NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all.

I will try to combine the two methods to construct a viable arc drawn on a HD map.
I am quite sure I can construct the same arc again, but now with the right radius.
Exponent already used your posted online turn calculator, filled in 2053 meters and the rest of my figures I posted in that screenshot of the turn radius calculator, and found a bank of 34.9° belonging to the real radius length he found, which is still a small bank when I may base that on this figure from one of your sig-link links :




The small bank is flown with an angle of 50°, the large bank with an angle of 75°.
Thus, we may conclude that a bank angle of 34.9° that exponent found when he used my figures but changed the radius to its true value of 2053 meters, is certainly a small bank angle.
And is very comparable with what the interviewed 4 ANC workers showed when given a model airplane to show the bank they saw the plane was in when it flew to their ANC grounds and then curved back to the impact zone. They all 4 indicated the same small bank.

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by LaBTop

 

This is just what I expected. Rather than admit to a gross error that I told you about several months if not a year ago you attempt to evade responsibility and now admit to an error in your calculations that you've been denying for approximately a year apparently because you think you're smarter than everyone else...

Exponent DID NOT tell you how he did the calculations he just posted the result same as I did a long time ago.

That last sentence is flat out twisting of words. You try to give the readers the impression that you helped me. You did not, you just used the same method as NIST, telling us that we are wrong, then do not give the computer calculations they based their opinion on.
At least they showed us a (totally impossible) computer animation of the collapse of WTC 7 that they arrived at by heighten the filled-in temperatures and their duration at the few floors that it was burning, far out of reality.

You only repeated all the time that I was wrong, without proving to me why or giving me any clues whatsoever. That behavior shows that you despise people with a different view on 9/11 than you have.
Since you must have all the time this formula and information at hand.


Exponent is however a helpful researcher, he did tell us how he did the calculations, even gave us a huge hires GE map with lines in it, which all of that; you never ever did.
He gave it in the shortest form possible, by offering his map and by showing his formula, filled in with the measured meters he found in Google Earth, in meters :

Chord length is 1176m
Sagitta length is 86m
(Google Earth measurements)

radius = 1176²/8*86 + 86/2
radius = 43 + 1176²/688
radius = 2053m

So I could simply derive his formula from what he offered.
Radius = (Chord-length squared) divided by (8 times Sagitta-length), plus (Sagitta-length divided by 2). You can also find that here : en.wikipedia.org...
r = y²/8x + x/2

I did already post this same method once, but with a somewhat different formula, taken from this website for musical instruments builders :
liutaiomottola.com...

The formula they use is :
radius = (sagitta squared) + (1/2 length of chord squared) divided by 2 x sagitta.
(86x86) + (588x588) / 2x86. Which delivers nearly exactly the same outcome, 2053.14 meters.


I did not realize to use this much more precise method. I admit that was not smart enough. I have a lot on my mind every day, as my excuse. And very old people tend to forget easy.
Btw, I really do not think I am smarter than many others. But I am smart enough to get a grip again on most professional knowledge, formerly out of my interest sphere, in reasonable short times.

You, Reheat, however, never gave any hint what so ever how you concluded that my drawing was wrong. You were not willing to help me out. While all the time, you must have had the formula at hand, how else can you arrive to, as good as the same conclusion as Exponent?
You must have used the same formula and Google Earth to arrive at the same figures as Exponent showed us above.
And you even admitted it to him :

Yes, that is very close to my own calculations. In fact, considering the resolution yours and mine are within a few meters of each other. However, you're dealing with a hard head that won't listen...

To me it looks you are the hard head, denying to offer your method, and as if you enjoyed it, seeing me being puzzled and getting more and more angry at you about your stubborn denying us all, of the method you used to arrive at the only hint you gave me, that my radius was measured wrong and thus should be a lesser amount of meters long.
That is an obvious and clear form of teasing. And certainly not helpful.

Because it is quite easy, as I realize by now, just load a hires aerial map in Google Earth, choose the starting coordinate and end your straight line (the chord of that arc you are looking after) at the exact coordinate of the nose cone impact at column 14 in the west wall of the Pentagon. Then use the measuring tool of GE to get it in meters.
And there you have your chord- (same goes for sagitta- and radius- ) line lengths in meters, feet, yards etc.
Or, measure that way my real Navy Annex length, which I must have measured quite wrong. It was the basis to measure my radius in meters. Wrong, I now realize.
This was the original J-P. Desmoulins aerial pre-911 photo I used in my viable turn maps with that arc-centerpoint in it :




I know about this radius formula, I just did not think to use it, because I stopped using Google Earth after my clashes with Balsamo on his board and in my Watergate thread here. He does not understand that eye altitude, hilly terrain and other than a perpendicular angle of view of the satellite's camera lens when taking the photo's, does alter the outcome of calculations which should be based exclusively on a perpendicular eyesight by the satellite its camera lenses. A camera position looking straight down to the center of the earth, a 90° angle of that camera lens.
It comes down to never overlay two GE photos which have very different eye altitudes.
In mountainous terrain the error is even bigger, when the camera takes shots from a serious different angle then a line through the center of the map part you use, to the center of the earth. Quite big length and heights distortions prevail then in those photo's.

My calculation method, the way I intended to calculate the distances, was right.
Only the scale was far too small in my small map to let it be reliable, I realize now..
My drawing technique in a simple program like Paint, could not be executed precise enough on such a small screen on a computer monitor, I should have done it on the biggest HD-flatscreen available. And load a huge HD Google Earth map of the area, so big that the center of the circle where my arc is part of, still fits in that map somewhere to the south.
Then I can use my biggest Pair of Compasses (POCs) and draw an arc that passes through all NoC witness positions, again. And use the GE measuring tool to get my chord and sagitta in meters.
Then I have an arc drawn in a HD map which I can photograph and then upload. Or directly upload from the LCD TV to my box.
Drawing an arc which is very precise is, just as Exponent also admitted, quite tedious to do, but now I can take precise enough line lengths of the chord and sagitta in my own latest version of Google Earth.
I managed to draw that arc line in Exponent's hires GE map he posted, using the "curved line" and stretch-up function modus in Paint :




The radius length of 3207 meter that I found to fit a 24.9° bank and an acceptable speed (other than the huge FDR end speed, I know) did not fit by my non-exact drawing of the arc I drew in Paint (you can not draw a precise circle at the precise spot you want in Paint in such a huge GE map), and thus the transition to your online turn calculator is where it went wrong.
Radius and my arc did not fit to each other. Quite not.

reply to post by LaBTop


Wow, thats all just fascinating - listen, did anyone actually see the plane hit the building? They did? Oh well, I guess that kind of puts an end to all that north and south crap. End of story.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by LaBTop

 

Wow, thats all just fascinating - listen, did anyone actually see the plane hit the building? They did? Oh well, I guess that kind of puts an end to all that north and south crap. End of story.

Yeah, just like people said the witnessed a military plane hit the WTC. Oh but wait, you'll discredit any eyewitness who doesn't coincide with the OS. My bad

reply to post by homervb


Do you have any witnesses.......... that saw any planes........... miss any buildings.............?

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by homervb

 

Do you have any witnesses.......... that saw any planes........... miss any buildings.............?

That's your reply? You know I'm right. You will discredit any eyewitness that does not coincide with the OS. Enough said.

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by homervb

 

Do you have any witnesses.......... that saw any planes........... miss any buildings.............?

That's your reply? You know I'm right. You will discredit any eyewitness that does not coincide with the OS. Enough said.

Aren't you doing the same for any eyewitness that doesn't coincide with your version of the conspiracy? It seems like you're being hypocritical.

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by LaBTop

 

Wow, thats all just fascinating - listen, did anyone actually see the plane hit the building? They did? Oh well, I guess that kind of puts an end to all that north and south crap. End of story.

Yeah, just like people said the witnessed a military plane hit the WTC. Oh but wait, you'll discredit any eyewitness who doesn't coincide with the OS. My bad

Don't need to discredit any witnesses. They all say the plane hit the building. You are guys are trying to argue balls and strikes, but in the end no one says the pitcher didn't throw the ball.

reply to post by LaBTop


It is not necessary that I got through all of that mess of verbose crap to reply to all of the points you've tried to make. I will condense a reply and be on my way.

Why do you have the idea that it was or is my obligation to teach you anything? It never has been my intent at any time. Actually, since you won't listen anyway and are not a reasonable person my intent is to point out where you're wrong and then simply ridicule you when you won't listen.

I use custom designed software that draws and arc on a google earth map based on three points of input. The formulas are all programmed into the software, so it takes me about 10 seconds or less to make the inputs and produce accurate results. It gives me all of the information that Exponent posted except the sagitta which is already included in the formula and not necessary to know anyway except for manual calculations. I can vary the speed to produce bank angles and g for the radius. I don't need to use that calculator you're using. I gave you numbers a long time ago, but you knew better, so why should I keep posting them. I simply reached a point a long time ago to only ridicule you because anything else was and is a waste of time...

I told you in the beginning that this NOC crap couldn't be done within reasonable parameters and it's completely ridiculous on it's face anyway, but you have persisted and still do. Since you agree that the aircraft struck the building why in the name all that's holy would anyone go to all of the extreme lengths that it would have taken to fake all of that evidence that indicates it flew a different path? It's ludicrous to the extreme. That's the beginning and end of this preposterous theory regardless of how much of your life you want to waste looking for a solution.

It's quite obvious that you simply want to show the generally accepted story of this attack as wrong to support your delusions of a conspiracy regardless of the absurdity of that theory. You're now trying to provide your own definition of a small versus large bank angle. The standard bank angle used for commercial airline operations for large changes in direction is 25 to 30 degrees. That's at altitude. Any angle greater than that is considered a steep turn and is only done in testing and training with an Instructor or Examiner on board. At low altitude much shallower bank angles usually less than 15 degrees are used. Why did none of the CITGO witnesses mention this? That kind of bank angle as low as AA 77 was flying would have been spectacular and unforgettable by anyone who witnessed it. It is well documented that AA 77 was very erratic during those final stages with some wing waggling, which to a surprised witness experiencing a traumatic event could be misinterpreted as a turn. Witness to something of this nature could easily misstate the timing in the aftermath. This is also a well documented fact.

In addition to your concocted definition of small versus large bank angles you find that the speed must be unreasonably slow. It's even contrary and slower than the speed you specified earlier in the thread. The bulk of your witnesses indicated the aircraft was haulin' ass, yet you choose two who indicated it may have been slower in order to fit with your fantasy.

You want help? My advice to you is to STOP the nonsense, reevaluate your obsession, and enjoy what life you have left. You are pursuing a dead end issue that leads to nowhere except extreme disappointment and disgust when you finally realize you are WRONG (if you ever do)!

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by homervb

 

Do you have any witnesses.......... that saw any planes........... miss any buildings.............?

That's your reply? You know I'm right. You will discredit any eyewitness that does not coincide with the OS. Enough said.

Aren't you doing the same for any eyewitness that doesn't coincide with your version of the conspiracy? It seems like you're being hypocritical.

Um no, I've never bashed any eye witnesses. You as well as the other OSers only take into consideration those eyewitnesses that go with the OS. I've never once called any eyewitnesses liars or not reliable. I do however witness hundreds of times OSers using eyewitness testimony to argue their point while disregarding any eyewitness testimony we have to offer. It's obvious you're pointing a random finger here because I ALWAYS take into consideration that all eyewitness testimony has it's faults which is why I DON'T use it as a defense. But you hopped on this thread and said "oh well eyewitness testimony proves you wrong". Wow dude WAY TO GO

reply to post by homervb


Nonsense. We literally have eyewitness accounts stood next to the impact zone who watched the whole thing impact and explode in the building.

We have firefighter accounts of finding bodies of flight passengers still strapped into their seats.

We have the FDR of the plane with confirmed data found in the crash zone.

We have personal effects of the deceased found at the Pentagon and returned to their relatives.

On the other hand, there are a few witnesses confused about what they saw, but none of them were confused about the impact.

That's it. That's the sum total of the argument against the 'official story'. Hell we've even shown that there is a visible object the correct height for a 757 tail in the video released.

Stop pretending that it's some even balance of evidence. It's a ludicrous proposition and means you have to ignore people literally standing next to the impact who watched it hit. On the other hand the witnesses we're discounting mistook left from right in that 1/4 of a second 10 years ago. I'll take 'stood and witnessed the plane impact' over 'mistook which side it passed him on'.

Thanks.

Labtop I'll get to your posts shortly.

Originally posted by homervb
I ALWAYS take into consideration that all eyewitness testimony has it's faults which is why I DON'T use it as a defense.

That seems a bit silly though. If you had fifty eyewitnesses who said they saw a monkey steal an apple and one who said it was an elephant, I think I'd put at least some credence in the fomers' version of events. Even if they disagreed on what colour the monkey was.

But you hopped on this thread and said "oh well eyewitness testimony proves you wrong". Wow dude WAY TO GO

By any reasonable measure it does. You can't just throw it all out because there's the odd inconsistency.

reply to post by homervb


It is a fair assessment to say that virtually every "truther" who fantasies that the Pentagon attack was anything other than what's been overwhelmingly established must discount the numerous witnesses who's versions fit with the physical evidence must be discounted in order to buy into the numerous conspiracy theories of the event. It's simply impossible not to do so. Those same "truthers" use the outlier witnesses to support anything other than the commonly accepted version of events there. This is absolutely necessary in order to promote an alternative because there is nothing else that does. Nothing, I repeat, nothing supports any other version than AA 77 ramming into the building except the outlier witnesses who were virtually all East of the Flight path. Maybe you take exception to the word bash. I don't know as I haven't paid any attention to what you post as I've seen nothing of importance in the first place.

There is a reason the FBI did not pursue the statements of these witnesses beyond an interview because their version does not fit with the physical evidence. This is common practice in investigations of this sort. It has nothing at all to do with MIB on a nefarious cover-up mission.

In essence, witnesses that support the physical evidence has nothing at all to do with or bias or of an acceptance of "the Government Story" without question. It's simply the only explanation that makes any sense at all.. All of the "truther" version are ludicrous inventions of fantasy support by a few outlier witness that generally exist for any important event that involves traumatic events...

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by homervb

 

All of the "truther" version are ludicrous inventions of fantasy support by a few outlier witness that generally exist for any important event that involves traumatic events...

Then what is your purpose of being on this forum?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
That seems a bit silly though. If you had fifty eyewitnesses who said they saw a monkey steal an apple and one who said it was an elephant, I think I'd put at least some credence in the fomers' version of events. Even if they disagreed on what colour the monkey was.

Eyewitness testimony is useful but you're the one saying eyewitnesses would be able to tell what exact aircraft hit the building. I've never said an aircraft didn't hit the building. I don't rely on eyewitness testimony because I know every-day civilians are not professional plane spotters. I do take interest in other people's theories which is why I like coming to this forum. But if you're so certain of the events and have no doubt in your mind then...why are you here? To argue? To burst someone's bubble? If you're not interested in a possible conspiracy then why log on to a conspiracy forum multiple times a day?

By any reasonable measure it does. You can't just throw it all out because there's the odd inconsistency.

I'm not throwing it all out. You took the OP's long/detailed thread and completely shot it down because of eyewitness testimony. You're throwing it ALL out.

And again, if you are set on the OS, then why bother joining a conspiracy forum? Sounds like a complete waste of time on your part

Originally posted by exponent
Stop pretending that it's some even balance of evidence. It's a ludicrous proposition and means you have to ignore people literally standing next to the impact who watched it hit. On the other hand the witnesses we're discounting mistook left from right in that 1/4 of a second 10 years ago. I'll take 'stood and witnessed the plane impact' over 'mistook which side it passed him on'.

Then why did you join this thread?

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by homervb

 

All of the "truther" version are ludicrous inventions of fantasy support by a few outlier witness that generally exist for any important event that involves traumatic events...

Then what is your purpose of being on this forum?

Why do you want to know? If you were smart you'd recognize why all of us here that deal with these malicious made up fantasies from the "truther" crowd are here. It's been explained previously by several and I'm here for the exact same reason.

Several years ago an individual with a similar background to mine joined the discredited Pilots for 9/11 Liars group. It upset me that an individual with with the training and experience he has would promote such stupid idiotic fantasies that are then parroted by the ignorant in an infinite loop of stupidity that has no end as each generation of generally uneducated, but developing minds gets interested in the events of 9/11. It soon became a mission to combat this malicious stream of ignorance promoted for who knows what reason. There are a myriad of reasons some people who should know better promote such malicious falsehoods. Some of it relates to mental issues, some of it is perhaps related to drug addiction and some of it is simply born out of pure unadulterated stupidity and poor judgement. Some do it for $$ and some do it for a perverted justification of notoriety. I'm not a psychiatrist, so I don't really know and don't really care why such people justify the promotion of ridiculous conspiracy theories. I can only speculate. Most who parrot this stuff are simply ignorant and have a very poor education. I really don't enjoy dealing with it, so I take frequent breaks and generally only comment on those threads within my area of expertise.. Satisfied?

Originally posted by Reheat
It soon became a mission to combat this malicious stream of ignorance promoted for who knows what reason. There are a myriad of reasons some people who should know better promote such malicious falsehoods. Some of it relates to mental issues, some of it is perhaps related to drug addiction and some of it is simply born out of pure unadulterated stupidity and poor judgement. Some do it for $$ and some do it for a perverted justification of notoriety. I'm not a psychiatrist, so I don't really know and don't really care why such people justify the promotion of ridiculous conspiracy theories. I can only speculate. Most who parrot this stuff are simply ignorant and have a very poor education. I really don't enjoy dealing with it, so I take frequent breaks and generally only comment on those threads within my area of expertise.. Satisfied?

So you really don't enjoy it, but you've made it your mission? Really? People log on this forum because they enjoy discussing the possibility of a conspiracy and express their freedom to speculate an alternative version of 9/11 based on the evidence they've been presented with. You on the other hand have joined this forum on a mission to tell everyone their speculations are ludicrous/insane and they probably have a poor education. I think the enjoyment for you is your personal feeling of "being right".

::scratches head:: So you join a forum full of people you don't enjoy talking to...um...okay. No, I'm not satisfied. That sounds like the biggest waste of time. If you got enjoyment out of it, I'd say it's worth your time but you've expressed that you do not get enjoyment. Maybe change your mission to being happy in life and not loggin on a forum to get your high off of being what you think is "right". If you know you're right, and you know for sure what happened then why not join a more "Remembering 9/11" forum instead of dealing with all these people you have deemed ludicrous and insane?

Remember, you don't enjoy this. WHY WASTE YOUR TIME?

reply to post by homervb


Look fellow... If I wanted advice from you I'd ask for it. In the meantime I'll do what I want to do regardless of whether you like it or approve or not.. Get it?