North of Citgo Paper

[Reheat]

MikeW has been kind enough to host my North of Citgo Paper at his site

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/NoC

Note this is more comprehensive than the flight paths analyzed previously. This one covers all reasonable speeds and all reasonable locations North of the Citgo Station corresponding to the various witnesses' testimony.

I have taken witness testimony (without CIT's spin) and applied it to the locations at varying speeds in order to analyze the aerodynamics required to make the turns.

The results...... well take a look and you'll readily see.........

[theauthor]

MikeW has been kind enough to host my North of Citgo Paper at his site

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/NoC

Note this is more comprehensive than the flight paths analyzed previously. This one covers all reasonable speeds and all reasonable locations North of the Citgo Station corresponding to the various witnesses' testimony.

I have taken witness testimony (without CIT's spin) and applied it to the locations at varying speeds in order to analyze the aerodynamics required to make the turns.

The results...... well take a look and you'll readily see.........

The author’s Internet pseudonym is Reheat (email reheat@tds.net). He wishes to remain anonymous.

Enough said. Rejected.

[~enigma~]

Enough said. Rejected.
What's the problem...you got a plug :)

[jhunter1163]

I gather that means we won't be seeing any substantive criticism from the Twoofy side. Not that I was expecting any, anyway

Outstanding paper, Reheat. Really lays it out in a way we non-pilots can understand.

[Arus808]

Enough said. Rejected.

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.


so author, you can't even do 8th grade math?


Edit to add: Reheat, it may also be helpful if you drew the path into the pentagon as well (based on the damage report), to show why the real flight path is the only path that could do the damage. As it is, all "paths" just stop at the Pentagon's outer wall; to bring home the issue about the flight paths, we should include the ENTIRE path. As it will show that any NOC claim would have the plane making a hard left turn to match the path of damage into the pentagon. Imagine calculating that.

[gumboot]

Enough said. Rejected.


How old are you?

[Brainster]

So as I understand it, you have taken the Morin and Paik flight paths, and then shown the turns necessary to be where the Citgo witnesses claim, then done the calculations to show the stress that the planes would have experienced trying to make those maneuvers, and that they would have stalled out?

[NobbyNobbs]

Nicely presented. Easy to understand.

Any chance of being shown how those calculations are made? Is there a general formula, commonly used by pilots, where you can input turn radius and speed and from that determine stall speed?

Just to cover all the bases, I'd be interested in seeing how the actual math is done.

[Reheat]

So as I understand it, you have taken the Morin and Paik flight paths, and then shown the turns necessary to be where the Citgo witnesses claim, then done the calculations to show the stress that the planes would have experienced trying to make those maneuvers, and that they would have stalled out?

Yes, exactly.

[Cobalt]

Nice paper. Very well presented. I'd like to second the idea of making the actual math available.

[Reheat]

Edit to add: Reheat, it may also be helpful if you drew the path into the pentagon as well (based on the damage report), to show why the real flight path is the only path that could do the damage. As it is, all "paths" just stop at the Pentagon's outer wall; to bring home the issue about the flight paths, we should include the ENTIRE path. As it will show that any NOC claim would have the plane making a hard left turn to match the path of damage into the pentagon. Imagine calculating that.
[/COLOR]

Well, an aircraft flying from any of the NoC locations would actually have to make two turns, one right and then one left to achieve the known damage path. Since there is insufficient distance to make even the right turn, it would be ridiculous to even consider an additional turn.

In essence, it would require increasing the bank and G requirements for the right turn and then it could turn left. I'm not sure I can do the math for that as a calculator would explode! :D

This is the first version, I'll add to it as necessary.

[Reheat]

Nicely presented. Easy to understand.

Any chance of being shown how those calculations are made? Is there a general formula, commonly used by pilots, where you can input turn radius and speed and from that determine stall speed?

Just to cover all the bases, I'd be interested in seeing how the actual math is done.

Both formulas, an online calculator, and an explanation of how to determine turn radius are in links on the page.

If you have questions after reviewing those references, Either R.Mackey, myself or one of the other folks who know how to do this will be happy to try to answer them.

[OldTigerCub]

Reheat,
Would these calculations imply that if a plane had followed any of the CIT's proposed flight paths at the proposed speeds, then tried to bank and pull up, it would have most likely crashed into the Pentagon anyway?

[pomeroo]

Enough said. Rejected.


Sounds like you composed your own epitaph.

[ktesibios]

Nicely presented. Easy to understand.

Any chance of being shown how those calculations are made? Is there a general formula, commonly used by pilots, where you can input turn radius and speed and from that determine stall speed?

Just to cover all the bases, I'd be interested in seeing how the actual math is done.

I was looking for information about this last night. I found an explanation with diagrams and math, that even I could understand, here at Aerospaceweb (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0146.shtml)

[Reheat]

Reheat,
Would these caculations imply that if a plane had followed any of the CIT's proposed flight paths at the proposed speeds, then tried to bank and pull up, it would have most likely crashed into the Pentagon anyway?

Well, before considering the positions NoC and the turn to the Pentagon we can see that for the initial turns from Morin to any of the NoC locations there would have been a problem. There are a number of issues involved if we try to examine this in detail. First of all roll authority (control input) to even roll to the bank angles listed would be a significant problem. The stick shaker (stall warning) would provide warning to the pilot during the roll in which would require an decrease in the angle of attack (either decrease the G or roll out of the bank) to recover. The normal reaction to this would be that the pilot would decrease the angle of attack and recover prior to an actual stall. However, that means that the aircraft would pass wide of the points indicated, unable to complete the turn. Had the stick shaker been ignored it is unpredictable what would happen. It varies with the specific type of aircraft. Suffice it to say that the aircraft would become uncontrollable.

In transport category aircraft an actual stall usually results in one wing dropping rapidly (this would normally be the high wing in the turn) followed by a rapid descent (sink rate). The stalled wing or wings have lost lift and the aircraft can no longer fly.

So, to answer your question directly, no, the aircraft would likely have impacted short of the building had the pilot ignored the stall warning and continued to attempt the turn at the bank angle and G indicated.

Further, there is NO POSSIBILITY of a "pull up" during any of these turns. The aircraft can only stall once......;)

[Reheat]

I was looking for information about this last night. I found an explanation with diagrams and math, that even I could understand, here at Aerospaceweb (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0146.shtml)

Yes, that is an excellent link. I may add that one as it's more comprehensive than the link I used. That should be all you need to understand.

[OldTigerCub]

Well, before considering the positions NoC and the turn to the Pentagon we can see that for the initial turns from Morin to any of the NoC locations there would have been a problem. There are a number of issues involved if we try to examine this in detail. First of all roll authority (control input) to even roll to the bank angles listed would be a significant problem. The stick shaker (stall warning) would provide warning to the pilot during the roll in which would require an decrease in the angle of attack (either decrease the G or roll out of the bank) to recover. The normal reaction to this would be that the pilot would decrease the angle of attack and recover prior to an actual stall. However, that means that the aircraft would pass wide of the points indicated, unable to complete the turn. Had the stick shaker been ignored it is unpredictable what would happen. It varies with the specific type of aircraft. Suffice it to say that the aircraft would become uncontrollable.

In transport category aircraft an actual stall usually results in one wing dropping rapidly (this would normally be the high wing in the turn) followed by a rapid descent (sink rate). The stalled wing or wings have lost lift and the aircraft can no longer fly.

So, to answer your question directly, no, the aircraft would likely have impacted short of the building had the pilot ignored the stall warning and continued to attempt the turn at the bank angle and G indicated.

Further, there is NO POSSIBILITY of a "pull up" during any of these turns. The aircraft can only stall once......;)

Understood. Since the CIT boys will undoubtedly refuse to apply the math correctly (again) there is only one thing left to do.....

[cit mode]Can someone give me a hand moving this thing?[/cit mode]
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/19757484f146d520ba.jpg

[njslim]

Very nice paper REHEAT. Notice Craig and his gang of losers at CIT have not interviewed
Pentagon Firemen who were directly in the path of Flight 77 for their view of the
aircraft. Guess running for your life doesn't count.....

[Brainster]

Yes, exactly.

K, I've linked it at SLC. Great work!

[Bobert]

Very nice job Reheat!
Support for CIT is dwindling that is very apparent.

[Bobert]

Wow JFK already posted a link to your paper.
Weird thing is that he put it into the Pentagon section instead of the Skeptics section.
Is that so he can lure the skeptics in and then ban a bunch of them?
I bet Aldo wont be happy that JFK did that.
I am sure we will see him crying soon.
Man break out the NWO CERTIFIED popcorn.

[bje]

Reheat, great job.

Maybe this has been covered, but would I be correct in using this famous B-52 crash as an illustration of what you describe as a stall resulting from too steep a bank angle in a turn?

TSB-EqorBno

[Reheat]

Reheat, great job.

Maybe this has been covered, but would I be correct in using this famous B-52 crash as an illustration of what you describe as a stall resulting from too steep a bank angle in a turn?

Yep, that's one way to do it.

[Wildy]

Understood. Since the CIT boys will undoubtedly refuse to apply the math correctly (again) there is only one thing left to do.....

[cit mode]Can someone give me a hand moving this thing?[/cit mode]
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/19757484f146d520ba.jpg

If they were Aussie Rules goalposts then he would only need a second person to help move them.

[16.5]

And now the CIT's lap dog is comparing the calculations to WEBFAIRY and the no-planers.

Nice. The big numbers are that scary, hey JFK?

Or is it that the CIT's witness Morin was lying?

Either way, Champ, CIT fails.

[TC329]

I have some questions for Reheat.


1) Since the plane flew on the North side of the Citgo station as stated by many eyewitnesses now in interviews made public by CIT how did you determine that the plane was still required to pass over the exact "impact" spot?

2) How many eyewitnesses to the impact do we have from the north of the impact zone?

3) How many eyewitnesses to the impact do we have from the south of the impact zone?

4) Why was the north end of route 27 closed after Lloyd England pulled onto it and why wasn't the south end of route 27 closed?

Looking forward to your answers.

[1337m4n]

Enough said. Rejected.

Why?

[Arus808]

\

4) Why was the north end of route 27 closed after Lloyd England pulled onto it and why wasn't the south end of route 27 closed?

Looking forward to your answers.


out of all the questions, this has no bearing on Reheat's paper, nor his calculations. Why are you asking them? this is a question for the police in Washington DC.

[TC329]

fair enough.

strike #4.

[Jonnyclueless]

5) How many witnesses saw the plane fly over the building?

And 1) is false logic because there is much greater evidence that proves those witnesses wrong.

[Jonnyclueless]

Sounds like you composed your own epitaph.

It's either that or 'Buried Alive'.

[Spud1k]

1) Since the plane flew on the North side of the Citgo station as stated by many eyewitnesses now in interviews made public by CIT how did you determine that the plane was still required to pass over the exact "impact" spot?

If I understand his article right, the plane couldn't even have got as far as the Citgo station without stalling, so the question is kind of irrelevant.

[TC329]

If I understand his article right, the plane couldn't even have got as far as the Citgo station without stalling, so the question is kind of irrelevant.


tell me if you understand this right.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/ReheatRadiusNumbers.jpg

[Spud1k]

tell me if you understand this right.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/ReheatRadiusNumbers.jpg

I seem to understand it a lot better than the author of that figure (http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user=%20screwloosechange%20&comment=5348193205570806412#155981). Turns out they hadn't even read Reheat's article properly.

[TC329]

I seem to understand it a lot better than the author of that figure (http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user=%20screwloosechange%20&comment=5348193205570806412#155981). Turns out they hadn't even read Reheat's article properly.


ReTreats first set of charts go from Morin to NoC1, 2 and 3. Second set (which decrease raduis) go from NoC1,2,3 to Impact point.

We illustrated the full arc Morin to Impact point to show how the radius is well north of ReTreats NoC1, 2 and 3. If we increase the radius after NoC1, 2, and 3 as depicted in ReTreats charts, it wont even hit the pentagon as ReTreat claims! Think!

yeah i dont know what youre not seeing.

[Spud1k]

Keep reading...

I reiterate: Reheat describes two turns per scenario. One left turn between Morin and the NoCx points and one right turn to the Pentagon. Your illustration consists only of right turns between Morin and the Pentagon. Not the same thing.
Spud1k | 06.11.08 - 6:29 am | #

Reheat is trying to squeeze an S-Turn into that scenario? Geeze, i thought he was intellectually dishonest before, but that takes the cake. Wow... really?

And you're right, i didnt read his whole paper. I looked at his charts/radius and positions for NoC1, 2, and 3. I at least thought he was having a sweeping arc the enitre path as has been described ad naseum. Now he twists it (pun intended) even more with an S-Turn? Now there is no doubt in my mind why he wants to remain anonymous. Too funny. He must really be desperate to put an S-Turn in there. Im not gonna even bother to check radius with that. Its just so dishonest. Wow.
ReheatsNightmare | Homepage | 06.11.08 - 6:38 am | #

[16.5]

I have some questions for Reheat.

1) Since the plane flew on the North side of the Citgo station as stated by many eyewitnesses now in interviews made public by CIT how did you determine that the plane was still required to pass over the exact "impact" spot?

Looking forward to your answers.

Dom, welcome back! I don't think that you have posted since you were dismissed from the CIT, is that correct?

I find your first question very interesting, because after 1. the evidence has piled up about the impossibility of the NOC flight plan, 2. Balsalmo failed to counter the math showing this 3. Aldo and the rest of the CIT sheep over at CIT's Loose Change board began braying that "calculashuns" were worthless (showing CIT's anti-science, anti-math, neo-Luddite perspective; Dom, I think we have may have found our first “faith-based conspiracy theory!) the CIT is completely changing its “theory.” Now it is trying to claim that the flight path need not fly over the impact site!

So it is throwing overboard its claim that it was all an elaborate stage trick: As the plane approached the building, a huge fireball was created by preplanted explosives; the plane flew through the fireball and over the roof; and all the witnesses merely assumed that it had crashed into the building. And your very first question is you carrying CIT’s “new message” to the JREF scum!

Lets take a look at CIT’s new desperation Hail Mary, shall we? First, we need to throw out the testimony of Boger, right Dom? Next, lets talk about the star witnesses at the CITGO. None of them testified as to flyover (hell, Dom, we can all agree that they said the opposite, the plane hit the building) But the CIT boys claim that your own witnesses were tricked by the fireball. But (I’m sure you can see where I’m going, Dom....) If the plane did not fly over the impact site, and was thus not obscured by the fireball, your witnesses at CITGO (and Arlington for that matter) would have seen the flyover!

They did not, of course, a fact that even the CIT cannot wish away....

And the CIT’s faith based “flyover theory” is worthless, as it always has been.

[CHF]

If North of Citgo is not the dumbest theory ever to come out of the TM then it's certainly in the top 3.

[Dave Rogers]

If North of Citgo is not the dumbest theory ever to come out of the TM then it's certainly in the top 3.

Top 3? Really?

Clunkity-Clunk?
DEW from orbit?
Cloaking devices on commercial airliners?
Invisible parachuting MOSSAD ninjas?
Depleted uranium leading edges on planes that have been retro-fitted with engines of half the power?

There's some pretty tough competition out there. OK, it's physically impossible in the circumstances, but at least the concept that something can fly to the north of something else isn't immediately recognisable as an absurdity.

Dave

[nicepants]

I have some questions for Reheat.
1) Since the plane flew on the North side of the Citgo station as stated by many eyewitnesses now in interviews made public by CIT how did you determine that the plane was still required to pass over the exact "impact" spot?

If it didn't pass over the impact spot, perhaps you can tell us where it did go.

Hey, I have an idea, why don't you just draw out a flight path for us?

[16.5]

I have been told elsewhere that "the extremely small numbers with the intent of providing disinfo when none is required to prove the point puts reheats paper into the same realm as webfairy's theories."

Hmmm, perhaps you are having trouble understanding the paper? Or perhaps you are discrediting Paik's and Terry Morin's testimony?

I see, you are buying hook line and sinker CIT's fantasy big sweeping NOC arc. Two problems: 1. your own witnesses contradict that claim; 2. you still can't get from NOC to the impact site without the wings falling off.

Or just go ban another Skeptic. By the way, does Dylan know that CIT has hijacked his board, and have a personal lap dog admin banning anyone who dares question those nitwits? Thats a good little doggie.

16.5, JREF scum, signing off.

[Spud1k]

The bit that makes me laugh regarding the flyover theory (along with most other Pentagon no-planer theories) is why the hell would they bother? I mean, the logistics of getting flight 77 to do a near miss, concealing the flyover with an explosion, letting it slip away in the confusion and distributing wreckage and bodies at the site makes the mind boggle, not to mention the fact that you'd have to somehow dispose of the original plane and the bodies.

If I were the NWO, I'd have thought it'd be much more straightforward just to fly the plane into the Pentagon and have done with it. But what do I know about running a conspiracy?

[Reheat]

tell me if you understand this right.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/ReheatRadiusNumbers.jpg

This is so funny. The stupid it burns!

I'm only addressing this to folks here. Addressing it to the author of that diagram is not worth the effort as it is pure unadulterated nonsense.

Note that in the real world the arc's drawn depict an aircraft approaching Morin's position from the SOUTH, not from a ~Westerly heading. How does the aircraft "spin on a dime" to achieve a northerly heading direction from a WESTERLY heading into Morin's position? This depiction leaves Paik completely out of the equation.

This diagram is only for "troofers" who don't have a clue, and will likely swallow it whole.

Also, look at the turn radius numbers in the diagram. Do you see a similarity to some of the same turn radius numbers in my paper. A turn radius of an equal measurement requires the same bank, same G, no matter how you slice it.

Back to the drawing board CIT and pffft, this won't hack it. In fact, it makes you more of a laughing stock than if you had not even tried.

This is worth 5 dogs......

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)

[1337m4n]

Why does CIT care so much what Reheat's real name is?



I can anonymously say that the sky is blue, and my anonymity won't make me any less right.

[e^n]

I am no expert and my maths skills are not what they were, but in trying to generate a least force approach I came up with these figures:

http://xs128.xs.to/xs128/08243/bankangle664.png (http://xs.to)

Now to me even the least angle reported here seems a little excessive, a 50 degree bank would be very visible and the way I have modelled it there would be no possible way to level out and pull up at any point. Is this a fatal flaw, or are my maths skills worse than I thought? Find out when CIT responds I guess :)

[Reheat]

Why does CIT care so much what Reheat's real name is?

If you're serious, I though everyone knew why? Since they can't refute the calculations or the numbers, their only alternative is to attack the messenger (as they are already doing and have been doing).

If I had to resort to producing that silly diagram I just addressed, I might resort to the same tactic (that is, if I were a troofer).

[Spud1k]

Why does CIT care so much what Reheat's real name is?

If they know who he is, they can start with the ad hominems and harassment. If they don't, they can accuse him of either cowardice, a lack of authority or the dreaded COINTELPRO.

So like you say, it has nothing at all to do with the subject in hand.

[Reheat]

I am no expert and my maths skills are not what they were, but in trying to generate a least force approach I came up with these figures:

http://xs128.xs.to/xs128/08243/bankangle664.png (http://xs.to)

Now to me even the least angle reported here seems a little excessive, a 50 degree bank would be very visible and the way I have modelled it there would be no possible way to level out and pull up at any point. Is this a fatal flaw, or are my maths skills worse than I thought? Find out when CIT responds I guess :)

e^n, At first glance, your chart appears to address (at best) flying directly from Paik to NoC to the impact point in a wide sweeping turn. Even then it's very, very optimistic. That completely omits Morin from the equation.

Once you include Morin's position the numbers can't be much different from mine. Sure, the turns to the impact point could begin a little earlier, but the aircraft still needs to pass over the depicted points in order to adhere to what the witnesses said. It really doesn't make enough difference to matter. The result is essentially the same.

[e^n]

e^n, At first glance, your chart appears to address (at best) flying directly from Paik to NoC to the impact point in a wide sweeping turn. Even then it's very, very optimistic. That completely omits Morin from the equation.

Once you include Morin's position the numbers can't be much different from mine. Sure, the turns to the impact point could begin a little earlier, but the aircraft still needs to pass over the depicted points in order to adhere to what the witnesses said. It really doesn't make enough difference to matter. The result is essentially the same.

Indeed it very much does omit Morin, it also omits parts of several different accounts indicating bank angles. Frankly I am trying to give CIT as much leeway here as possible, this is (as far as I can imagine it) the absolute minimum amount of radial acceleration the aircraft could have undergone while flying over Paik and the Pentagon impact point. It's well within the plane's performance limits at least. I have stopped posting on Loose Change now so we'll have to see if Dom or whoever replies here.

[Reheat]

......It's well within the plane's performance limits at least. I have stopped posting on Loose Change now so we'll have to see if Dom or whoever replies here.

Yes, that's essentially true. However, one has to play with the approach to Paik and it needs to be on a precise heading toward NoC (not in accordance with Paik's described approach angle to him).

If you recall the diagram they previously posted, we calculated at about 60 degrees of bank, 2 G's, ~4300' turn radius at 300 knots. Your chart seems to be more optimistic than that.

[GlennB]

......
Frankly I am trying to give CIT as much leeway here as possible, this is (as far as I can imagine it) the absolute minimum amount of radial acceleration the aircraft could have undergone while flying over Paik and the Pentagon impact point......

My bolding.

Interestingly, they have been invited a hundred times to choose their most favourable approach/turn that is even vaguely consistent with even their interpretation of witness testimony and plug the values into the online calculator..

I have no doubt that they have tried this and have come up with a stonkin' huge blank, which is why they shy away from this question like it's the Bubonic Plague with sharp spikey bits sticking out the side.

[Jonnyclueless]

Top 3? Really?

Clunkity-Clunk?
DEW from orbit?
Cloaking devices on commercial airliners?
Invisible parachuting MOSSAD ninjas?
Depleted uranium leading edges on planes that have been retro-fitted with engines of half the power?

There's some pretty tough competition out there. OK, it's physically impossible in the circumstances, but at least the concept that something can fly to the north of something else isn't immediately recognisable as an absurdity.

Dave

I think he means CIT is in the top 3 in terms of wasting everyone's time.

[jaydeehess]

I have some questions for Reheat.


1) Since the plane flew on the North side of the Citgo station as stated by many eyewitnesses now in interviews made public by CIT how did you determine that the plane was still required to pass over the exact "impact" spot?

If it passes north or south of the fireball all your witnesses could not be fooled into thinking it went where the fireball was. Lagasse, Brooks and Turcois especially as they would have been looking along the flight path and could easily determine if the plane went where the fireball appeared.
Dom-strike 1

2) How many eyewitnesses to the impact do we have from the north of the impact zone?

Seems to me that ANC witnesses would be considered to the north. If the plane went north of the Pentagon or even north of the impact point then they would see a flyover. Furthermore there are parking areas to the north, no one witnessed a fly by to the north of the Pentagon.
Dom-strike 2


3) How many eyewitnesses to the impact do we have from the south of the impact zone?

Several, what's your point?
Dom- pops foul

4) Why was the north end of route 27 closed after Lloyd England pulled onto it and why wasn't the south end of route 27 closed?


See above. This occured after the fact and would therefore have no bearing on what path the plane took many minutes prior. Traffic was moving in both directions at the time of impact.
Dom- pops a blooper , caught by the pitcher

next bat

[jaydeehess]

Why does CIT care so much what Reheat's real name is?



I can anonymously say that the sky is blue, and my anonymity won't make me any less right.

In the twoof world using your real name is supposedly a mark of standing behind your beliefs. That it may be , however it seems to escape them that if one posts calculations then it really does not matter whether or not the poster believes he has done it correctly. Anyone else with a modicum of math accumen can confirm or disprove the calculations.

2+2=4 in all base ten situations claiming that 2+2=7 can be seen to be in error by anyone having taken grade 1 arithmetic even if the person making the claim swears on a stack of holy texts that he believes it equals 7.

I can add that when I checked into reheat's turn radi I found that he was being overly generous to the CiT.

[Bobert]

I wonder where Craig is?
He has been strangely silent.
I was hoping that he could supply another see saw drawing.
That might be able to crush Reheats paper!
:D

[e^n]

Yes, that's essentially true. However, one has to play with the approach to Paik and it needs to be on a precise heading toward NoC (not in accordance with Paik's described approach angle to him).

If you recall the diagram they previously posted, we calculated at about 60 degrees of bank, 2 G's, ~4300' turn radius at 300 knots. Your chart seems to be more optimistic than that.

Yes my attempt is much more optimistic than that, I used a 2700m turn radius because I took it from Paik's position. With angles like 50 degrees+ coming out, we don't even need to speculate where exactly the flight path should be placed, this is about the most optimistic I can possibly be and it is simply not supported by eyewitness accounts. In many cases the plane would have been fully side on to some of the witnesses.

Here are both yours and my plots roughly combined. I'll work on adding stall limits in also.

http://xs128.xs.to/xs128/08243/bank3d762.png (http://xs.to)

[16.5]

Well, it should come as no surprise, the Twoofers response to Reheat's paper has been nothing but Ad Hom attacks (led, to no one's surprise by their chief lap dog, JFK).

Perhaps the Twoofers could benefit from an understanding of a refresher course:

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Reheat presents mathematical calculations.
JFK makes an attack on Reheat on the basis that he is “anonymous.”
Therefore JFK claims that the math is therefore false.

This is, of course, ludicrous. The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the argument being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Maybe The Author could take this to heart.

[Reheat]

Yes my attempt is much more optimistic than that, I used a 2700m turn radius because I took it from Paik's position. With angles like 50 degrees+ coming out, we don't even need to speculate where exactly the flight path should be placed, this is about the most optimistic I can possibly be and it is simply not supported by eyewitness accounts. In many cases the plane would have been fully side on to some of the witnesses.

Here are both yours and my plots roughly combined. I'll work on adding stall limits in also.

Yes, at first glance your chart is in the ballpark. I understand that you're just doing a mental exercise, but what does this accomplish by leaving Morin out of the equation?

If they come up with a valid reason to "throw Morin under the bus" we can deal with it at that time. In the meantime, I'm not interested in helping them make it possible. As I've done it, it is about as close as I can come to adhering to what the witnesses said at all reasonable speed to include ridiculous slow speeds.

[e^n]

Yes, at first glance your chart is in the ballpark. I understand that you're just doing a mental exercise, but what does this accomplish by leaving Morin out of the equation?

If they come up with a valid reason to "throw Morin under the bus" we can deal with it at that time. In the meantime, I'm not interested in helping them make it possible. As I've done it, it is about as close as I can come to adhering to what the witnesses said at all reasonable speed to include ridiculous slow speeds.

Well I am trying to provide the edge case, the absolute limit to plausibility. From my numbers it seems there would be no cases in which the aircraft would stall, but I didn't realise some of your figures were in metres so the graph above does not cover your turns fully. Still I think it illustrates quite well that even in the absolute best case scenario, a bank of 45 degrees is still required. No witness mentions this as far as I know, and if my figures are accurate and CIT can't be bothered disputing them, this is a nice final nail in the coffin so to speak.

[Reheat]

Well I am trying to provide the edge case, the absolute limit to plausibility. From my numbers it seems there would be no cases in which the aircraft would stall, but I didn't realise some of your figures were in metres so the graph above does not cover your turns fully. Still I think it illustrates quite well that even in the absolute best case scenario, a bank of 45 degrees is still required. No witness mentions this as far as I know, and if my figures are accurate and CIT can't be bothered disputing them, this is a nice final nail in the coffin so to speak.

Uh, my number are in feet!

[e^n]

Uh, my number are in feet!

Whoops sorry, I meant my numbers were in metres, yours in feet :)

I have produced a graphical version of my proposed flight path based on Google Earth's scaling, I think this is right.

This obviously doesn't satisfy several of the witness criteria and barely satisfies others, and requires a large amount of bank throughout without having any time to level out or pull up.

http://xs128.xs.to/xs128/08243/pentagonleastforce801.jpg.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08243&f=pentagonleastforce801.jpg)

[Reheat]

Whoops sorry, I meant my numbers were in metres, yours in feet :)

I have produced a graphical version of my proposed flight path based on Google Earth's scaling, I think this is right.

This obviously doesn't satisfy several of the witness criteria and barely satisfies others, and requires a large amount of bank throughout without having any time to level out or pull up.

http://xs128.xs.to/xs128/08243/pentagonleastforce801.jpg.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08243&f=pentagonleastforce801.jpg)

Yep, IIRC that's about 60 degrees of bank, 2 G's @ 300 Knots all the way.

[e^n]

Yep, IIRC that's about 60 degrees of bank, 2 G's @ 300 Knots all the way.

I make it quite a bit less than that, it is the same as my graph beforehand but I am no expert. Regardless I think we can agree nobody mentions a bank this severe?

[Spud1k]

Yep, IIRC that's about 60 degrees of bank, 2 G's @ 300 Knots all the way.

That's still a lot for a 757, right? IIRC 60 degrees is the most the plane I work on (a BAe-146) is operationally allowed to do and I'm guessing it'd be similar for most passenger jets.

[Reheat]

That's still a lot for a 757, right? IIRC 60 degrees is the most the plane I work on (a BAe-146) is operationally allowed to do and I'm guessing it'd be similar for most passenger jets.

While it is within operational limits, it is indeed a horrendous turn for any large aircraft, particularly close the ground as the witnesses described.

A BAe-146 is much smaller. Even tho' it is allowed to execute a 60 degree banked turn, I doubt it is done other than in training with an instructor on board or perhaps in a simulator.

[pomeroo]

One of the pilots--let's call him "Bib Salbamo"--wrote:

Ok... someone pointed out to me ReTreat is trying to fit this scenario into an S-Turn. This way my reply on SLC...

"Reheat is trying to squeeze an S-Turn into that scenario? Geeze, i thought he was intellectually dishonest before, but that takes the cake. Wow... really?

And you're right, i didnt read his whole paper. I looked at his charts/radius and positions for NoC1, 2, and 3. I at least thought he was having a sweeping arc the enitre path as has been described ad naseum. Now he twists it (pun intended) even more with an S-Turn? Now there is no doubt in my mind why he wants to remain anonymous. Too funny. He must really be desperate to put an S-Turn in there. Im not gonna even bother to check radius with that. Its just so dishonest. Wow."

ReTreat, you cant even be the least bit honest even when you're being intellectually dishonest. You're too much.. lol

[Reheat]

One of the pilots--let's call him "Bib Salbamo"--wrote:

Ok... someone pointed out to me ReTreat is trying to fit this scenario into an S-Turn. This way my reply on SLC...

"Reheat is trying to squeeze an S-Turn into that scenario? Geeze, i thought he was intellectually dishonest before, but that takes the cake. Wow... really?

And you're right, i didnt read his whole paper. I looked at his charts/radius and positions for NoC1, 2, and 3. I at least thought he was having a sweeping arc the enitre path as has been described ad naseum. Now he twists it (pun intended) even more with an S-Turn? Now there is no doubt in my mind why he wants to remain anonymous. Too funny. He must really be desperate to put an S-Turn in there. Im not gonna even bother to check radius with that. Its just so dishonest. Wow."

ReTreat, you cant even be the least bit honest even when you're being intellectually dishonest. You're too much.. lol

This must be the newest member of pffft! :D Apparently, He hasn't been instructed not to make an ass of himself in public.

He needs to explain how an aircraft can execute a RIGHT HAND sweeping arc (his words) to the impact point when traveling from Paik's position, to Morin's position and go North of the Citgo. That I would like to see illustrated.

It has to execute an S turn as there is no other way to do it and also fly over Paik and Morin. As I pointed out earlier for a diagram posted by TC329, it ignored (bypassed) Paik and approached Morin from the South. Perhaps the author was trying to illustrate that he could draw a turn radius equal to mine. I'm really not sure of the point.

Apparently, what he really wants (while not expressing it very well) is to fly from Paik directly to NoC (as CIT has spun it) and as one of their earlier flight paths indicated. That completely ignores Morin's stated position. That's probably the sweeping arc he's talking about.

He really doesn't like those NoC to Impact Pt turns and if I were him, I wouldn't either. They're ludicrous!

[pomeroo]

The latest from "Bib":

This is what ReTreat is trying to depict. Is it any wonder he didnt illustrate as such? Im sure even you Ron will agree this flight path depicted by ReTreat is intellectually dishonest. Not to mention his radius calculations arent very accurate. I just put this together in about 30 mins.

By the way.. i got a chuckle out of "Bib Salbamo" :-)

Pilots For Truth <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/ReTreatUnReasonablePath.jpg (http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/ReTreatUnReasonablePath.jpg)

[Reheat]

The latest from "Bib":

This is what ReTreat is trying to depict. Is it any wonder he didnt illustrate as such? Im sure even you Ron will agree this flight path depicted by ReTreat is intellectually dishonest. Not to mention his radius calculations arent very accurate. I just put this together in about 30 mins.

By the way.. i got a chuckle out of "Bib Salbamo" :-)

Pilots For Truth <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/ReTreatUnReasonablePath.jpg (http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/ReTreatUnReasonablePath.jpg)


Not surprising that he's upset. I wonder where the numbers are for his rendition of my diagrams. It's obvious that he put it together in about 30 minutes! :D

[Minadin]

Top 3? Really?

Clunkity-Clunk?
DEW from orbit?
Cloaking devices on commercial airliners?
Invisible parachuting MOSSAD ninjas?
Depleted uranium leading edges on planes that have been retro-fitted with engines of half the power?

There's some pretty tough competition out there. OK, it's physically impossible in the circumstances, but at least the concept that something can fly to the north of something else isn't immediately recognisable as an absurdity.

Dave

Yeah, top 3. Ok, top 5 in a worst-case scenario. And the authors of the theory are some of the most idiotic. in fact, Lyte Trip has had more than a year and a half to apologize for falsely accusing me of being a liar, and has completely failed to do so. Though I'm sure I'm not exactly unique in that regard.

[Horatius]

Not surprising that he's upset. I wonder where the numbers are for his rendition of my diagrams. It's obvious that he put it together in about 30 minutes! :D



Hell, I'm still wondering where his numbers from his "team" that was examining his "hitting the light poles was impossible" theory are!

[Spud1k]

A BAe-146 is much smaller. Even tho' it is allowed to execute a 60 degree banked turn, I doubt it is done other than in training with an instructor on board or perhaps in a simulator.

We use the plane for research purposes, which does entail the odd hokey manoeuvre here and there and we're not ensured the usual level comfort offered to passengers. We do get issued barf bags though.

[Sparky]

Posted in the other CIT thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3770637#post3770637

What do you think?

[Spud1k]

One of the pilots--let's call him "Bib Salbamo"--wrote:

When he originally posted that, I thought he was just ranting and throwing toys out of the cot and would regret what he said afterwards, but on reading your post, he seems somehow proud to admit that he had (and presumably continues to have) absolutely no comprehension of what it was he was trying to critique.

I mean, wow... just... wow...

[Caustic Logic]

Why am I even still awake? Oh yeah, I just finished finding and writing about the S-s-s-swerve. A bit contrarian, nothing personal Reheat, but I think the critics have a point or two.
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/06/reheat-reasoning-radii.html
For example, why couldn't this work? It's got a P1 way down there, it fits Paik's drawing and Morin - hey, maybe he's a mind-controlled plant. :)
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Wide_turn_radius.jpg
Still seems patchwork, but trying to address their actual proposals instead of something similar seems a good idea. Then we get into what is really being illustrated here. Maybe it's a higher-level thing about reading evidence... As I said:
If nothing else, this episode illustrates the absurdity of trying to concoct a real flight path from witnesses by focusing on discrepancies rather than correlation, and the dangers of selective reading - someone, or some part, always has to get thrown under the bus. And besides, if someone "must really be desperate to put an S-Turn in there,” someone needs to look into the chaps who put out this desperate s-s-s-swerve a while back and started all these tortured calculations.
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Lyte-finalflightpath.jpg

[Pinch]

I have some questions for Reheat.

4) Why was the north end of route 27 closed after Lloyd England pulled onto it and why wasn't the south end of route 27 closed?



Aside from the fact this has nothing to do with the aeronautical things we are speaking about, where did anyone get the idea Rte 27 was "closed" after Mr. England pulled onto it?

[e^n]

For example, why couldn't this work? It's got a P1 way down there, it fits Paik's drawing and Morin - hey, maybe he's a mind-controlled plant. :)

I feel it is irrelevant as this curve is a much smaller radius than mine, and that results a bank angle over 50 degrees, much too high. Check my 3d graph and path plot above.

[16.5]

Caustic Logic:

I looked over your work, and while I can see why people want to throw CIT a bone (because even using the over the annex big sweeping arc, the bank angles don't work) the fact is that Morin was not between the wings of the Annex.

That graphic in your blog has Morin between the wings, and I assume that is where Waldo wants to put him (standing near a container box that Waldo thinks is a security check point. Waldo is, of course a moron). However, Lyte has repeatedly posted a photograph showing Morin's approximate position, and that is in the parking lot south of the annex.

So to accept the big sweeping arc, you have to discredit ALL of Morin's testimony (which I know the CIT will do in a heartbeat because they are a frustrating fraud). Not just his testimony that he saw the freaking plane hit the freaking Pentagon (which JFK is doing with great vigor, while claiming the reheat is throwing Morin under the bus. Hi JFK!)

As an aside can you give me a list all the CIT witnesses? I posted yesterday that the CIT had intentionally misrepresented the testimony of one of their ANC witnesses (moving the plane 800 feet further North than what he actually said) and I'd like to see where else they have misrepresented the testimony.

[nicepants]

The latest from "Bib":

This is what ReTreat is trying to depict. Is it any wonder he didnt illustrate as such? Im sure even you Ron will agree this flight path depicted by ReTreat is intellectually dishonest. Not to mention his radius calculations arent very accurate. I just put this together in about 30 mins.

By the way.. i got a chuckle out of "Bib Salbamo" :-)

Pilots For Truth <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com> wrote:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/ReTreatUnReasonablePath.jpg (http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/ReTreatUnReasonablePath.jpg)


All this whining....

You know, Bib, you guys could make this infinitely easier on yourselves if you'd just draw up a flight path that agrees with all of your eyewitnesses, so we don't have to guess.

[Reheat]

.......A bit contrarian, nothing personal Reheat, but I think the critics have a point or two.

And what valid point do they have? Omit Morin's position from the equation? That's what you've done with this. Read his testimony again and see if this line fits.

For example, why couldn't this work? It's got a P1 way down there, it fits Paik's drawing and Morin - hey, maybe he's a mind-controlled plant. :)

It will work within operational limits, but still with a very high bank angle that NO ONE MENTIONED. Paiks points in an easterly direction and Morin stated the aircraft flew parallel to the Annex roofline and SOUTH of it. With that in mind, how does your flight path fit?

If you listen to CIT's line of spin regarding a flight path, which Balsamo parrots, it will work albeit still at airshow type bank angles. If you listen to the witnesses, a different story emerges. If you listen to CIT's spin, the aircraft flew over the building. But, if you listen to the witnesses, all that were in a position to see said it hit the building. It doesn't take a genius to determine who is spinning what here.

[GlennB]

And what valid point do they have? Omit Morin's position from the equation? That's what you've done with this. Read his testimony again and see if this line fits.



It will work within operational limits, but still with a very high bank angle that NO ONE MENTIONED. Paiks points in an easterly direction and Morin stated the aircraft flew parallel to the Annex roofline and SOUTH of it. With that in mind, how does your flight path fit?

If you listen to CIT's line of spin regarding a flight path, which Balsamo parrots, it will work albeit still at airshow type bank angles. If you listen to the witnesses, a different story emerges. If you listen to CIT's spin, the aircraft flew over the building. But, if you listen to the witnesses, all that were in a position to see said it hit the building. It doesn't take a genius to determine who is spinning what here.

Yep, and in this case it's all one big catch where logic and maths can *always* be waved aside by the NoC twoofers. They are not restrained by logical thought processes. Their own "witnesses" disagree so profoundly in their recollections that you cannot possibly please them with actual aeronautical physics. They will always find a way out.

Your efforts, Reheat, have been excellent. But they have foundered on the impenetrable rocks of wriggling, dancing, quasi-religious belief.

[bje]

As an aside can you give me a list all the CIT witnesses? I posted yesterday that the CIT had intentionally misrepresented the testimony of one of their ANC witnesses (moving the plane 800 feet further North than what he actually said) and I'd like to see where else they have misrepresented the testimony.

Just ask the CIT/Balsamo frauds some easy questions and watch how they weasel:

1) There are no witnesses on the far side of the Pentagon anywhere that saw AA77 fly beyond the Pentagon. Why can't CIT or Balsamo find any?

2) Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and Rob Balsamo have steadfastly refused to interview or provide any statements whatsoever from any of the hundredsof people who were inside the Pentagon performing firefighting, rescue and recovery operations, debris and wreckage removal, emergency construction operations shoring up the structure, forensic investigators, etc. Any of these people could testify as to what wreckage they actually saw and recovered. They also could contradict the evidence that it was from AA77 or from a Boeing 757 but not one single one of these witnesses have ever done so. Why won't the CIT/Balsamo crew interview them to find out what the wreckage was?

The CIT/Balsamo loons will not go there and think of every excuse to avoid admitting the obvious: they know AA77 hit the Pentagon.

[jaydeehess]

A bit contrarian, nothing personal Reheat, but I think the critics have a point or two.
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/06/reheat-reasoning-radii.html
For example, why couldn't this work? It's got a P1 way down there, it fits Paik's drawing and Morin - hey, maybe he's a mind-controlled plant. :)
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Wide_turn_radius.jpg
Still seems patchwork, but trying to address their actual proposals instead of something similar seems a good idea. Then we get into what is really being illustrated here. Maybe it's a higher-level thing about reading evidence... As I said:

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Lyte-finalflightpath.jpg

While this path would throw the CiT more leeway it then, as pointed out several times, throws Morin's statement under the bus. We all agree that the plane was over Columbia Pike BEFORE it gets to the Annex. We here all agree that the plane must end up at the impact point or above the impact point. The CiT move the goalposts so frequently it is hardly sporting.

First we were to believe Morin, now not so much. First the plane flew through the fireball that occured at the impact point and now it went north or south of it. First it was a flyover and bank left, then a flyover and a bank right (over the south parking lot), now its a path north of the impact area (either over or completely missing the Pentagon) and then what?, the south parking lot is out I suppose and we are back to a bank left and north along the Potomac?

I agree with nicepants. If the CiT and/or PfT could simply draw the flight path on a map, maybe several possible paths, and give their reasons for believeing that the plane flew that path this would be a lot simpler. Trying to nail these guys down to something as simple as where the plane was as it approached, and supposedly left, the Pentagon is like trying to herd cats.

Now my calculations might be a bit off BUT if the plane flew over Morin parallel to the annex and went south of the Citgo along the line of downed lap posts and into the Pentagon it would require about a 5 degree left turn bank and that would fit all physical evidence including the starboard wing being higher than the port wing upon impact.
It fits Paik's pointing to where the plane went.
It fits Turcois's original placement of the aircraft (he points south , over the Citgo canopy before Craig suggests, twice, that it was further north).
It fits Boger's statement who puts it over the Annex, which from his POV it would look like it was. Boger also states that the plane hit at an angle to the Pentagon which would either mean a very heavy yaw or that it approached at an angle)
It fits the lack of any description of a severe bank.

It does not fit Lagasse and possibly Brooks' staements about the path but both of them also state unequivocally, that the plane hit the Pentagon. So they are obviously in error in either that or their flight path. Given that every single solitary witness in position to see it states that the plane hit the building, we can safely assume that L and B are correct on that part (preponderance of the evidence). Gven that the accepted flight path fits so many more witness descriptions than these two, and the physical evidence of the downed lamp poles and the path of destruction in the building, the totality of all the on site evidence points to the plane having flown the accepted flight path.

[Caustic Logic]

Caustic Logic:

I looked over your work, and while I can see why people want to throw CIT a bone (because even using the over the annex big sweeping arc, the bank angles don't work) the fact is that Morin was not between the wings of the Annex.

Oh I know.. "from between" the wings is not "between." I'm saying we need to consider their int. to debunk their proposal. I'm sure even if it goes below the turn that would cause stall speed, once we calculate in 757 performance relatve to these forces and the add'l turns like right at the Sheratos after coming up from the driving range, it'll prove impossible and/or unsubs. by witnesses.

As an aside can you give me a list all the CIT witnesses? I posted yesterday that the CIT had intentionally misrepresented the testimony of one of their ANC witnesses (moving the plane 800 feet further North than what he actually said) and I'd like to see where else they have misrepresented the testimony.

No. Do you mean 'verified' ones? Writing, audio, video, open sources or off-the-record? Or cited prev. pub witnesses like Morin? Or contacted but only asked a couple Qs and otherwise just misread prev acc, like O"Brien? Anyway, I don't have a full list in one spot, but a good sampling of distortions can be found linked here:
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/03/video-review-pentacon.html

[beachnut]

Why am I even still awake? Oh yeah, I just finished finding and writing about the S-s-s-swerve. A bit contrarian, nothing personal Reheat, but I think the critics have a point or two.
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/06/reheat-reasoning-radii.html
For example, why couldn't this work? It's got a P1 way down there, it fits Paik's drawing and Morin - hey, maybe he's a mind-controlled plant. :)
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Wide_turn_radius.jpg
Still seems patchwork, but trying to address their actual proposals instead of something similar seems a good idea. Then we get into what is really being illustrated here. Maybe it's a higher-level thing about reading evidence... As I said:

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Lyte-finalflightpath.jpg
because there was no bank angle greater than 8.8 degrees seen or occurring in the last 27 seconds.
The bank angle for your photo is only 81.5 degrees for your turn to make the Pentagon at the actual speed of flight 77, at 6.7 Gs.
The link, only needs 76 degree of bank, 4.2 Gs. Considering the maximum bank angle was 8.8 degree in the last 30 seconds of flight, as confirmed by witnesses not seeing a big bank angle; CIT is full of junk.

The real flight path was very straight considering the speed and bank angles involved. The real flight path heading varied less than 4 degrees in the last 27 seconds. There are no flight paths CIT proposes that meet reality.

[Caustic Logic]

Sorry for the late response.
And what valid point do they have? Omit Morin's position from the equation? That's what you've done with this. Read his testimony again and see if this line fits.

The point was simply that your impossible NoC path is not the same as theirs. Of course this doesn't fit everything, as nothing can. Morin's acc't thrown in screws up their claims and it's still not complete anyway - he described seeing it disappear behind the hill and the tail tilting to the left (?) which can't se seen in your path. What do you include? What do you sacrifice? If you really wanted to make an impossible path, include Alan Wallace too.
The plane had two big engines, appeared to be in level flight, and wasapproximately 25 feet off the ground, and about 200 YARDS from our location. I latersaid the plane approached the Pentagon at about a 45 degree angle but later drawingsshowed it was closer to 60 degrees. The airplane appeared to be a Boeing 757 or an AirBus 320 — white, with blue and orange stripes. Mark later recalled the plane was silver andeven identified that it was American Airlines.http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:4bDjtH3MWxsJ:www.heartofamericaquil t.com/files/alanwallace.pdf+%22Alan+Wallace%22+45+angle+yards&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
Or include from their own witnesses an impact and the flyover theory is dead, if leaving the Q how the plane cause the angle of damage inside after approaching from north and south of the Citgo simultaneously. Or keep the flyover and do it how Roberts says - escape to the southwest at light pole level, the same way it came in. 180 deg turn in about the space of the Pentagon yields how many Gs?

I guess my point is it's hard to even get anything solid enough to set numbers to, trying to patch all this together.

It will work within operational limits, but still with a very high bank angle that NO ONE MENTIONED. Paiks points in an easterly direction and Morin stated the aircraft flew parallel to the Annex roofline and SOUTH of it. With that in mind, how does your flight path fit?

It doesn't fit the evidence, like the downed poles as well as mild bank angles reported. And as you note, it ignores key witness details. But it is a more reasonable int. of CIT's claim, and less prone to straw man accusations. Not that their accusations matter any.

[Minadin]

Their own witnesses claim to have seen impact. But, they ignore that and just try to spin what they can as 'anomylous' with regard to the witness testimony. It's classic conspiracy theorist 'woo' idiocy. They're idiots.

[Caustic Logic]

because there was no bank angle greater than 8.8 degrees seen or occurring in the last 27 seconds.
Oh sure, and people saw it impact too. :rolleyes:
The bank angle for your photo is only 81.5 degrees for your turn to make the Pentagon at the actual speed of flight 77, at 6.7 Gs.
Really? That curve at 530 mph yields a 81.5 bank? because I've proposed similar scale curves thinking them reasonable - image (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/FP_proposal_2_bank_antenna.jpg) - so does that look pretty wack too? (red circle is the 170' VDOT tower it didn't hit). App. so, but No big deal - final position is prob. off enough that we're guessing and maybe it did go over the tower...

[beachnut]

Oh sure, and people saw it impact too. :rolleyes:

Really? That curve at 530 mph yields a 81.5 bank? because I've proposed similar scale curves thinking them reasonable - image (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/FP_proposal_2_bank_antenna.jpg) - so does that look pretty wack too? (red circle is the 170' VDOT tower it didn't hit). App. so, but No big deal - final position is prob. off enough that we're guessing and maybe it did go over the tower...
I thought you were saying the yellow line was reasonable, but it was a high g turn. Your other paths under, image, are good; as long as final heading varied only 4 degrees, from 66 to 70 degrees and at less than a degree per second changes.


The bank was erratic, and changes of bank at 3 degree per second do not make heading changes fast.

Your flight path under "image" is much better than any CIT non path.

[e^n]

Really? That curve at 530 mph yields a 81.5 bank? because I've proposed similar scale curves thinking them reasonable - image (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/FP_proposal_2_bank_antenna.jpg) - so does that look pretty wack too? (red circle is the 170' VDOT tower it didn't hit). App. so, but No big deal - final position is prob. off enough that we're guessing and maybe it did go over the tower...

I make it to have an 800-900m radius, which would make the bank angle curve vs speed look like this:

http://xs128.xs.to/xs128/08244/testbank3373.png (http://xs.to)

[Reheat]

I make it to have an 800-900m radius, which would make the bank angle curve vs speed look like this:

That looks like a very accurate chart.

[Reheat]

Really? That curve at 530 mph yields a 81.5 bank? because I've proposed similar scale curves thinking them reasonable -

Someone with no experience or knowledge of aircraft performance/turn radius CAN NOT just draw a curve or arc and say "well, that looks reasonable. That's what CIT has been doing all along. I suspect "their mentor", Balsamo, did the same thing because he has no experience flying anything above about 300 Knots. It's Speed ^2 in the turn radius formula and it is deceptive. Beachnut or I usually can come make a pretty close guess, but even then it's safest to measure it.

I tried to draw a flight paths that adhere to all of the witness testimony (without CIT's spin) and you see what it looks like. I did it at all reasonable speeds and all of the locations North of the Citgo. Yes, it is ludicrous. It is just as ludicrous as the conflicting and contradictory testimony of the witnesses. As has been pointed out time and time again, that is to be expected. That's why the testimony of these witness was put into the archives by the trained investigators during the original investigation. They were not trying to cover up anything, they were simply doing a competent investigation using their knowledge and training to reach a conclusion.

Now, along comes a group of Internet sleuths digging this stuff out of the archives, misinterpreting it due ignorance in some cases and to support a perverted agenda in others. This could have been predicted as it the book was already written.

That's why I am not responding now to most of the tripe from CIT. It's simply more of the same and is a literal waste of time. Well, it does provide entertainment. I was laughing so hard last evening at Ranke's latest diatribe that I nearly split my sides. No, I'm not going to link it as he needs no additional audience than he has already.

It was a good idea to put something permanent on the 'net and let them deal with it instead of having a continuing confab in Forums. I'm more convinced than ever that doing it anonymously was a good idea. No way would I inflict the type of character assassination that is occurring on my family and friends.

[e^n]

That looks like a very accurate chart.

I just rearranged the equations on the aerodynamic site you linked to give what I believe to be the minimal amount of bank to compensate for radial acceleration. Obviously these turns can be executed in a much smaller radius by increasing g forces, but that must increase the bank angle, so this approach minimises it I think.

I've posted at CITs forum to ask them what they make of bank angle and speeds in their witness accounts.

[Reheat]

I've posted at CITs forum to ask them what they make of bank angle and speeds in their witness accounts.

It takes 10 inklings to constitute 1 clue. They don't have an inkling!

[Reheat]

It's been a few days since the paper was posted and the personal attacks have died down to a dull roar, so I'll make a few comments on some things I'll change in a revised version next week.

First of all, I am not about to waste my time in coming up with a flight path or flight paths that pleases everyone. I just interpreted the witnesses' testimony and formulated flight paths that roughly correlate to their descriptions. As has been pointed out at least a hundred times, CIT or pffft has had nearly two years to demonstrate a flight path USING THEIR NUMBERS to support their theory. The fact that this hasn't been done should be VERY TELLING to bystanders and supporters alike.

There are a few things I will change in the first revision. As has been pointed out, the statements that "The calculations are aircraft type independent. Since all fixed wing aircraft are subject to the same forces in turns, the specific type of aircraft does not matter for the numbers posted in the chart below" will be changed to the following type of wording.

"Within the large transport category of aircraft that witnesses described, the calculations are specific aircraft type independent. Since ALL fixed wing aircraft are subject to the same bank angle and G forces in turns, the specific type of aircraft does not matter for the those numbers posted in the chart. Only the stall speed would be significantly different for different categories of aircraft."

I will also include a link to an Aerospace Web Site to help those who want to better understand the physics involved. It is better than the site I originally linked to in the article.

If anyone has further suggestions, I will consider them.

[TjW]

You might want to add something along the lines of:
"Thus, while a Mighty Morphin' Power wing could be imagined that would be able to generate enough lift without stalling, the G loading is a function of the speed and the radius of the turn, and the bank angle is a function of the G loading, and these won't change."

These aren't necessarily the smartest kids on the block. If not explicitly stated, they might miss the connection.

[Bobert]

Wonder Woman had an invisible plane so it isnt much of a stretch to believe that the all powerful NWO couldnt have built one by now!

[pomeroo]

I have received from Dick Eastman his analysis of the Pentagon "mystery," along with his permission to present it on the JREF. It is a large document, one that deserves a point-by-point rebuttal, but I require help in posting it. Any suggestions? I will e-mail it to anyone who provides his or her address.

[Klimax]

I have received from Dick Eastman his analysis of the Pentagon "mystery," along with his permission to present it on the JREF. It is a large document, one that deserves a point-by-point rebuttal, but I require help in posting it. Any suggestions? I will e-mail it to anyone who provides his or her address.

OK,paper is on-line and access is granted. :)

Its HTML code was mess.So I have two versions.
One,which has been converted to HTML+CSS (http://klimax.678.cz/Eastman's%20Basic%20Pentagon%20Evidence%20proving% 20the%20Zio-con%20false-flag%20inside-job.htm)
and

Original with horrible HTML code. (http://klimax.678.cz/Original%20Eastman's%20Basic%20Pentagon%20Evidence %20proving%20the%20Zio-con%20false-flag%20inside-job.htm)

Most of links to referenced sites are just text.Part of them where converted to links.

Use any of those versions,but know that the converted one is bigger.(Not much,but can count as well!)

If anybody wants to have any response or other "debunk material" hosted ,just PM me.Details and rest by PM.

99% of typos and such are original,so please compare with original,before reporting.

Klimax out.

P.S.:My apology for such delay,but my ISP is having here problems and service is very irregular.Now I am posting through very expensive back-up connection through EDGE... :(

[GlennB]

OK,paper is on-line and access is granted. :)
...

Thank you for your efforts, pomeroo and Klimax.

Such a shame that this "paper" is utter drivel. Anybody capable of publishing it will certainly not be capable of understanding rebuttals to its content.

[Reheat]

Such a shame that this "paper" is utter drivel. Anybody capable of publishing it will certainly not be capable of understanding rebuttals to its content.

I agree. I don't think it needs to be rebutted/debunked. It is basically the same as CIT's BS without some of the slime. Some of it is funny when he tries to apply crash physics to pieces of the aircraft that were found in front of the building.

The witness analysis just hand waves much of it away. How does one debunk "hand waving".

As far as I know it has not received much publicity, and is a terrible conglomeration of HTML and other grammatical errors.

My vote is that it be ignored and not given the time of day that it doesn't deserve.

[beachnut]

OK,paper is on-line and access is granted. :)
Its HTML code was mess.So I have two versions.
One,which has been converted to HTML+CSS (http://klimax.678.cz/Eastman's%20Basic%20Pentagon%20Evidence%20proving% 20the%20Zio-con%20false-flag%20inside-job.htm)
and

Original with horrible HTML code. (http://klimax.678.cz/Original%20Eastman's%20Basic%20Pentagon%20Evidence %20proving%20the%20Zio-con%20false-flag%20inside-job.htm)

If anybody wants to have any response or other "debunk material" hosted ,just PM me.Details and rest by PM.

Klimax out.

That paper is pure ignorance. Who did it? What is their real job?

[bje]

That paper is pure ignorance. Who did it? What is their real job?

Dick Eastman. He rose from the dead. He was soundly debunked back in 2002 and retreated into well-deserved obscurity. Revered by no-planers, he's trying to do a comeback tour.

Soon we'll probably see Gerard Holmgren rise from the dead as well.

[Klimax]

It looks like it has ended before even it got started...

Sigh.As I looked through I guessed correctly,that you have seen all of it.
Anything else to host or was this the only pitifull attempt at producing paper?

[pomeroo]

Dick Eastman. He rose from the dead. He was soundly debunked back in 2002 and retreated into well-deserved obscurity. Revered by no-planers, he's trying to do a comeback tour.

Soon we'll probably see Gerard Holmgren rise from the dead as well.


Dick Eastman has been "debating" our boy Ace in a protracted exchange of e-mails. Eastman contends that the no-planers are disinfo agents. They are many things, but not that.

[Reheat]

Some minor changes have been posted as follows:

Version 1.01 – June 20th 2008. Added more detail on how these calculations are unaffected by airplane type; made slight changes to the description of stall conditions; added a better link explaining turn calculations.