" and hearsay.

For example, Edward Paik's opinion is relevant (as a witness who was physically in the area that day and saw an aircraft). In the video interview that I linked above he places an aircraft with dark wings flying over the Navy Annex (actually nearly hitting its roof if you listen carefully to the interview). This is consistent with all 3 of Ed's drawings that I also linked to recently (as well as about a dozen other "over the Annex" eyewitnesses.)

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 02:33 PM by Reheat

Originally posted by rhunter
For example, Edward Paik's opinion is relevant (as a witness who was physically in the area that day and saw an aircraft). In the video interview that I linked above he places an aircraft with dark wings flying over the Navy Annex (actually nearly hitting its roof if you listen carefully to the interview). This is consistent with all 3 of Ed's drawings that I also linked to recently (as well as about a dozen other "over the Annex" eyewitnesses.)

Speaking of "critical thinking" skills it helps to interpret what these witnesses say from a knowledgeable standpoint rather than allowing the CIT frauds to do the thinking for you.....

[edit on 31-5-2009 by Reheat]

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 04:39 PM by LaBTop

I'll give a partly butchered excerpt of my page 6 post about the times involved, to show a weird 45 seconds discrepancy which I can't explain away.

Originally posted by LaBTop

Let us try first to get something very important cleared, and mutually accepted.

The time from O'Brien's identification of the plane tagged LOOK as a B757, until impact; and subsequently the speeds involved. And we know quite well how both planes flew, in what pattern, when we just follow the officially given details, be it reluctantly given after FOIA requests and a still pending court case.
--snip--
This above officially endorsed PDF-document's TYSON (Washington National tower) timeline gives a time of 13:36:29 UTC = 09:36:29 EST, when ""GOFER06 advised it looked like a B757."" That's the C-130 pilot O'Brien who said it.
The TYSON audio tape excerpt I made myself gave a (now revised 14 secs by me, see further on) time stamp of 09:37:14 EST.
Tape starts at 09:25:00 , and we hear O'Brien say "a 757" at 00:12:14 in the (actual) tape.

I left the clearly different time stamps of O'Brien's "B757" remark, the official text excerpt time of 09:36:29 EST and my audio tape time noted at 09:37:14 EST, unanswered to see if someone came up with an explanation.
The readers have however missed this huge 45 seconds discrepancy.

Of course readers should ask themselves how it could be possible that an officially released audio tape differs 45 seconds from an officially released textual excerpt from the same tape.

Since I supposed that the actual time between the textual reported events in the tape's excerpts were not altered, but only differed 45 seconds from the audio revealed events, I noted in my post's last line that it had no influence on my calculated air speeds.
No matter what explanation, it is a very weird mistake.
Don't make the mistake to mix up the female voice segments times (at start of both tapes), to try to explain those 45 seconds away.

DCA audio tape female voice introductory lasts 46 seconds.

TYSON audio tape female voice introductory lasts 14 seconds :

www.aal77.com...

and at 12:04 in the tape, which starts at 09:25:00 EST you can HEAR the "757" remark.
That's an official 757 remark time of 09:37:14 EST.

And this is the textual, TYSON tape partial transcript :
aal77.com...

where you can READ the same official "757" remark, but now at 09:36:29 EST.

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 05:05 PM by LaBTop

I found another transcript from the DCA communication with the Secret Service or the Washington Central tower, this guy is called KRANT.
Here is the PDF-link I found by using these search terms :
" Aircraft Accident File ZDC-ARTCC-212 " :

911workinggroup.org...(redact)/1%20AWA%20934%20Memorandum%20Partial%20Transcript%20Washington%20ATCT.pdf< br />
EDIT: this is the link without the http part:
911workinggroup.org/foia/911%20COMMISSION%20REPORT%20DATA%20(redact)/1%20AWA%20934%20Memorandum%20Partial%20Transcript%20Washington%20ATCT.pdf
Copy/past it in your browser's address line. END EDIT.

Washington Tower Departure Overhead = DC
Dulles Approach Control = IAD

Subject: INFORMATION : Partial Transcript; Date: September 20, 2001
Aircraft Accident; AAL7 7; Washington,
DC; September 11, 2001
From: Support Specialist, Quality Reply to
Assurance, Washington ATCT
To: Aircraft Accident File ZDC-ARTCC-212
This transcription covers the Washington National Tower Departure
Overhead Position for the time period from September 11, 2 001,
1334 UTC to September 11, 2001, 1345 UTC.

Agencies Making Transmissions Abbreviations:
Washington National Tower Departure Overhead - DC
Dulles Approach Control - IAD

ZDC-ARTCC-212
AAL77
Page 2 of 2:

1339:29 DC: anybody on the sixty-two line
1339:30 DC: uh ya that guy hit the pentagon
1339:38 DC: hey dulles
1339:39 IAD: go ahead
1339:39 DC: that guy hit the pentagon
1339:42 UNK: jesus christ
1339:42 IAD: oh my god
1339:42 DC: I know it
1339:43 DC: just watch out what kind not to get any traffic anything around us

LaBTop note: the sixty-two line seems to be the White House, Secret Service.
-- seems that DC had him on the phone, since we don't see a SS transcript, but then DC admits that "that guy hit the pentagon". Then goes to tell the Dulles Airport FAA guy.
I suppose UNK means "unknown"? Three seconds later we see his response.
The last DC line is a bit chaotic. I would read it as :
" just watch out what kind.... not to get any traffic, anything, around us "
Strange, when you realize they were handling tens of planes around them to try to let them land.
They probably meant any further primary targets with their transponder off.

Next page 3 (another earlier transcript)
ZDC-ARTCC-212
AAL77
Page 2 of 3:

1333:39 IAD: national sixty two anybody quickly please
primary only
(LT: N62 = Secret Service? or )
1333:44 IAD: national you got a primary target heading for p fifty
six to the west fast moving
(LT: P56 is restricted airspace White House and Vice president housing)
1333:52 KRANT: hes radar contact
(LT: hes = has or he's?)
1333:56 IAD: hey uh hey fluky
(LT: Dulles calls fluky = TYSON Wash.National tower)
1334
1334:00 IAD: anybody on the sixty two primary target ten west of
you
1334:03 KRANT: yeah we see him
1336:59 IAD: he is descending
1337 KRANT: stop northwest departures
1337:04 KRANT: do you see that guy five west
1337:05 LC: ya
1337:07 KRANT: thats a seven five seven
1337:08 LC: that gopher guy
1337:09 KRANT: no the look
1337:11 LC: the look is a seven fifty seven

LaBTop note: 09:33:45 to 09:34:00 EST is the first mention of a primary target 10 miles west of DCA.
All tapes overlap each other perfectly, there are no discrepancies, only the strange 45 seconds difference between the textual excerpts from the TYSON tape given in the FOIA request, and the actual voices which can be heard on a downloaded tape. For an explanation, see my above post.

ZDC-ARTCC-212
Page 4
(LT: it has NO time tags! But is clearly a follow up from the last above one.)

KRANT right
KRANT did you see what happened up there
LC yeah it went into the pentagon
KRANT went into the pentagon
LC yeah looks like it went in the pentagon
KRANT ok thanks
End of Transcript

It just differs a tiny bit here and there from my above "Pinnacle" textual excerpts from the TYSON tape.
LC could mean O'Brien, the pilot of the C-130. Or another abbreviation for some other control room.

[edit on 31/5/09 by LaBTop]