G Forces - Scene From 9/11: Attack On The Pentagon

[Turbofan]

An update to Pilots For 9/11 Truth Arlington Topography and Obstacles Article.

"G FORCES", a scene from the new film "9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON" produced by professional pilots, Aeronautical Engineers and physicists analyzes the G forces required for a 757 to negotiate the Arlington region on September 11, 2001 based on flight data provided by the US Govt. For full high quality film and detailed description, please visit:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5732289044586758033&hl=en

[jsfisher]

So, they still didn't fix any of their errors from the original?

[Bobert]

An update to Pilots For 9/11 Truth Arlington Topography and Obstacles Article.

"G FORCES", a scene from the new film "9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON" produced by professional pilots, Aeronautical Engineers and physicists analyzes the G forces required for a 757 to negotiate the Arlington region on September 11, 2001 based on flight data provided by the US Govt. For full high quality film and detailed description, please visit:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5732289044586758033&hl=en[/quote]

This doesnt even seem like a conspiracy discussion but rather PFT just trying to pimp their "movie".
Maybe this annoucement should go into Movies, TV, Music, Computer Gaming, and other Entertainment (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=21) (1

[Horatius]

Why don't you PfTers just write up an article, with a little math? I can read a hell of a lot faster than that guy narrates, and I don't have to put up with crappy quality video while I do it.



Oh, wait, I know why.....

[WildCat]

That's exactly how Woodward and Bernstein did it!

:dl:

[Pinch]

...professional pilots, Aeronautical Engineers and physicists...

Is there a reason why Aeronautical Engineers is capitalized and the others aren't? Is there something special about Aeronautical Engineers that renders professional pilots and physicists impotent with regards to capitalizing? Are Aeronautical Engineers the fruit of your bounty while professional pilots and physicists are mere toads?

In any event, I've no interest to watch some cartoon made up of unverified, unvalidated and unaccredited aeronautical (lower case) data created by a bunch of people who don't even understand departure plates or flight clearances.

[Turbofan]

That's too bad that you're too lazy to watch because it exposes Myriad,
R. Mackey and other 'pros', or "Pros" on this board.

Is there a reason why many of your pick on the most rediculous points of
a post?

[jsfisher]

That's too bad that you're too lazy to watch because it exposes Myriad,
R. Mackey and other 'pros', or "Pros" on this board.

Is there a reason why many of your pick on the most rediculous points of
a post?


(a) I did watch. It is garbage.
(b) The movie, via vigorous use of straw men, attempts to deflect attention from the bogus calculations upon which it was based.
(c) Myriad, R. Mackey, et al., remain better at math, and physics, etc., than PFT.
(d) Why is it so difficult to correctly spell 'ridiculous'? It seems to be a systemic problem, not just an affliction of Turbofan.

[Turbofan]

a. That's your opinion.

b. That's your perception

c. Myriad, Mackey et al continue to form calculations that are not
based on flight data provided by the NTSB. I don't see how their
math is above PFT when they are producing values not even listed
in the data file.

d. Thanks for catching my spelling error. I'll be sure to look for yours
and point them out as well. I've caught a few too many from your
JREF buddies. I guess you didn't see those?

[applecorped]

a. That's your opinion.

b. That's your perception

c. Myriad, Mackey et al continue to form calculations that are not
based on flight data provided by the NTSB. I don't see how their
math is above PFT when they are producing values not even listed
in the data file.

d. Thanks for catching my spelling error. I'll be sure to look for yours
and point them out as well. I've caught a few too many from your
JREF buddies. I guess you didn't see those?

All thru' the day I me mine, I me mine, I me mine.
All thru' the night I me mine, I me mine, I me mine.
Now they're frightened of leaving it
Ev'ryone's weaving it,
Coming on strong all the time,
All thru' the day I me mine.

Please post on topic.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Why is it so difficult to correctly spell 'ridiculous'? It seems to be a systemic problem, not just an affliction of Turbofan.
Why is it so difficult to not be so immaturely legalistic? It seems to be a systemic problem, not just an affliction of jsfisher.

[bje]

An update to Pilots For 9/11 Truth Arlington Topography and Obstacles Article.

No eyewitnesses to a flyover there, either.

It's really simple: P4T still has no eyewitnesses to a flyover. No eyewitnesses, no flyover.

Any questions, Turbofan?

[Turbofan]

As a matter of fact yes.

What hit the light poles if the NTSB, FAA and PFT data shows too high,
or off course from the OGCT?

[Bobert]

Why is it so difficult to not be so immaturely legalistic? It seems to be a systemic problem, not just an affliction of jsfisher.


Wow and now you have demonstrated you cannot use a word in its correct context.

[Myriad]

Hi Turbofan,

I have a question about the clip. Please refer to 8:02, where a side-on diagram depicts a pull-up arc about 370 feet wide, with a radius (the narration later claims) of 2085 feet.

Note that this arc is intersected by three radii, which I'll call the left, center, and right radii.

The right radius is vertical, indicating that the tangent of the arc at that point which is perpendicular to the radius is horizontal. In other words, the plane has leveled off at that point; the trajectory has become horizontal.

The left radius should similarly be perpendicular to the tangent of the arc, that is to the trajectory of the plane at that point, which is at or near where it hit the first light pole.

You are assuming in this scenario that the plane's trajectory is a straight line intersecting the top of the VDOT and the top of the first struck light pole (that is, that it does not begin to pull up until reaching the light pole, which is an unwarranted and unjustified assumption that makes this whole exercise pointless, but bear with me). So at that point the plane has been descending, up to that point, in a straight line from 304 ASL to 80 ASL over a distance of 2400 feet. That's a descent angle of 4.07 degrees from horizontal.

Why, then, is the left radius not 4.07 degrees from vertical? It's more than twice that. Where did the angle at which the left radius is drawn come from? How can that radius have an angle other than perpendicular to the tangent of the trajectory? It makes no sense.

It's wrong.

If you draw the left radius at the correct angle, perpendicular to the trajectory just before the pull-up, the radius ends up being about 3980 feet.

That radius gives you about 4.4g of centripetal acceleration, plus 1g = 5.4g total.

Of course, if the plane starts pulling up sooner, the necessary g forces go way down, exactly as R.Mackey and I calculated before. Whether you approximate the trajectory as a parabola or as an arc of a circle will make little difference. What makes the result in the clip so high, besides the geometry error, is the assumption that the plane flies in a straight line from the tower to the pole and then does its entire pull-out within a 370-foot ground distance.

(Note that in the other thread, my figures are a little different because I used a rougher approximation, 400 feet instead of 370, for the ground distance covered by the arc.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[bje]

As a matter of fact yes.

What hit the light poles if the NTSB, FAA and PFT data shows too high,
or off course from the OGCT?

As you already know, the physical evidence, that physical evidence you cannot refute.

Now, answer the question, Turbofan. Where are the eyewitnesses to your flyover? Why won't you present any?

[Bobert]

Sheesh they cant even get a friggin preview clip right.

[Jonnyclueless]

As a matter of fact yes.

What hit the light poles if the NTSB, FAA and PFT data shows too high,
or off course from the OGCT?


But they don't. The NTSB and FAA seem to agree that flight 77 hit the light poles. Can you tell us according to your conspiracy thoeries what hit the light poles?

[Turbofan]

As you already know, the physical evidence, that physical evidence you cannot refute.

Now, answer the question, Turbofan. Where are the eyewitnesses to your flyover? Why won't you present any?


Stay on topic please. This is about the calculations.

Physical evidence? pfff! LMAO! The magic Pentagon walls, and lack of debris found? Lack of photos...yeah. Carry on.

Back on flight data and Myriad's questions. I'll have to ask PFT about
some of those questions, however how do you justify the new values
against the NTSB flight data?

[jaydeehess]

I will watch when I have the time and I won't be bugging my wife with the sound on.

However, can you tell me that it arrives at any conclusion other than that on the ridiculous 11.2 G page?

Do you still divide feet by the acceleration due to gravity to obtain something you claim would be the 'G forces'?

Since we are pointing out bad grammatical form, I should mention that the nominal acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth is written in lower case, 'g'.
Upper case, 'G' is the gravitational constant, 6.674 X 10-11 N(m/kg)2

[Pinch]

That's too bad that you're too lazy to watch because it exposes Myriad,
R. Mackey and other 'pros', or "Pros" on this board.

Is there a reason why many of your pick on the most rediculous points of
a post?

What I'm "lazy" about is, as I mentioned before, not being interested in a cartoon that attempts to push a specific theory that is made up with data that is unverified, unvalidated and unaccredited.

I work in the field of modeling and simulation, specifically in the Verification, Validation and Accreditation field. Any simulation or model that is used in training, acquisition, test or evaluation or any other discipline needs to be verified that it accurately represents the developer’s conceptual description, validated to determine the degree to which a model is an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses of the model and it must be accredited by an independent authority as official certification that the model or simulation is acceptable for use for a specific purpose.

Anything else is a cartoon - it might look slick and neat and cool, but it is a presentation that lacks all the above criteria to make it meaningful and truthful.

Last I heard, the FDR data was from a "working copy", meaning it was by no means a final, validated and verified data set. Building your little cartoon from a "working copy" of a data set and not verifying the results and validating the data it produces makes it worthless from a technological and practical perspective.

Even if the FDR data set is indeed a finalized copy, the development of your little cartoon is still not worth anything more than a warm bucket of spit until you spend the time and effort to go through a VV&A process.

Go read up on the first launch of the Ariane 5 launch vehicle or the Mars Climate Orbiter to see what happens when you don't pay attention to VV&A in the design process of a model or simulation. You get data and results that can trash a multi-billion dollar program. And Captain Bob's penchant for arithmetical errors does not bode well for a quality product.

This is pretty much par for the PffT course, though. Make something look pretty and snazzy and cool - and forget the math problems, we'll fix those later! - and you'll get those people who don't know about accuracy and verification and validation to say "Wow!". Those of us who know, though, just sit back and laugh.

Like I'm doing now.

And work on your spelling, please. The poor use of grammar and poor spelling makes you look foolish when you try to talk about graduate-level issues. But go ahead and rub your hands together and giggle with Captain Bob and the Sky Kings about your little cartoon. Serious people know what tripe it is.

[Jonnyclueless]

What was magical about the Pentagon walls and what was the problem with the wreckage o flight 77 which was found at the Pentagon along with the FDR which Turbo is trying to use to claim that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon?

[Pinch]

That's too bad that you're too lazy to watch because it exposes Myriad,
R. Mackey and other 'pros', or "Pros" on this board.

Is there a reason why many of your pick on the most rediculous points of
a post?

What I'm "lazy" about is, as I mentioned before, not being interested in a cartoon that attempts to push a specific theory that is made up with data that is unverified, unvalidated and unaccredited.

I work in the field of modeling and simulation, specifically in the Verification, Validation and Accreditation field. Any simulation or model that is used in training, acquisition, test or evaluation or any other discipline needs to be verified that it accurately represents the developer’s conceptual description, validated to determine the degree to which a model is an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses of the model and it must be accredited by an independent authority as official certification that the model or simulation is acceptable for use for a specific purpose.

Anything else is a cartoon - it might look slick and neat and cool, but it is a presentation that lacks all the above criteria to make it meaningful and truthful.

Last I heard, the FDR data was from a "working copy", meaning it was by no means a final, validated and verified data set. Building your little cartoon from a "working copy" of a data set and not verifying the results and validating the data it produces makes it worthless from a technological and practical perspective.

Even if the FDR data set is indeed a finalized copy, the development of your little cartoon is still not worth anything more than a warm bucket of spit until you spend the time and effort to go through a VV&A process.

Go read up on the first launch of the Ariane 5 launch vehicle or the Mars Climate Orbiter to see what happens when you don't pay attention to VV&A in the design process of a model or simulation. You get data and results that can trash a multi-billion dollar program. And Captain Bob's penchant for arithmetical errors does not bode well for a quality product.

This is pretty much par for the PffT course, though. Make something look pretty and snazzy and cool - and forget the math problems, we'll fix those later! - and you'll get those people who don't know about accuracy and verification and validation to say "Wow!". Those of us who know, though, just sit back and laugh.

Like I'm doing now.

And work on your spelling, please. The poor use of grammar and poor spelling makes you look foolish when you try to talk about graduate-level issues. But go ahead and rub your hands together and giggle with Captain Bob and the Sky Kings about your little cartoon. Serious people know what tripe it is.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

That's too bad that you're too lazy to watch [...]


I'd just like to point out that given watching a video or reading a mathematically-supported paper, watching the video is actually the lazier of the two options.

[bje]

Stay on topic please. This is about the calculations.

Yes, the topic always concerns AA77 hitting the Pentagon or not. It would be helpful for you to stay focused.

Physical evidence? pfff! LMAO! The magic Pentagon walls, and lack of debris found? Lack of photos...yeah. Carry on.Quite right, the physical evidence you can't refute. Let's not forget those widely separated, completely disconnected eyewitnesses who witnessed the impact and the over 1,000 people who saw or recovered the wreckage that your leader Bubba Balsamo said were "irrelevant."

Yet not a single witness to AA77, or any other low-flying twin-engine jet, overflying the Pentagon. How can you continue to claim an "overflight" without a stitch of evidence???

Such is the nature of your denial, Turbofan.

Back on flight data and Myriad's questions. I'll have to ask PFT about some of those questions, however how do you justify the new values
against the NTSB flight data?Actually, the topic is about AA77. Tell us about those eyewitnesses to a 'flyover" you claim exist, Turbofan. Why won't you give us their statements? Just like you won't give us the testimony of the 1,000 people who saw or recovered the wreckage.

Turbofan, why won't you deal with actual evidence? Really, give us some - any - good reasons why you and P4T are so bloody afraid of presenting evidence.

Are you SO afraid of being WRONG?

[R.Mackey]

Am I to assume that, despite the claims of the Pilots For Truth, I have yet to be "exposed?"

Shocking.

[MarkyX]

I'm still trying to figure these guys out.

There is light pole damage, numerous witnesses, and the damage done to the generator (pointing towards the Pentagon), pieces of the plane's fuelsage, pieces of the engine, the FDR, and bodies found in the Pentagon. There is even books written by the fire fighters and first responders describing the wreckage.

Yet they still buy into the whole "flyover" theory which has as much evidence as Godzilla destroying the Pentagon.

And these morons wonder why I call them "9/11 Deniers"

[Turbofan]

What I'm "lazy" about is, as I mentioned before, not being interested in a cartoon that attempts to push a specific theory that is made up with data that is unverified, unvalidated and unaccredited.

I work in the field of modeling and simulation, specifically in the Verification, Validation and Accreditation field. Any simulation or model that is used in training, acquisition, test or evaluation or any other discipline needs to be verified that it accurately represents the developer’s conceptual description, validated to determine the degree to which a model is an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses of the model and it must be accredited by an independent authority as official certification that the model or simulation is acceptable for use for a specific purpose.

Anything else is a cartoon - it might look slick and neat and cool, but it is a presentation that lacks all the above criteria to make it meaningful and truthful.

Last I heard, the FDR data was from a "working copy", meaning it was by no means a final, validated and verified data set. Building your little cartoon from a "working copy" of a data set and not verifying the results and validating the data it produces makes it worthless from a technological and practical perspective.

Even if the FDR data set is indeed a finalized copy, the development of your little cartoon is still not worth anything more than a warm bucket of spit until you spend the time and effort to go through a VV&A process.

Go read up on the first launch of the Ariane 5 launch vehicle or the Mars Climate Orbiter to see what happens when you don't pay attention to VV&A in the design process of a model or simulation. You get data and results that can trash a multi-billion dollar program. And Captain Bob's penchant for arithmetical errors does not bode well for a quality product.

This is pretty much par for the PffT course, though. Make something look pretty and snazzy and cool - and forget the math problems, we'll fix those later! - and you'll get those people who don't know about accuracy and verification and validation to say "Wow!". Those of us who know, though, just sit back and laugh.

Like I'm doing now.

And work on your spelling, please. The poor use of grammar and poor spelling makes you look foolish when you try to talk about graduate-level issues. But go ahead and rub your hands together and giggle with Captain Bob and the Sky Kings about your little cartoon. Serious people know what tripe it is.


Grammar and spelling? Is JREF full of English masters? Let's see how many
errors I can find in your post:

1. Your first paragraph contains a 'run on' sentence.

2. The second paragraph is another example of 'run on'. Try using a period,
or two.

3. Paragraph three is an incomplete thought; read by itself, it makes no sense.

4. The fourth paragraph is missing some punctuation.

5. The fifth contains an acronym which is not referenced. You should define
your acronym prior to using it.

6. It's poor practice to start a sentence with a conjunction such as "AND".

7. "Like I'm doing now." is an incomplete sentence.


:rolleyes:

The video does not contain any mathematical errors. The data has been
verified. It was released by the NTSB. PFT based their calculations on
the DATA, not the animation. The Data is NOT a 'working copy'. Please
learn the difference.

[beachnut]

a. That's your opinion.

b. That's your perception

c. Myriad, Mackey et al continue to form calculations that are not
based on flight data provided by the NTSB. I don't see how their
math is above PFT when they are producing values not even listed
in the data file.

d. Thanks for catching my spelling error. I'll be sure to look for yours
and point them out as well. I've caught a few too many from your
JREF buddies. I guess you didn't see those?
How can you get everything wrong with ease?
11.2 g, 256 w/s, everything wrong.

The lawn is not level, it is going down to the Pentagon. LOL BUSTED

Balsamo does not understand physics. Still flawed. How can he be this bad. One dimensional, the p4t ideas. That video is worse than 11.2 Gs.
Balsamo is wrong again!!!! Seems nuts.

[CHF]

So what happened, Turbofan? Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon and then agents ran around knocking down light poles?

(And since when has P4T been teamed up with CIT?)

[Turbofan]

11.2 g's has been updated.

When are you going to fix your errors?

256 wps was an oversight and corrected. It works in my favour, so have
a nice day.

I hope you liked the video and the corrections made to all of the myths
produced by you and your 'experts'.

[jsfisher]

Grammar and spelling? Is JREF full of English masters? Let's see how many
errors I can find in your post:...

You may want to double check your work. You didn't do so well.


The video does not contain any mathematical errors. The data has been
verified. It was released by the NTSB. PFT based their calculations on
the DATA, not the animation. The Data is NOT a 'working copy'. Please
learn the difference.

Ok, for the sake of discussion, let's assume all that is true. When can we expect a written version of the analysis? That's nothing specific in the cartoon worth reviewing.

[Myriad]

To continue, here's what happens with a pull-up on a circular arc when you don't assume the plane waits until reaching the first light pole before pulling up.

For this, I'll define the origin as sea level at the base of the VDOT tower. The light pole is 2400 feet away and the wall is 3416 feet away.

We have a trajectory that is a circular arc passing through three points:

(0, 304) -- the top of the VDOT tower

(2400, 80) -- the top of the first pole

(3416, 45) -- impact

We must find the center and radius of the circle that passes through these three points. We must also make sure the arc between the three points does not intersect the ground.

To find the center by hand is a lot of tedious algebra. Instead I use this circle solver applet (http://home.att.net/~srschmitt/script_circle_solver.html). The source code and the methodology used are available at the site, and anyone not trusting the results can check them by calculating the distance from each of the three points to the calculated center, to verify that each distance equals the calculated radius.

The center of our pull-up arc ends up at (3914, 29274) and has radius 29233.

The center's x is farther from the origin than the pentagon wall's x, meaning that the lowest point in the circle is past the impact point. So the plane is descending the entire time, and reaches no point lower than the impact point. The arc does not intersect the ground.

The g force generated by this maneuver (at v=781 ft/sec) is v2/r = 0.65g. With gravity, 1.65g.

As with R.Mackey's previous analysis with parabolic trajectories, the parameters can be adjusted for more conservative cases such as clearing the VDOT tower by larger distances, resulting in a range of higher, but still tolerable, g forces.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Shalamar]

I keep telling you all. The lightpoles were brought down by rogue Canadian Lumberjacks!

Sheesh.

[jaydeehess]

Grammar and spelling? Is JREF full of English masters? Let's see how many
errors I can find in your post:

1. Your first paragraph contains a 'run on' sentence.
Not true. It is a long sentence but not a run on sentence.

2. The second paragraph is another example of 'run on'. Try using a period,
or two.

Actually a few comas would suffice

3. Paragraph three is an incomplete thought; read by itself, it makes no sense.
Bot true, it follows from the previous paragraph so there is no requirement to repeat the thoughts contained in the previous paragraph.

4. The fourth paragraph is missing some punctuation.

Not true, it contains one more comma than necessary.

5. The fifth contains an acronym which is not referenced. You should define
your acronym prior to using it.

Try reading the second paragraph again, it is obvious what VV&A stands for even if he did not include the acronym in the second paragraph.

6. It's poor practice to start a sentence with a conjunction such as "AND".

True, he could have eliminated the word "and".

7. "Like I'm doing now." is an incomplete sentence.

True, he could have tried a comma to join it with the previous sentence. His usage indicates that he is typing a conversation rather than a docuement.



The video does not contain any mathematical errors.

So say you and PfT. However, given the history of PfT this is by no means a given simply because you claim it is so.

The data has beenverified. It was released by the NTSB. PFT based their calculations on
the DATA, not the animation. The Data is NOT a 'working copy'. Please
learn the difference.

You based it on your interpretation of the data and where it puts the plane over ground objects. those ground objects obviously do not get referenced at all in the FDR data. If you used the NTSB animation to determine what the plane was flying over then you used a 'working copy' that was never intended as a forensic tool and which has been shown to erroneously position the ground under the aircraft.

[Turbofan]

Why, then, is the left radius not 4.07 degrees from vertical? It's more than twice that. Where did the angle at which the left radius is drawn come from? How can that radius have an angle other than perpendicular to the tangent of the trajectory? It makes no sense.

It's wrong.

No, it's not wrong. It's based on flight data trends. Please watch the video
again.

If you draw the left radius at the correct angle, perpendicular to the trajectory just before the pull-up, the radius ends up being about 3980 feet.
That radius gives you about 4.4g of centripetal acceleration, plus 1g = 5.4g total.

Where might I find 5.4 g in the data file (averaged, or single point data)?

Why haven't you accounted for horizontal velocity in your previous calculation?
You did not correct your equation to include horizontal distance.

You should contact members of PFT for a more detailed explanation of how
to properly compute the values. It might make more sense if a professional
explains the procedure rather than myself.

At the ~6:00 minute marker, you can find an overlay of your arc in question
(the red line).

Once again, where are these 4.0, and 5.4 values found in the CSV file?

These data files are NOT working copies.

[jaydeehess]

11.2 g's has been updated.

.

Not on the web page.

It remains unchanged other than including a promo for the new cheese produced by PfT.

.

[Jonnyclueless]

Perhaps spontaneous combustion would explain the downed light poles. Or perhaps Magic? I guess we'll never know if we rely on people who are "just asking questions dude".

[Turbofan]

To continue, here's what happens with a pull-up on a circular arc when you don't assume the plane waits until reaching the first light pole before pulling up.

For this, I'll define the origin as sea level at the base of the VDOT tower. The light pole is 2400 feet away and the wall is 3416 feet away.

We have a trajectory that is a circular arc passing through three points:

(0, 304) -- the top of the VDOT tower

(2400, 80) -- the top of the first pole

(3416, 45) -- impact

We must find the center and radius of the circle that passes through these three points. We must also make sure the arc between the three points does not intersect the ground.

To find the center by hand is a lot of tedious algebra. Instead I use this circle solver applet (http://home.att.net/~srschmitt/script_circle_solver.html). The source code and the methodology used are available at the site, and anyone not trusting the results can check them by calculating the distance from each of the three points to the calculated center, to verify that each distance equals the calculated radius.

The center of our pull-up arc ends up at (3914, 29274) and has radius 29233.

The center's x is farther from the origin than the pentagon wall's x, meaning that the lowest point in the circle is past the impact point. So the plane is descending the entire time, and reaches no point lower than the impact point. The arc does not intersect the ground.

The g force generated by this maneuver (at v=781 ft/sec) is v2/r = 0.65g. With gravity, 1.65g.

As with R.Mackey's previous analysis with parabolic trajectories, the parameters can be adjusted for more conservative cases such as clearing the VDOT tower by larger distances, resulting in a range of higher, but still tolerable, g forces.

Respectfully,
Myriad

You see the problem with your calculation and R. Mackey's math is that
the values don't appear in the CSV file!

How do you arrive at 1.65 g when averaging the values in the data file
over the duration needed to complete the pull up?

EDIT:
I can't find 4.0 g, or 5.4 g for even an eight of a second; forget a full four
second duration as stated in your case. Furthermore, that is figured from
the top of the VDOT antenna!

Once again, the data files are extracted from the FDR, they are not
some sort of 'working copy'.

[jaydeehess]

Perhaps spontaneous combustion would explain the downed light poles. Or perhaps Magic? I guess we'll never know if we rely on people who are "just asking questions dude".

Its magic! CiT assures us that the reason no one at all saw a low,fast over-flight is due to the misdirection by the plotters of this charade, thus its all just a big ol' magic trick.

[jaydeehess]

You see the problem with your calculation and R. Mackey's math is that
the values don't appear in the CSV file!

How do you arrive at 1.65 g when averaging the values in the data file
over the duration needed to complete the pull up?

Once again, the data files are extracted from the FDR, they are not
some sort of 'working copy'.

You based it on your interpretation of the data and where it puts the plane over ground objects. those ground objects obviously do not get referenced at all in the FDR data. If you used the NTSB animation to determine what the plane was flying over then you used a 'working copy' that was never intended as a forensic tool and which has been shown to erroneously position the ground under the aircraft.

You cannot even be assured that the aircraft flew directly over the VDOT tower. In fact the physical evidence suggests it flew beside it close enough to clip a rung off the ladder.

[beachnut]

Where might I find 5.4 g in the data file (averaged, or single point data)?

Where is 77? You don't know! In the video the position of 77 is never plotted from the FDR! Your video is flawed and Balsamo is wrong again.

Fact, 77 is 7 seconds away and only 360 feet above impact. This means the VOT junk video is based only on Balsamo's terrorist apology fantasy delusion, devised to sale DVDs of false information.

Where does the video prove the witnesses who saw 77 hit the lamppost wrong?

Where does the video prove the witnesses who saw 77 hit the Pentagon false?

Where does the video provide proof the DNA is wrong?

Where does the video prove the FDR, which clearly shows 77 is over 6 seconds away at 360 feet above impact is wrong? Or even show where 77 is?
Sad you leap to say 77 did not hit the Pentagon and offer talk as your evidence. Is that what Balsamo "flawed fysics" p4t co-founder says?

What happen to 1.5 DME? Was it dropped? How much is the DVD?

Did Latas, another p4t terrorist apologist, correct p4t failed fysics before 16 March? When Balsamo posted his "IDES" of March post on the 13th of March, I was expecting flawed fysics from the get go! They did not let me down major errors! Who was the first to correct the failed physics of p4t terrorist apologist? The video does not put a dent in any work JREF posters corrected in days after the "ides of march" failed physics flopped.

[chillzero]

Let's keep it impersonal, please. There are a few posts breaching rules 11 and 12.

[Myriad]

You see the problem with your calculation and R. Mackey's math is that
the values don't appear in the CSV file!

How do you arrive at 1.65 g when averaging the values in the data file
over the duration needed to complete the pull up?

EDIT:
I can't find 4.0 g, or 5.4 g for even an eight of a second; forget a full four
second duration as stated in your case. Furthermore, that is figured from
the top of the VDOT antenna!

Once again, the data files are extracted from the FDR, they are not
some sort of 'working copy'.


There is no evidence there were any 4.0g or 5.4g maneuvers. Those forces would only occur in PfT's fantasy scenario that says the plane had to sustain a 5+-degree dive all the way to the highway and then pull up within 370 feet.

The CSV data shows the plane reaching a point in space, at which the data ends. There is some debate about what real point in space is represented by the numbers in the data when all relevant offsets and errors are taken into account, but we all agree that the point where the data ends is not the Pentagon wall. There are only three possibilities for what happened to the plane shortly after it reached the point in space of the final CSV data:

1. It crashed into the Pentagon (or elsewhere in the immediate vicinity).

2. It continued flying, and flew away.

3. It froze in position where it was (and presumably is still there).

The CSV data does not show the plane crashing into the Pentagon.

The CSV data does not show the plane flying away.

The CSV data does not show the plane hanging motionless in space.

Therefore the CSV data does not support or refute any conceivable theory of how the plane maneuvered once it reached the point at which the data ends.

Unfortunately, there is plenty of other evidence that tells us what happened to the plane in the subsequent seconds.

Rob Balsamo is arguing that the plane could not have performed the maneuvers necessary to fly from (his opinion of) the true spatial location of the last position in the CSV data to the crash location. But unwarranted assumptions (extrapolation of past "flight data trends" all the way to the light pole; pull-up in 370 feet) invalidate his argument.

Why haven't you accounted for horizontal velocity in your previous calculation? You did not correct your equation to include horizontal distance.


I did not correct my previous calculation because it is not wrong. Horizontal velocity is accounted for. (One way to explain it is, I shifted the problem into an inertial reference frame moving at 781f/s along the plane's path. Doing so is completely legitimate in Newtonian physics. That calculation was of a parabolic curve just as R.Mackey's was but the inertial frame shift makes the x axis time instead of position, which conveniently yields accelerations directly. My results were slightly different only because we each used slightly different flight path scenarios.)

Each time you repeat your repeat your request for me to correct a calculation that you have not shown is in error, you reduce your own credibility, I'm afraid.


Respectfully,
Myriad

[Corsair 115]

I keep telling you all. The lightpoles were brought down by rogue Canadian Lumberjacks!Wait, I though it was beavers with bionic jaws and steel teeth.

[Caustic Logic]

non-hotlinked image (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/cgi%20povs/VDOT_Pent_Alt_a.jpg)
oops it was two separate pics (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/cgi%20povs/FDR_Pent_Alt_a.jpg)

This dive and leveling was brought to you by the letter L. Thanks for watching Sesame Street. Any more educated comments?

[nicepants]

An update to Pilots For 9/11 Truth Arlington Topography and Obstacles Article.

"G FORCES", a scene from the new film...

I just want to know why the calculations on that article STILL have not been corrected? I have no desire to watch another PFT video unless the creators can assure me that they actually know how to do simple math problems.

[Caustic Logic]

Alright, re: my post above - the "lowest hypothetical altitude" as mapped yields 10.14 Gs. First, can anyone specificaly disprove that calc for the line shown?

Second, if that proves accurate, why the line shown? Myriad pointed out the sudden change at the end problem being the major source of high numbers. Can Turbofan or anyone explain why they think the best case scenario has the plane leveling suddenly at the end after a steady steep dive? Should they have looked for sponsorship from J rather than L?

Third: This is not the lowest hypothetical altitude. John farmer has new evidence the antenna was clipped, which puts it a few feet lower, and I think that too might be wrong and it was lower yet, passing about 50 feet above the Annex roof just north of the antenna. About 2/3 up its height.

And also, it didn't level at a sharp angle. I'm going out on a limb here and guessing a plane's correction would be curved.

Fourth: Should this thread be merged with the obstacles one?

[beachnut]

The CSV data shows the plane reaching a point in space, at which the data ends.

Rob Balsamo is arguing that the plane could not have performed the maneuvers necessary to fly from (his opinion of) the true spatial location of the last position in the CSV data to the crash location. But unwarranted assumptions (extrapolation of past "flight data trends" all the way to the light pole; pull-up in 370 feet) invalidate his argument.

Respectfully,
Myriad
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/774datapath.jpg
The last data point in the FDR is the 13:37:44 yellow dot.

The last RADAR point in blue shows 77 at 13:37:47.

The actual position of 77 is near the blue dot on the right if you correlate the FDR to the RADAR data. John Farmer collected the data and made this image.

Balsamo has no clue where 77 is; he makes up where he wants to put it just like he decides how 77 pulls out to make up his 10 G junk, as bad as his 11.2 G error. Why is he so bad at this?

[beachnut]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/774datapath.jpg
The last data point in the FDR is the 13:37:44 yellow dot.

The last RADAR point in blue shows 77 at 13:37:47.

The actual position of 77 is near the blue dot on the right if you correlate the FDR to the RADAR data. John Farmer collected the data and made this image.

Balsamo has no clue where 77 is; he makes up where he wants to put it just like he decides how 77 pulls out to make up his 10 G junk, as bad as his 11.2 G error. Why is he so bad at this?
TC put your failed new math project here!

You guys have to spend less time in the private p4t forum secret room plotting, and learn how to be real with math.

You have not mastered math TC, until you can figure out accuracy issues, resolution issues on DME, which Balsamo does not understand, fails to use all the evidence and places 77 in the wrong position.

[GregoryUrich]

Beachnut,

There seems to be some question as to where the data ends in the FDR. If I understand correctly, PFT maintains the DME data continues after the lat/long for inertial guidance stops. Can you give us an idea when/where the last data was recorded and which parameters were valid at that point?

[uruk]

Ok, for the sake of discussion, let's assume all that is true. When can we expect a written version of the analysis? That's nothing specific in the cartoon worth reviewing.
Don't expect a paper full of math from PfT. It's harder to sell a paper of math errors that it is to sell a DVD of a badly researched animation.

Remember thier target demographics is the gulible who like nice pretty pictures not paper full of strange scribbles that hurt brain.

[beachnut]

Beachnut,

There seems to be some question as to where the data ends in the FDR. If I understand correctly, PFT maintains the DME data continues after the lat/long for inertial guidance stops. Can you give us an idea when/where the last data was recorded and which parameters were valid at that point?

The data stops here! At the yellow dot, based INS accurate to 1500 feet. Data stops the same time for DME.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77lastpointfarmer.jpg
Final DME stored 1.5 DME from DCA. The actual plane position could be 3000 feet away.

The DME used by 77 has this characteristic:
With the appropriate DME geometry a position accuracy better than 0.5 nautical miles (3000 ft) can be easily achieved.
Actual studies, the best accuracy flying 77 at O DME to 8 DME ranges is 0.23 NM, and studying the DME overall on 77 on 9/11, ½ NM accuracy is common.

0.23 is good based on actual studies, you can use up to ½ mile and be okay.

The FDR DME is stored at a resolution of 0.25 NM, seen as x.0, x.2, x.5, and x.8. The required FAR storage resolution is 1.0 NM. No big deal, but indicative of 3000 foot accuracy.

Take the resolution, and accuracy, 77 can be at 1.854 NM from DCA, and the FDR can store 1.5 DME! This is giving 0.23 accuracy to 77, which could be as high as 3000 feet close in.

DME ends with the final data, same for lat and long.

If you take the yellow dot and move it forward 1500 feet, you are at 1.74 DME from DCA, that value can be stored as 1.5 DME with the 0.23 accuracy of DME and the storage resolution of 0.25.

The blue dot above is a RADAR position of 77 at 13:37:47.

The true track 61.2 degrees is very accurate, +- 1 degree. If looking for something to line up 77. This is why the INS data tracks nice on the end, it is lined up; on take off the INS was tracking parallel to the runway. IE, no matter where the INS thinks 77 is, the tracking/heading is accurate.


77 is over 6 second from the Pentagon when the data stops, confirmed by RADAR and backed up by witness statements of altitude near the VDOT tower. The altitude at over 6 seconds to go is 400 to 440 MSL. VDOT tower is 307 MSL.

2 seconds to go to VDOT tower, would place 77 at 280 to 320 MSL next to VDOT tower, or over the VDOT tower. Witnesses confirm these kinds of altitudes.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77fdrstopsterroristsees.jpg
Balsamo is using DME literally, as he has to say the INS crashed since it confirms 77 is over 6 seconds away from the Pentagon.

Balsamo then comes up with 10 to 34 Gs to prove 77 can't do something; but using 27,320 feet radius, I get 1.6977 Gs for the same set of condition.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77terroristsees.jpg

[GregoryUrich]

Didn't you post G force data that runs right up until 1 second before impact on the other thread? Is there altitude data too?

[OneShotKi11]

Ok, ok, ok, so what exactly are the JREF'ians saying is wrong with the Twoofers Math on this one?

(Serious question)

[beachnut]

Didn't you post G force data that runs right up until 1 second before impact on the other thread? Is there altitude data too?
Why did the NTSB decode the FDR and the data is available for you.

NO, the data stops 6 seconds or more prior to impact.

The last data point for altitude.
Yes, the altitude is 173 feet PA. Pressure altitude at 29.92. You have to add about 260 feet or so based on local altimeter setting. I may be talking pilot terms, let me get you the local altimeter for 9/11 near the Pentagon.

The PA can be off +-40 feet and more. The high speed, 463 KIAS was over the normal top speed of 350 KCAS, so there may be unknown errors in altitude not modeled in the FDC.

So the altitude PA at :44 was 173, :43 it was 239 PA
The RADAR Alt at :43 was 273 feet. RADALT is a microwave freq bouncing off the ground it reads 0 at landing, and is the height above the Ground.

From nearby, at DCA
METAR KDCA 111251Z 35005KT 10SM CLR 21/14 A3021
SPECI KDCA 111341Z 33010KT 10SM CLR 23/14 A3022
METAR KDCA 111351Z 34009KT 10SM CLR 23/14 A3023
METAR KDCA 111451Z 32008KT 4SM HZ CLR 24/14 A3022
METAR KDCA 111551Z 33009G15KT 7SM CLR 26/14 A3021

Local altimeter was 30.21 to 30.23. The PA, pressure altitude has to be corrected, it is referenced to a standard day, 29.92 inches of mercury.

[Myriad]

Ok, ok, ok, so what exactly are the JREF'ians saying is wrong with the Twoofers Math on this one?

(Serious question)


See posts 15 and 33. Their actual arithmetic is correct. The problems are (1) the value for the radius of the pull-up arc used in the video clip is not justified and cannot be correct for the flight path given, and (2) the "hockey stick" flight path that assumes the plane flies a straight line from the VDOT tower to the edge of the highway and only then even begins to pull up is an absurd scenario in the first place.

Note that there is nothing inherently wrong with using a circular arc (constant acceleration toward a fixed point above the plane on the plane's own yaw axis) as the flight path for pulling out of a dive, instead of a parabola (constant acceleration straight upward). Both are approximations that are reasonable and will yield G force results that agree with one another within a few percent, as long as the dive was not extremely steep to begin with.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[jaydeehess]

Note that there is nothing inherently wrong with using a circular arc (constant acceleration toward a fixed point above the plane on the plane's own yaw axis) as the flight path for pulling out of a dive, instead of a parabola (constant acceleration straight upward). Both are approximations that are reasonable and will yield G force results that agree with one another within a few percent, as long as the dive was not extremely steep to begin with.

Respectfully,
Myriad


I see that now, a parabolic path would put the plane in a shallow part of the parabolic curve, far from the vertex of the extrapolated curve and thus , for a short section of a parabola it would approixmate a portion of a circle with only a small error.

Still stands though that PfT cannot justify how they determined that the lines they drew are perpendicular to the arc they drew. In the context of the video it would appear that they merely 'eyeballed' it on a piece of graph paper.

[Turbofan]

Hey Greg, don't like certain people steer you wrong.

The 'overpass' is really an 'underpass'. The lower roadway dips below
the bridge.

http://procision-auto.com/911/PFT_underpass.jpg

Here's another shot showing the landscape of the roadway and Pentalawn.
(highway almost level with lawn)

The black line was drawn by a Pentagon police officer. Notice the North approach.

http://procision-auto.com/911/pft_underpass2.jpg

Also let it be known that the FDR recorded parameters after the last
DME value (up to 2 seconds worth). Therefore, all data did not stop
where certain lia...people want you to believe.

A quick check of the CSV file will reveal this.

[Caustic Logic]

under, over... blahblahblah. the altitude/elevation is known, no one is wrong on that by more than a few feet, the pole heights are known, the numbers are all plausible when not warped, the evidence all fits together. Last FDR data, last radar returns, known aircraft performance, known topography, known physics, eyewitness accounts, physical damage. The gaps, the unknowns, are tiny if any.

NTSB reported impact time wrong, echoed by the 9/11 Comm et al. So what?

ETA: So it looks like Tino and me are on for tomorrow evening, on the phone. Correct TF?

[Turbofan]

YOu got it Adam! I'll give you a call a bit later to work with your schedule.

I like how Llyod was able to stop on a dime and fishtale while the pole was
sticking out of his windshield. Not a scrath on the hood, or seats.
Amazing car!

ETA: Last time I checked the CSV file showed up to :45, so the NTSB impact
would be correct (as per flight study on their site).

[beachnut]

Hey Greg, don't like certain people steer you wrong.

The 'overpass' is really an 'underpass'. The lower roadway dips below
the bridge.



Here's another shot showing the landscape of the roadway and Pentalawn.
(highway almost level with lawn)

The black line was drawn by a Pentagon police officer. Notice the North approach.


Also let it be known that the FDR recorded parameters after the last
DME value (up to 2 seconds worth). Therefore, all data did not stop
where certain lia...people want you to believe.

A quick check of the CSV file will reveal this.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77pentagonOVERpasslol.jpg

At 33 feet MSL, you do not dig your underpasses down, you building the road up! You get flooded. Turbofan has no idea what he is doing, he speaks first and never looks it up! The OVER pass goes up, this is why the posts are at 100 feet MSL. Turbofan is bold enough to lie and say 77 did not hit when the very FDR he speaks was found in the Pentagon.

The DME in the p4t decode is the last data point set; last second.

The NTSB decoded one more second of data. But Turbofan has no real point, do you?

Your leaving out what you think! Balsamo must not be typing fast enough for you.

Clearly area 77 flew over is higher than the rest of the area, my analysis of terrorist flying descent rates stands! 77 hit in a dive, not level; not one p4t can provide but opinion and hearsay, and outright wrong stuff like the underpass junk we see here.

The best they can do is 10 Gs, and 34 Gs that make no sense at all! Hockey stick math!

[beachnut]

YOu got it Adam! I'll give you a call a bit later to work with your schedule.

I like how Llyod was able to stop on a dime and fishtale while the pole was
sticking out of his windshield. Not a scrath on the hood, or seats.
Amazing car!

ETA: Last time I checked the CSV file showed up to :45, so the NTSB impact
would be correct (as per flight study on their site).
Now you make fun of Llyod. Real nice of you; when are you going to call him a NWO agent and liar; oops you just called him a liar. You know your terrorists loyalist have accused him of being in on it!

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77CrashTestBreakaway.jpg

That is what you get with breakaway lamppost. That is why engineers made them. Lloyd window was broken; now what?

The p4t decode, CVS file end with :43, the p4t decode experts did not put in the proper time stamps. They put the frame time, based on the first time of the next frame. That is, :43 is listed as :45; darn.

That means the p4t decode is wrong, the times repeat 4 times for each frame; the simple algorithm must of alluded the p4t decoder, at least he has them in the proper order.

[Turbofan]

You are such a child.

I guess that car is going really fast in your comic strip. Maybe 10 fps?

It hits a pole a fraction of the size of the light poles near the Pentagon
and smashes the window and bends the roof line.

Lloyd says he was moving 45 MPH (?), the 'jet' was moving at 500+ MPH...
the pole just poked a hole in his windshield without a mark on the hood,
A pillar, or roof?

Wow! Double Wowzers Scoob!

Did you see his interview when he says he removed the pole from the
window? Gee, he's as strong as the light pole, and then some!

his story is a scam, and you believe it.

http://www.blinkx.com/video/the-first-known-accomplice-featuring-lloyd-england/BMGqGGzeEDceHLl7ApptUA

3:49 - read that BS
6:15 - total comedy
8:45 - nice...;)

[JimBenArm]

You are such a child.

I guess that car is going really fast in your comic strip. Maybe 10 fps?

It hits a pole a fraction of the size of the light poles near the Pentagon
and smashes the window and bends the roof line.

Lloyd says he was moving 45 MPH (?), the 'jet' was moving at 500+ MPH...
the pole just poked a hole in his windshield without a mark on the hood,
A pillar, or roof?

Wow! Double Wowzers Scoob!

Did you see his interview when he says he removed the pole from the
window? Gee, he's as strong as the light pole, and then some!

his story is a scam, and you believe it.

http://www.blinkx.com/video/the-first-known-accomplice-featuring-lloyd-england/BMGqGGzeEDceHLl7ApptUA

3:49 - read that BS
6:15 - total comedy
8:45 - nice...;)
Gee, he almost gets killed by a light pole, and you accuse him of being a liar and a criminal. What a special person you are. It's a pleasure to know you, really. Your morality is breathtaking to behold.

[Turbofan]

Yup...:rolleyes:

Tell me, did the car fish tail before, during, or after the light pole was sticking
out of his windshield, over the hood...:cool:

[JimBenArm]

Yup...:rolleyes:

Tell me, did the car fish tail before, during, or after the light pole was sticking
out of his windshield, over the hood...:cool:
Why are you asking us? You obviously were there and know what happened, so fill us in.

[Turbofan]

Come on! Look at the evidence available.

Look at the photos. Recall the aircraft speed and direction.

Watch Lloyd's video testimony.

Do you believe it?

[HyJinX]

Hey Turbo...you're wanted in this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124431

What say you?

[JimBenArm]

Come on! Look at the evidence available.

Look at the photos. Recall the aircraft speed and direction.

Watch Lloyd's video testimony.

Do you believe it?
I find it very believable. It's you I have trouble believing.
I have a new theory. You're actually a debunker, who's decided to discredit the Truthers by posting the most ridiculous nonsense he can think up, and argue with people who know more about a subject than you do to seem like a total idiot. It's really the only thing that makes sense.

'fess up. It's true, isn't it?

[jsfisher]

I guess that car is going really fast in your comic strip. Maybe 10 fps?


10 fps is really fast?

[beachnut]

Come on! Look at the evidence available.

Look at the photos. Recall the aircraft speed and direction.

Watch Lloyd's video testimony.

Do you believe it?

How pathetic, implying Lloyd is lying. People saw Lloyd's car as 77 flew over and impacted the Pentagon. Kind of ruins your lie. Pathetic, CIT calls Lloyd and other people liars so CIT can make up lies. I love the NoC 14 G paths; how fantasy like. With 11.2, 10.14, 34, and 14 G NoC paths, it is not surprising they can't get interview right.

Are you going to say it was staged at morning rush hour?

The video you posted, pure junk, pathetic CIT at work. Zero evidence! You can't propose one rational way it happen besides 77 hitting a lamppost, and it hits Lloyd's car. Zero story, zero evidence, pure junk.

[Boone 870]

Here are a couple of blurry photos (sorry, no tripod) that I took from the eastern edge of the Pentagon Memorial. (http://memorial.pentagon.mil/layout.htm) I aligned myself directly between the VDOT tower and the point of impact. I'm not sure if the street lamps in the photos are in the same locations as they were on September 11, 2001.

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh182/Boone870/IMG_0185.jpg

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh182/Boone870/IMG_0182.jpg

[Turbofan]

10 fps is really fast?

Sarcasm. Notice the time stamps on the sides of the pictures.

[beachnut]

Good photos

[TjW]

I'd simply like to point out that Pfffft's math skills or lack of them are irrelevant, since they're asking the wrong question.

There are a some control points that Flight 77 must have passed through, or near, to hit the Pentagon.

We don't have a continuous trace of the flight path, thus the argument.

For Pfffft's purposes of showing a conspiracy due to the impossibility of this happening, it is not enough to show that there is a flight path passing through these points which Flight 77 could not have performed.

For this, it needs to be shown that that there is NO flight path passing through these points that Flight 77 could have successfully performed.
If there is one, then by definition it isn't impossible.

Since R. Mackey has already provided a broad range of flight paths well within the aircraft's capabilities (not only the provided cases, but all the cases in between them), there isn't any way to show it's impossible.

[Mangoose]

Boone: You were allowed to take photos on Pentagon grounds? When I tried to do this a few years ago, I was made to erase the photos (well, some of them).

[Boone 870]

Boone: You were allowed to take photos on Pentagon grounds? When I tried to do this a few years ago, I was made to erase the photos (well, some of them).

I was there for the public opening of the memorial on September 11, 2008, I would guess that anyone can take photos from the memorial itself. That is why the pictures are dark, they were taken just after 7 p.m. right after the public was allowed in.

After having been there myself, I came to the realization that the people who use the Pentagon security videos to prove that Flight 77 leveled off over the lawn, are sadly mistaken. There is no way in Hades that that airplane approached the Pentagon level. Impossible!

[Turbofan]

there isn't any way to show it's impossible.


Well, not unless you look at the flight data, and check the parameters
which would show banking, accelerometers, speed, etc.

But why would you look at the data when you can make up flight paths? :rolleyes:

Wait I know why! Because the FDR shows that AA77 didn't hit the Pentacon! :eek:

OOps, silly me. So, I'll make up some flight paths, then I 'll make excuses
about the NTSB impact time, the six seconds of magical missing data, and
DME values that are too close to the beacon to be six seconds away!

Now that's a solid theory! :rolleyes:

[Bobert]

YOu got it Adam! I'll give you a call a bit later to work with your schedule.

I like how Llyod was able to stop on a dime and fishtale while the pole was
sticking out of his windshield. Not a scrath on the hood, or seats.
Amazing car!

ETA: Last time I checked the CSV file showed up to :45, so the NTSB impact
would be correct (as per flight study on their site).
Yes sometimes things happen but sane rational people look at all the available evidence and information while terrorist apologists cherry pick to support their fantasy.
Hey Turbofan here is an amazing true story of a man who fell 47 stories from a skyscraper and lived
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/health/man+lives+after+us+skyscraper+fall/1275652
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=342154
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/nyregion/03cnd-fall.html?hp
What you and the rest of the CIT frauds have done to Lloyd and his good name is really disgusting.

[bje]

Wait I know why! Because the FDR shows that AA77 didn't hit the Pentacon!

But you can't show AA77 did anything else but hit the Pentacon. Even when asked here and on ATS repeatedly.

The laugh's on you Turbobbubba.
:dl:

[beachnut]

Well, not unless you look at the flight data, and check the parameters which would show banking, accelerometers, speed, etc.
The flight data recorder stopped over 6 seconds away from the Pentagon. Many FDRs have stopped for periods of over 6 seconds, before impacts. You are not knowledgeable enough to know this, so you make up false ideas. Experience helps, Balsamo has no practical experience with math, and his flying knowledge is messed up.

Flight 77 made no banks over 10 degrees in the last 20 seconds of flight, the turn radius at 10 degrees is 17 NM. 34 mile wide turn. So there were no major turns, no more than .5 degrees per second or less made in the last 20 seconds. This is why 77 hit at close to 61.2 degrees true track. This is evidence 77 hit!

77 was also going 463 KIAS, the exact speed to match the kinetic energy the Pentagon was subjected to. Got physics?

Fireball at impact was exactly the size the fuel on 77 would make, and the firemen all found evidence of jet fuel.

So the FDR does support the impact at the Pentagon, but you have to use logic, and knowledge mixed with sound judgment. Got physics?

[beachnut]

But why would you look at the data when you can make up flight paths?
7 years and you still have nothing? What have you been doing?

No one has made up paths but Basamo who appears to be some sort of terrorist loyalist who makes up everything from 11.2 G to 10G to 34 G, which make no sense.

So you follow what has to be the person who is the most math challenge person I have seen in a long time who apologizes for terrorist making up implication of lies, "77 did not hit the pentagon", making up where the plane is, false paths, and impossible NoC paths. Proven by Physics to be impossible. Physics, not hearsay and lies, physics.

The FDR proves the NoC is a fantasy made up by Balsamo who can't do simple math and come up with a practical answer. I got 1.7 Gs when Balsamo got 10 and 34 Gs, using his method correctly. He got numbers but shows the wrong way for the radius he had.

So the FDR does support impact, but Balsamo has to manufacture lies to support his ideas. He lies when he says the INS crashed due to less stressful maneuvers than ordinary flight.

[beachnut]

Wait I know why! Because the FDR shows that AA77 didn't hit the Pentacon!
Flight path shown on the FDR supports impact. You can't explain why it does not. You can't do much of anything on this.

Your lack of flying knowledge is evident when you completely ignore the headings stored in the FDR. One of the most accurate things in the FDR. It is not like the INS with 3000 foot accuracy or worse, or the DME with 3000 foot accuracy. The DME is store in 0.25 NM increments, and you can't even acknowledge that FACT as you use DME as an absolute with it is off 2100 feet, proven by RADAR data and the FDR itself.

Of all the data in the FDR, the heading is very important. The heading of 77 stored in the FDR are cool. With the heading we can verify witness statements, RADAR tracks, and solve the financial market melt down as I day trade my way to a very small fortune. Smaller still.

The hundreds of witnesses saw 77 flying at about 61.2 degrees true track. It is confusing for you cause you have no clue what true track means, or how it related to the magnetic heading. There are four heading/tracks in the FDR. I doubt you know how to verify them and see how complicated it would be to make up data, fake paths as you and p4t due out of ignorance of flying dynamics and fraud.

The magnetic heading, direction the nose points. On 9/11 we know the winds and 77 is exactly drifting the correct degrees of the wind present. Stored the FDR is the magnetic track, corrected for wind, the last mag track is 71.4 degrees.

So we have winds supplied by the self debunking p4t web page, that verify the headings p4t say are faked. This is ironic. As you have to call all the factual evidence lies. And thus your lies are the truth based on delusional suppositions by a terrorist loyalist, Balsamo.

Long story short. The headings and tracks stored (all four of them) verify RADAR, as RADAR verify them. Multiple RADAR sites now adding hundreds of more into the cover-up and the inside job you and your group of terrorist apologist have as a fantasy made up from moronic errors and false ideas.

I can't find a single thing in the FDR to support your idea; you can't specify one thing either. zero clues, zero support.

[TjW]

Well, not unless you look at the flight data, and check the parameters
which would show banking, accelerometers, speed, etc.



But why would you look at the data when you can make up flight paths? :rolleyes:

Wait I know why! Because the FDR shows that AA77 didn't hit the Pentacon! :eek:

OOps, silly me. So, I'll make up some flight paths, then I 'll make excuses
about the NTSB impact time, the six seconds of magical missing data, and
DME values that are too close to the beacon to be six seconds away!

Now that's a solid theory! :rolleyes:

Pffft's "hockey stick" flight path, with the straight line descent to street light level, and only then beginning a pullup, does satisfy their constraints of going through their control points.

But it's not the ONLY possible flight path that satisfies those constraints.

Since there is more than one flight path possibility, you can't say that showing one flight path exceeds the aircraft limits shows that all flight paths satisfying the constraints exceed the aircraft limitations.

R. Mackey has supplied multiple examples which do not exceed the capabilities of the aircraft, using Pfffft's control points, and entirely consistent with previous accelerations recorded on the FDR.

To show it's impossible, you have to find the flight path that meets the additional constraint of being the lowest g loading possible. If that flight path is outside the performance limits of the aircraft, then maybe you have a point.
Pffft hasn't done this. That's why I said they're asking the wrong question.

The question is not: "Can I come up with a flight path that give a high g loading?" Of course you can.
The question is "What's the lowest g loading for a reasonable approximation to the flight path?"

.

[jaydeehess]

Well, not unless you look at the flight data, and check the parameters
which would show banking, accelerometers, speed, etc.



That would be a great idea IF you could determine, within acceptable inherent errors in doing so, where the plane was at the time those readings were taken and stored in the FDR.

The best way to determine where the plane is and at what time would be to corellate the data from the FDR with that of the radar sites. There will be another error involved, that of the different clocks involved, but now you have multiple recordings of the aircraft track. Now you can better determine where the plane was and when.

Then you could at least have a starting point in the vertical and horizontal and from that point you could determine the best case trajectory and worst case trajectory.

Does PfT do that? No!

Instead they decide
to calculate the worst case senario, the trajectory dubbed the "hockey stick", and drawing one other trajectory on paper and calling it the best case senario. They do not even bother to hand wave an explanation as to how they determine the placement of several lines on their drawing but use them as gospel to calculate a g loading.

They decide that
the plane impacted when the FDR record becomes corrupted. They then go on to conclude that since the recording shows the plane was not at the Pentagon and still higher than the Pentagon at that moment then the plane, that hit the Pentagon when its FDR recording became corrupted, did not hit the Pentagon.

They decide that
although the animation produced by the NTSB was never intended for forensic analysis, and that the aircraft track shown in the animation does not match that in the FDR data, they will use the animation to locate the position over the ground anyway.

They decide that,
with their conclusion that the FDR data does not match the flight path described by the physical damage on the ground, the FDR must be correct. This, they decide, despite the fact that they have to come up with a vast, wildly complicated, and wholly untenable senario of magician's misdirection and smoke and mirrors ,that fooled everyone in the vicinity (even those who say they witnessed impact), to make the physical damage and evidence that a plane with people on board crashed, incorrect.

They decide that,
having concluded that the flight paths described by the physical damage and the FDR do not match, they need not bother informing the manufacturer of the FDR that their product would be shown to be faulty by the most common interpretation of any instance in which these two flight paths do not agree.

They decide that
L3, the company that manufactured the FDR, backs their contentions even though they have never produced a technical paper outlining how they conclude that the two flight paths are grossly variant, let alone submitted such a paper to L3.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

I was there for the public opening of the memorial on September 11, 2008, I would guess that anyone can take photos from the memorial itself. That is why the pictures are dark, they were taken just after 7 p.m. right after the public was allowed in.

After having been there myself, I came to the realization that the people who use the Pentagon security videos to prove that Flight 77 leveled off over the lawn, are sadly mistaken. There is no way in Hades that that airplane approached the Pentagon level. Impossible!

Interesting. So here we have a CIT detractor, jref forum member, and official story supporter not holding back and stating that people "who use the Pentagon security videos to prove that Flight 77 leveled off over the lawn, are sadly mistaken" and that "there is no way in Hades that that airplane approached the Pentagon level." Declaring it is "Impossible!".

That means...

The ASCE is "sadly mistaken", Purdue University is "sadly mistaken", Integrated Consultants is "sadly mistaken", and the govt's own grainy video is "sadly mistaken" not to mention a host of others.

This would mean anyone who claims to have seen an impact would be "sadly mistaken".

I completely agree as the steep decline in topography, obstacles, final altitude shown in the data, and the 757 limitations prevent it from impacting low and level into the first floor on the official south of Citgo path.

I am curious to know why no one here viciously dog-piled Boone870 for making such a bold declaration? It just seemed to silently slip by you guys. Do you agree with him? Is that why it slipped by silently? If you don't agree with him how come no one said anything?

[DGM]

........how come no one said anything?

Because it's so painfully obvious that flight 77 hit the Pentagon and did the damage it did that only a moron would think otherwise. The post doesn't matter.

[jaydeehess]

Interesting. So here we have a CIT detractor, jref forum member, and official story supporter not holding back and stating that people "who use the Pentagon security videos to prove that Flight 77 leveled off over the lawn, are sadly mistaken" and that "there is no way in Hades that that airplane approached the Pentagon level." Declaring it is "Impossible!".

That means...

The ASCE is "sadly mistaken", Purdue University is "sadly mistaken", Integrated Consultants is "sadly mistaken",

These all have the plane impacting at close to level. In fact it is IIRC listed as having approached the Pentagon at about 4 degrees down angle and banked slightly to port. This is how it is possible for the starboard engine to clip the gen-set on the lawn and push it towards the Pentagon and the port engine's lowest point clip the concrete curb just in front of the Pentagon.

and the govt's own grainy video is "sadly mistaken" not to mention a host of others.
I defy you to be able to determine a 4 degree down angle in a "grainy" video of an aircraft coming into the scene at something other than 90 degrees (in the horizontal) and a few hundred feet away.

This would mean anyone who claims to have seen an impact would be "sadly mistaken".

Yes, PfT and CiT would have us believe that although many people do say that they saw impact and no one at all saw a fly over, that the fly over is indeed the more believeable scenario.

I completely agree as the steep decline in topography, obstacles, final altitude shown in the data, and the 757 limitations prevent it from impacting low and level into the first floor on the official south of Citgo path.

This of course all depends on where, in the horizontal distance from the Pentagon , you put this final altitude.

The north of Citgo path(s) (after all there are what , about a dozen of them supported by CiT?) is so very much more believable. Morin has it south of the Navy Annex whereas Middleton has it approaching on a path such that Morin would have had to look north and be able to see through the Navy Annex in order to see the plane. The path that CiT say Paik's description indicates has the plane flying over the Navy Annex such that Morin would have had to turn and face north to see it while running south to the parking lot where as it descended the Annex again would block his view of it.

If the CiT or PfT wish to purport a north of Citgo path then perhaps they should decide what that means other than it was approaching from some path on the half of the globe north of a gas station.

Now, the obvious observation:
Three years after the previous post in this particular thread we get a new post.
Either Boone has a personal troll or someone was specifically searching the forum for Pentagon path threads and landed on this one.
OR,,,,,,,,,someone just could not take 'Banned" for an answer.

[DGM]

If the CiT or PfT wish to purport a north of Citgo path then perhaps they should decide what that means other than..................................

Wow.......it's like flash-backs. Are those guys still around.......man?



:boxedin:

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

These all have the plane impacting at close to level. In fact it is IIRC listed as having approached the Pentagon at about 4 degrees down angle

Really? Source? And how did they arrive at that conclusion?

and banked slightly to port.

Yes according to the theory of the ASCE.

This is how it is possible for the starboard engine to clip the gen-set on the lawn and push it towards the Pentagon and the port engine's lowest point clip the concrete curb just in front of the Pentagon.

The "concrete curb" is a vent structure. And yes, you are just reciting the ASCE's theory.


I defy you to be able to determine a 4 degree down angle in a "grainy" video of an aircraft coming into the scene at something other than 90 degrees (in the horizontal) and a few hundred feet away.

Why? Didn't the ASCE, Integrated Consultants, and Purdue determine was level?

The object here appears to be level. You can see it in the fuselage and tail...
i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/outputl.gif
i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/outputg.gif

Unless you want to show me how YOU determined it was at 4 degree down angle- that is if you remembered correctly.

Yes, PfT and CiT would have us believe that although many people do say that they saw impact and no one at all saw a fly over, that the fly over is indeed the more believeable scenario.

Many people saw the impact? You spoke with them? You corroborated the details about the how the plane impacted?

CIT collected overwhelming CORROBORATED eyewitness testimony from witnesses at opposing vantage points all of whom adamantly place the plane on the north side of the Citgo and stand by it to this day.

The north side flight path=flyover. Just ask Pat Curley...

"You can't endorse North of Citgo, and then try to say but you don't believe in the flyover, because if the plane really was NoC, then it could not have caused the physical damage seen." ~Pat Curley
screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/08/peter-dale-scott-tries-to-rowback-his.html

Regardless, there are flyover witnesses and related witnesses:


1. Roosevelt Roberts Jr @ east loading dock
i42.tinypic.com/js147b.jpg
2. Erik Dihle whose ANC co-workers said, "a bomb hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going".
z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=499
3. Dewitt Roseborough
z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=449&st=0#entry2087172
4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "pilot tried to avert the building" and the plane "went to the side of the building and not directly in"
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on "the other side" and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was "on top".


This of course all depends on where, in the horizontal distance from the Pentagon , you put this final altitude.

Of course, how about the final altitude of 699 ft ASL (and speed for that matter) in the NTSB's data?

The north of Citgo path(s) (after all there are what , about a dozen of them supported by CiT?)

No. There is only one north side of the Citgo flight path. Witnesses are not infallible, you know you are setting up a faulty argument by acting as if they are supposed to match exactly. The fact is they all place it on the north side of the gas station and that is all that matters.

Morin has it south of the Navy Annex

Why would you lie about that jaydeehess? He absolutely does not have it "south of the navy Annex". He distinctly places the plane above him as he in between the wings of the annex. He said no way was it on the south side of Columbia pike where it has to be. Are you misremembering or are you attempting to be deceptive on purpose?

whereas Middleton has it approaching on a path such that Morin would have had to look north and be able to see through the Navy Annex in order to see the plane.

Middleton clearly placed it on the north side of the annex and the gas station and deduced the path leading up to that point. The plane crossed from the south south side of Columbia pike to the north corner of the annex.

The path that CiT say Paik's description indicates has the plane flying over the Navy Annex such that Morin would have had to turn and face north to see it while running south to the parking lot where as it descended the Annex again would block his view of it.

Ed Paik placed the plane crossing over from the south side of Columbia pike to the north side, over his shop, headed over the navy annex which is exactly where Morin picks it up, headed in the general direction of the north side of the gas station. Your over complicated, twisted, deceptive version of events will not suffice.

If the CiT or PfT wish to purport a north of Citgo path then perhaps they should decide that that means other than it was approaching from some path on the half of the globe north of a gas station.

What's there to decide? The witnesses all place the plane on the north path: north side of Columbia pike, over the annex, veering to the north corner of the annex, leaving from the north corner of the annex starting to gun it, banking on the north side of the gas station.

Now, the obvious observation:
Three years after the previous post in this particular thread we get a new post.
Either Boone has a personal troll or someone was specifically searching the forum for Pentagon path threads and landed on this one.
OR,,,,,,,,,someone just could not take 'Banned" for an answer.

Such the conspiracy theorist. Tsk tsk

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Wow.......it's like flash-backs. Are those guys still around.......man?



:boxedin:

Oh yeah they are. Just because you declare it debunked and then run and bury head doesn't mean they are going to go away.

In fact, one them just destroyed one of yours in an on air debate. You must have missed it :)

[DGM]

Oh yeah they are. Just because you declare it debunked and the run and bury head doesn't mean they are going to go away.

In fact, one them just destroyed one of yours in an on air debate. You must have missed it :)
One of mine? Are you talking my kids or one of the guy's that works for me? Got a link to this destruction?

[jaydeehess]

Actually Curious, no I did not interview people who say they saw it impact the Pentagon. However the Cit did. They just choose to ignore that fact, or hand wave it away or call the people liars, dupes or disinfo agents. What the Cit did not do was find ANYONE who saw a flyover and yet the Cit tell us that the flyover is more to be believed.

1. Roosevelt Roberts Jr @ east loading dock
i42.tinypic.com/js147b.jpg
2. Erik Dihle whose ANC co-workers said, "a bomb hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going".
z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=499
3. Dewitt Roseborough
z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=449&st=0#entry2087172
4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "pilot tried to avert the building" and the plane "went to the side of the building and not directly in"
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on "the other side" and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was "on top".


Roberts DOES NOT report a flyover. His statement is twisted by the CIT to be one.
"Not directly in" is supposed to be a flyover? It would seem that a flyover to you simply means that it did not hit the building square on.

I have said before that the CIT would be better off trying to say that the plane was teleported to the Bermuda Triangle as it touched the Pentagon rather than try to prove a flyover.

Its been a year or more since I last cared about this subject. I suppose I could, were I so inclined, refresh my memory more on this but having argued it ad naseum long ago I no longer have the desire.

I'd wish you good luck in your endevours but I just don't.

[16.5]

Wow, a CIT shill? It has been forever since I heard from them!

Say, Curious, can you tell Craig and Aldo that their national security alert website is still "under construction"?

lulz.

[jaydeehess]

Yes according to the theory of the ASCE.



The "concrete curb" is a vent structure. And yes, you are just reciting the ASCE's theory.




You are just reciting that of the CiT/PfT. I would accept the credentials of actual practicing engineers over those of a few deluded pilots and college drop outs.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

One of mine? Are you talking my kids or one of the guy's that works for me? Got a link to this destruction?

I will post it soon.

[jaydeehess]

What's there to decide? The witnesses all place the plane on the north path: north side of Columbia pike, over the annex, veering to the north corner of the annex, leaving from the north corner of the annex starting to gun it, banking on the north side of the gas station.



How about a path on which all of the north of citgo witnesses could actually see the plane?

That puts Middleton's out. Hmm, It also puts the one that the Cit characterize as Paik's out.
OR it puts Morin's out since Middleton could not see that and it well to the south of Paik's. Actually a bit closer to Paik's estimation that it might have clipped the VDOT tower over which it could not be if it had also gone over the Annex the way the CiT claims Paik said it did. Well not unless it was doing some craaazy zigging and zagging.


ooohhh I let myself get caught up in this. told myself not to, told myself that argueing with deluded people is not a good idea.............

[jaydeehess]

OMG! I looked at Dihle's account as reported by the CIT.
He was INSIDE when it happened and the CIT is reporting his reporting of what other people said. That is referred to as heresay and is less reliable than first hand witness testimony which is itself not particularily reliable as evidenced by the fact that the CiT has about a dozen different NOC paths.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Actually Curious, no I did not interview people who say they saw it impact the Pentagon. However the Cit did. They just choose to ignore that fact, or hand wave it away or call the people liars, dupes or disinfo agents.

Again, a north side of the Citgo flight path plane cannot hit the light poles or the pentagon. Even living skeptic deity, Pat Curley, concedes this.

There is 0 corroboration of impact details. There is 0 consistency in statements given by alleged witnesses regarding the impact, especially when compared to the official story. And besides the decline in topography, obstacles, 757 limitations, and the final alt of 699 ft ASL in the data means the plane simply cannot fly in low and level over the lawn and into the first floor just as CIT detractor and official story supporter, Boone870, had realized after going there.

What the Cit did not do was find ANYONE who saw a flyover and yet the Cit tell us that the flyover is more to be believed.

Yes they did. Furthermore they FOUND witnesses to a north side flight path which as Pat Curley said can only mean a flyover.

It's hilarious to watch you demand that CIT find ANYONE to a flyover and yet they found over 13 "ANYONE'S" to a north side flight path which=flyover.


Roberts DOES NOT report a flyover. His statement is twisted by the CIT to be one.

Roberts reports the flyaway from the east loading dock. What's priceless is to remember reading these forums before the discovery of Roosevelt Roberts and reading you people taunting CIT to find just one witness to a commercial airliner flying away after the explosion. Then when they do, the goal posts are promptly and quietly moved.

You also avoid the fact that weeks after 9/11 Erik Dihle relays that his co-workers were saying a "bomb hit the pentagon and the jet kept on going" right after the event.

"Not directly in" is supposed to be a flyover? It would seem that a flyover to you simply means that it did not hit the building square on.

"Not directly in" is supposed to be an impact to you? I love how you left out "the pilot tried to avert the building".


I have said before that the CIT would be better off trying to say that the plane was teleported to the Bermuda Triangle as it touched the Pentagon rather than try to prove a flyover.

Silly. It's proven. You said you want them to find witnesses who prove a flyover. CIT found 13+ witnesses to a north side flight path and Pat Curley said that north side flight path proves a flyover. Easy right?

Its been a year or more since I last cared about this subject. I suppose I could, were I so inclined, refresh my memory more on this but having argued it ad naseum long ago I no longer have the desire.

Ah ok. So you have no proof for your 4 degrees down claim. Gotcha. Sounds like you can't address or refute much of what I wrote to you. I'll take that as a small victory for the truth.

I'd wish you good luck in your endevours but I just don't.

Believe me, it's mutual.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Wow, a CIT shill? It has been forever since I heard from them!

Say, Curious, can you tell Craig and Aldo that their national security alert website is still "under construction"?

lulz.

No it isn't.

So does the "lulz" mean we're going to be in for more cool Internet lingo? Maybe we can get some of your manly "hee-hee" giggles too?

[Macgyver1968]

I smell sock.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

You are just reciting that of the CiT/PfT. I would accept the credentials of actual practicing engineers over those of a few deluded pilots and college drop outs.

No I am reciting what the witnesses saw and said.

So you are saying that you believe engineers who got there days after the event versus witnesses who were there at the time of the event? Do those engineers know how to fly planes? Do they know how to interpret NTSB data?

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

I smell sock.
Why are you into smelling socks? Can't we just stick to the topic?

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

How about a path on which all of the north of citgo witnesses could actually see the plane?

That puts Middleton's out. Hmm, It also puts the one that the Cit characterize as Paik's out.
OR it puts Morin's out since Middleton could not see that and it well to the south of Paik's. Actually a bit closer to Paik's estimation that it might have clipped the VDOT tower over which it could not be if it had also gone over the Annex the way the CiT claims Paik said it did. Well not unless it was doing some craaazy zigging and zagging.


ooohhh I let myself get caught up in this. told myself not to, told myself that argueing with deluded people is not a good idea.............

Go back and read what I wrote and take a look at the witness interviews again. Sounds like you need a refresher.

The flight path connects perfectly with minor deductions on witness's part either after they couldn't see it anymore or leading up to when they saw it.

It's ok to admit you were wrong jaydeehess.

[Macgyver1968]

Why are you into smelling socks? Can't we just stick to the topic?

Sure...no problem...you just sounded like someone else there for a second...nevermind.

So...just to be clear, you believe in CIT's theory that flight 77 flew over the pentagon?...that explosives were used to simulate the crash, and the walls of the building were filled with plane debris that was dispersed when the explosives went off? ... That the lightpoles were taken down with explosives, and that all the witnesses that actually saw the plane hit the building were mistaken or plants?

Please...let us know what you think happened at the Pentagon, so there's no confusion.

[tsig]

No it isn't.

So does the "lulz" mean we're going to be in for more cool Internet lingo? Maybe we can get some of your manly "hee-hee" giggles too?

Hee-hee for the lulz.:D

[tsig]

No I am reciting what the witnesses saw and said.

So you are saying that you believe engineers who got there days after the event versus witnesses who were there at the time of the event? Do those engineers know how to fly planes? Do they know how to interpret NTSB data?

Do the witnesses?

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

OMG! I looked at Dihle's account as reported by the CIT.
He was INSIDE when it happened and the CIT is reporting his reporting of what other people said. That is referred to as heresay

You act as if I said otherwise. I was clear that Dihle was referring to when he went outside and heard his co workers yelling that the plane kept going.

Sorry, but that is direct support for the flyover. To say otherwise, is simply denial and goal post moving on your part.


and is less reliable than first hand witness testimony which is itself not particularily reliable as evidenced by the fact that the CiT has about a dozen different NOC paths.

So witnesses who allegedly saw it "impact" are not particularly reliable? Especially considering none of their details are corroborated.

As I mentioned earlier, the witnesses are not computers or cameras but they are sure about the general placement of the plane in relation to the gas station. They are all corroborated and they ALL place the plane on the north of Citgo flight path.

[The Platypus]

Eye witnesses are not some kind of super accurate, totally reliable, trump everything else, kind of evidence, as cult driven minds often try to portray them.

If it was, then why ignore the vast number of eye witnesses for but a few that said things that can be exploited.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Sure...no problem...you just sounded like someone else there for a second...nevermind.

No problem it happens. Especially on here.

So...just to be clear, you believe in CIT's theory that flight 77 flew over the pentagon?

Theory? Are you telling me that all those witnesses, including those officers, saw a theory on the north side of the gas station?

..that explosives were used to simulate the crash,

Yes. That is likely scenario.


and the walls of the building were filled with plane debris that was dispersed when the explosives went off?

Well there were unoccupied rooms due to the "renovations". So yes.

... That the lightpoles were taken down with explosives,

No. Planted the night of.

and that all the witnesses that actually saw the plane hit the building were mistaken or plants?

I don't like mistaken. I prefer to say "deduced". And yes, I believe there are plants. There have to be. The plane can't hit on either path.

Please...let us know what you think happened at the Pentagon, so there's no confusion.

I don't think you are worried about confusion. I think you want my beliefs out in the open so you can begin your ridiculing and promoting your disbelief and incredulity as counter evidence to the still standing NoC witnesses and the implications.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Do the witnesses?

Why? Do the witnesses need to decipher NTSB data or analyze the flight paths?

Do they need to be pilots in order to have seen the plane on he north side of the gas station?

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Eye witnesses are not some kind of super accurate, totally reliable, trump everything else, kind of evidence, as cult driven minds often try to portray them.

If it was, then why ignore the vast number of eye witnesses for but a few that said things that can be exploited.

Does a platypus know how to use a dictionary? If so, you might want to look up the word "corroboration".

[Grizzly Bear]

Do they need to be pilots in order to have seen the plane on he north side of the gas station?
Do they need to have been pilots to see the planes hit the building? :rolleyes:

[Myron Proudfoot]

Eye witnesses are not some kind of super accurate, totally reliable, trump everything else, kind of evidence, as cult driven minds often try to portray them.

If it was, then why ignore the vast number of eye witnesses for but a few that said things that can be exploited.

He also ignoring the fact that no eyewitnesses saw the plane fly over. Just another sock-puppet troll..

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Do they need to have been pilots to see the planes hit the building? :rolleyes:

Only one plane is alleged to have hit the pentagon, dear.

No but they need to have seen the plane on the south side of the gas station in order to have seen the plane hit the pentagon.

They didn't.

[Dog Town]

"corroboration".

We used to have a poster here name Lye Trip, he loves that word!
We have a new Craig

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1092345c928e9ead6a.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4025)!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1092346be79dc6401c.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7631)

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

He also ignoring the fact that no eyewitnesses saw the plane fly over. Just another sock-puppet troll..

You might want to re-read my posts, darling. Especially the part where I quote Pat Curley.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

We used to have a poster here name Lye Trip, he loves that word!
We have a new Craig


You know who else loves that word? Prosecutors who deal with eyewitnesses.

I guess if you have a new Craig, you have a new problem. :)

[Macgyver1968]

No problem it happens. Especially on here.



Theory? Are you telling me that all those witnesses, including those officers, saw a theory on the north side of the gas station?



Yes. That is likely scenario.




Well there were unoccupied rooms due to the "renovations". So yes.



No. Planted the night of.



I don't like mistaken. I prefer to say "deduced". And yes, I believe there are plants. There have to be. The plane can't hit on either path.



I don't think you are worried about confusion. I think you want my beliefs out in the open so you can begin your ridiculing and promoting your disbelief and incredulity as counter evidence to the still standing NoC witnesses and the implications.

Craig, is that you? Could you please convince Aldo to reduce my "temporary" ban until 2032 on your forum to something less? :)

[The Platypus]

Does a platypus know how to use a dictionary? If so, you might want to look up the word "corroboration".

Corroboration... Oh you mean like the overwhelming amount of corroborating evidence against these cult delusions of yours.

Now your turn, look up curious, because you seem more convinced.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Craig, is that you? Could you please convince Aldo to reduce my "temporary" ban until 2032 on your forum to something less? :)

Didn't you say...

Originally Posted by Macgyver1968
Sure...no problem...you just sounded like someone else there for a second...nevermind.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Corroboration... Oh you mean like the overwhelming amount of corroborating evidence against these cult delusions of yours.

Now your turn, look up curious, because you seem more convinced.

My curiosity is with you jrefers.

"Eyewitnesses are not some kind of super accurate, totally reliable, trump everything else, kind of evidence"... Unless they are independently and heavily *corroborated* about the same black or white, left or right detail.

[Macgyver1968]

Didn't you say...

I sure did...but your preceding post made me think otherwise.

CIT truthers are few and far between...chances are you are a sock.

Hell.. I could be wrong...but people that believe in the Rube Goldberg explanation of CIT's flyover theory are few and far between.

[The Platypus]

My curiosity is with you jrefers.

"Eyewitnesses are not some kind of super accurate, totally reliable, trump everything else, kind of evidence"... Unless they are independently and heavily *corroborated* about the same black or white, left or right detail.



What's a jrefer? This is just an internet sub-forum. What's so curious about that?

Why should anyone ignore vast mountain of corroborating evidence, for your tiny mole hill of tricks designed to give the illusion of corroborating evidence, just because you want them too? Just because you fell for this crap, doesn't mean everyone else will too.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

CIT's flyover theory

So you think the witnesses all saw a "theory" on the north side of the gas station?

[Macgyver1968]

So you think the witnesses all saw a "theory" on the north side of the gas station?

Do you think it's a theory that witnesses saw a plane hit the pentagon?

[cantonear1968]

No. Planted the night of.



I don't like mistaken. I prefer to say "deduced"

This is just utterly laughable. Being skeptical is fine, but you can't just make %&@# up and call it proof.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

What's a jrefer? This is just an internet sub-forum. What's so curious?

The lengths you will go to maintain your denial.

Mountains of corroborating evidence,

Like? Indulge me.

illusion of corroborating evidence

Illusion? They are real people. Real witnesses. They were there. They all corroboroate each other. They stood by it even after they were told what it meant. There is no illusion about that.

Just because you fell for this crap, doesn't mean everyone else will too.

What crap? Why are you having such a hard time accepting that these witnesses saw the plane on the north side and stood by it after the fact?

What does it tell you that even Sgt Lagasse who hates truthers and conspiracy theorists stands by where he saw the plane and would even testify to it???

Come on man. Be logical. Be honest with yourself.

Honestly, you guys could delete your profile here and no one would ever know you were wrong about 9/11 this whole time. :)

[Macgyver1968]

Yet, you have a hard time excepting that witnesses saw flight 77 hit the pentagon. In a addition, you ignore the radar data that tracks flight 77 to the pentagon, ignore the plane debris at the scene, and ignore the DNA evidence of the victims of the flight.

[Drudgewire]

Aaahhh, 2008. Takes me back to the glory days of the NWO cover-up.

Remember? Way back when we used to assume CIT were all a bunch of crazies promoting some of the most absurd theories of the entire truth movement? (And thats measured against nano/super/awesometric thermite and space beams.)

Back when we all thought the ones who showed up here had absolutely nothing more than trollish blather to offer, and they'd never be anything more than a joke to other truthers, debunkers, and anyone else who happened to stumble upon their videos or interviews.

Remember how shocked we were the day they blew the lid off everything when they delivered the first tiny shred of evidence to support what we had naively considered "their nonsensical delusions" and "flat-out lunacy?"

Oooooh... wait. :p

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Do you think it's a theory that witnesses saw a plane hit the pentagon?

No, if you were paying attention, which you were apparently weren't you'd know I said it's a level of deduction and assumption.

They saw a big plane+fireball in distance="I saw the plane hit".
They saw a big plane+smoke column in distance="I saw the plane hit"
They saw a big plane approaching the pentagon+two planes just hit the towers in an apparent terrorist attack+huge fireball as plane approaches
Pentagon="I saw the plane hit the pentagon"

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

This is just utterly laughable. Being skeptical is fine, but you can't just make %&@# up and call it proof.

Why don't you come back after you've reviewed the evidence? Do you even know what we are talking about? Why don't go and find out and then come back and pretend you knew the whole time. Then we will discuss it.

[cantonear1968]

Remember how shocked we were the day they blew the lid off everything when they delivered the first tiny shred of evidence to support what we had naively considered "their nonsensical delusions" and "flat-out lunacy?"

Oooooh... wait. :p

You mean that didn't happen?
Huh!
But I thought 83% of the population now believes 9/11 was an inside job? A truther told me about a CBS/NYTimes poll back in 2006 that is apparently rock solid proof of......

[The Platypus]

The lengths you will go to maintain your denial.



Like? Indulge me.



Illusion? They are real people. Real witnesses. They were there. They all corroboroate each other. They stood by it even after they were told what it meant. There is no illusion about that.



What crap? Why are you having such a hard time accepting that these witnesses saw the plane on the north side and stood by it after the fact?

What does it tell you that even Sgt Lagasse who hates truthers and conspiracy theorists stands by where he saw the plane and would even testify to it???

Come on man. Be logical. Be honest with yourself.

Honestly, you guys could delete your profile here and no one would ever know you were wrong about 9/11 this whole time. :)

Wow... all i've done is not buy what your peddling, and that was quite the downward spiral, from accusing me of going through great lengths and maintaining denial (what lengths and what i've denied i'll never know). To demanding things, to asserting things, and finally begging pathetically...

Clearly you are the one going through great lengths and maintaining your denial. We aren't the ones that have been duped, you are... You came here to convert us, not the other way around.

[cantonear1968]

Why don't you come back after you've reviewed the evidence? Do you even know what we are talking about? Why don't go and find out and then come back and pretend you knew the whole time. Then we will discuss it.

Discuss what?
How you just made up the light poles were knocked over the night before
(seriously? The night before?)
or how the eyewitnesses who state they saw a plane impact the Pentagon didn't really see a plane impact the Pentagon and just "deduced" that they saw a plane hit the Pentagon?
Why don't you come back after you've reviewed the evidence?
Where is your evidence to support these claims?
How many NoC witnesses say they saw a flyover?

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Yet, you have a hard time excepting that witnesses saw flight 77 hit the pentagon. In a addition, you ignore the radar data that tracks flight 77 to the pentagon, ignore the plane debris at the scene, and ignore the DNA evidence of the victims of the flight.

No I don't have a hard time *accepting* that people think they saw an impact or want to believe they saw an impact.

Did the radar data witness the plane on the south side of the gas station? Radar data is released from the govt ie the perps and it is manipulatable. Radar data that doesn't match the c-130 crews account or witnesses on the ground. Please.

Plane debris at the scene? Enough to consititute an entire 757? Show me. Then show me it came from tail number N644AA.

DNA? You matched it? You confirmed that the sample given to labs was actually from the passengers? Show me.

At the end of the day, the plane is still on the north side of the gas station.

[Drudgewire]

You mean that didn't happen?
Huh!
But I thought 83% of the population now believes 9/11 was an inside job? A truther told me about a CBS/NYTimes poll back in 2006 that is apparently rock solid proof of......


They may still come through with those independant hearings with subpeona power, and wind up hanging Bush/Cheney at halftime of the Superbowl. There's also talk of the collaborating traitors on this very site joining them on the gallows.

I will say if that happens... as they put the noose around my neck I and many of my brethren will share one unified thought: "This STILL doesn't suck as much as Black Eyed Peas did last year."

[cantonear1968]

They may still come through with those independant hearings with subpeona power, and wind up hanging Bush/Cheney at halftime of the Superbowl. There's also talk of the collaborating traitors on this very site joining them on the gallows.

I will say if that happens... as they put the noose around my neck I and many of my brethren will share one unified thought: "This STILL doesn't suck as much as Black Eyed Peas did last year."

That's my favourite! I just wish truthers could look up the word "contradiction".

[Reheat]

Well, I'll be darned. Curious, do you have a twin brother that's been posting at ATS? I understand twins frequently have the same thought patterns in that they are so genetically similar. You use EXACTLY the same post pattern and argument style used by "ThePostExaminer" at ATS. It reminds me so much of Lyte Trip that you guys must be triplets instead of twins. There must be some increased adrenalin flow due to "winning a debate" on the intertubes that you're so proud. Do you know who that was that presumably won a recent debate... Why it was Craig Ranke, none other than half of CIT...(the smaller half). He's banned here as you know... under multiple user names... You don't think.....

[Macgyver1968]

No, if you were paying attention, which you were apparently weren't you'd know I said it's a level of deduction and assumption.

They saw a big plane+fireball in distance="I saw the plane hit".
They saw a big plane+smoke column in distance="I saw the plane hit"
They saw a big plane approaching the pentagon+two planes just hit the towers in an apparent terrorist attack+huge fireball as plane approaches
Pentagon="I saw the plane hit the pentagon"

Oh no..I am paying attention...you discount the witness testimonies that disagree with your nutjob theories, and embrace witness testimonies that could possibly corroborate your Rube Goldberg version of 9/11.

How did the remains of flight 77 passengers occur at the pentagon?

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Discuss what?
How you just made up the light poles were knocked over the night before
(seriously? The night before?)

Seriously. No I said they were planted the night before. I know it's easier and much more convincing to just sound incredulous about it rather than actually research the plausibility but here you go...
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-were_light_poles_downed_in_real_time.html
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-staged_light_poles.html


or how the eyewitnesses who state they saw a plane impact the Pentagon didn't really see a plane impact the Pentagon and just "deduced" that they saw a plane hit the Pentagon?

Well we now know the plane was on the north side of the Citgo. We also know that due to the decline in topography, obstacles, 699 ft ASL alt as the last alt in the data etc that the plane can't even hit low and level into the first floor on the official SoC flight path. This is what jref member and cit detractor boone870 discovered after going there.

Where is your evidence to support these claims?
How many NoC witnesses say they saw a flyover?

"You can't endorse North of Citgo, and then try to say but you don't believe in the flyover, because if the plane really was NoC, then it could not have caused the physical damage seen." ~Pat Curley
screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/08/peter-dale-scott-tries-to-rowback-his.html

[LSSBB]

Honestly, you guys could delete your profile here and no one would ever know you were wrong about 9/11 this whole time. :)

I'll take the words of Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.) over yours any day.

[Macgyver1968]

No one saw the jet flyover the pentagon.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Well, I'll be darned. Curious, do you have a twin brother that's been posting at ATS? I understand twins frequently have the same thought patterns in that they are so genetically similar. You use EXACTLY the same post pattern and argument style used by "ThePostExaminer" at ATS. It reminds me so much of Lyte Trip that you guys must be triplets instead of twins. There must be some increased adrenalin flow due to "winning a debate" on the intertubes that you're so proud. Do you know who that was that presumably won a recent debate... Why it was Craig Ranke, none other than half of CIT...(the smaller half). He's banned here as you know... under multiple user names... You don't think.....

Wow conspiracy theories abound.

It must be awesome to remain anonymous and lie about what witnesses saw.

Reheat, the witnesses stood by where they saw the plane even after CIT told them after what it was all about.

Why would you anonymously attack their credibility in an attempt to undermine what they saw?

Is it because you don't want it to be true no matter what?

Does it make you scared? Angry that someone figured it out?

Are you a supporter of American false flag terrorism? Do you feel the ends justify the means? Do you believe in sacrificing the few to save the many? Is that what you sold yourself on, old guy?

Just curious, can I verify your credentials and identity so we can know that your paper is valid (which we know it isnt)?

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

I'll take the words of Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.) over yours any day.

Frank Legge, a truther? Gotcha. So long as they have some letters after their name and some of their claims-all except the 9/11 truth ones- support yours. Ok gotcha.

Well perhaps you should do some reading before you make yourself look anymore foolish.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21025

[cantonear1968]

Seriously. No I said they were planted the night before. I know it's easier and much more convincing to just sound incredulous about it rather than actually research the plausibility but here you go...
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-were_light_poles_downed_in_real_time.html
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-staged_light_poles.html
I asked for evidence of light poles being planted the night before. Not more theories you just made up.




Well we now know the plane was on the north side of the Citgo. We also know that due to the decline in topography, obstacles, 699 ft ASL alt as the last alt in the data etc that the plane can't even hit low and level into the first floor on the official SoC flight path. This is what jref member and cit detractor boone870 discovered after going there.
I asked for evidence that eyewitnesses "deduced" seeing a plane hit the Pentagon rather than actually seeing a plane hit the Pentagon as they stated. Not more theories you just made up.



"You can't endorse North of Citgo, and then try to say but you don't believe in the flyover, because if the plane really was NoC, then it could not have caused the physical damage seen." ~Pat Curley
screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/08/peter-dale-scott-tries-to-rowback-his.html
I asked how many NoC witnesses actually saw a flyover. Not more theories you just made up.

[16.5]

No it isn't.

So does the "lulz" mean we're going to be in for more cool Internet lingo? Maybe we can get some of your manly "hee-hee" giggles too?

O'Rly?

This area is "under construction", but it will eventually be a place for you to report the outcome of your Operation Accountability efforts. For now please contact us via e-mail with any information. Thank you.

lulzy HEE HEE!!

[A W Smith]

So you think the witnesses all saw a "theory" on the north side of the gas station?
poor depth perception does not trump flight data, nor radar data, nor flight path damage to permanent objects, We have Morin clear on the other side of the annex witnessing flight 77 directly over him and watching it as it continued to fly across 27 towards the light poles, we have Paik from inside his shop office witnessing flight 77 through his front window which is no higher than your standard 80 inches, which puts flight 77 on the other side of Columbia pike, CIT is Toast! has been toast, will forever be toast, butter side down.

[16.5]

Anyway, we've had our fun.

Now, the big question: Hey new guy, did Shaky Craig and Aldo the Buffet Slayer ever release their raw video lik they promised?

No?

Then they and you are as worthless as Operation Accountability.

[Reheat]

Wow conspiracy theories abound.

It must be awesome to remain anonymous and lie about what witnesses saw.

You should know better than I. We have documented evidence that Cit has lied multiple times... Paik's location is one. Morins location is two, The PROVEN C-130 path both out of Andrews and approaching the Pentagon is three and four.


Reheat, the witnesses stood by where they saw the plane even after CIT told them after what it was all about?

Prove you told them. Where is the raw unedited video that you've promised years ago?


Why would you anonymously attack their credibility in an attempt to undermine what they saw?

I'm in no way attacking them. I do however, reject YOUR interpretation of what they say. More importantly, I reject your credentials and your conclusions to get involved in the first place.


Is it because you don't want it to be true no matter what?

Your fraud and obvious agenda can be spotted from miles away...


Does it make you scared? Angry that someone figured it out?

Scared of what? It's only a dream of yours that you've "figured anything out".


Are you a supporter of American false flag terrorism? Do you feel the ends justify the means? Do you believe in sacrificing the few to save the many? Is that what you sold yourself on, old guy?

Irrelevant BS. Don't call me names or you will be reported and your stay will be shorter than it may otherwise be. (Likely not long as you are easy to recognize)


Just curious, can I verify your credentials and identity so we can know that your paper is valid (which we know it isnt)?

"We", don't know jack squat. You wouldn't recognize valid credentials if they stared you in the face....

ETA: The fact that your earlier witnesses contradict your later witnesses is YOUR problem not mine. There is absolutely nothing technically wrong with my article on how your garbage is garbage. The fact that you don't like it is again YOUR problem not mine. You haven't refuted a darn thing about it. All you do is object and attack in a vain attempt to maintain your delusion. Just like all of your hog wash I'm proven that what you advocate regarding witness statements is impossible....

[The Platypus]

So to try clarify what i'm getting from this song and dance.

He wants us to believe these witnesses in that they saw the plane fly north of a gas station.

But not believe them that the plane actually did hit the building

And instead flew over in some near miss maneuver and flew away, which noone saw, and was just seemed to crash with a bunch of special effects, which no one saw.

Am I close?

[A W Smith]

Well we now know the plane was on the north side of the Citgo. We also know that due to the decline in topography, obstacles, 699 ft ASL alt as the last alt in the data etc that the plane can't even hit low and level into the first floor on the official SoC flight path.


lets review that topography again, I can see the second floor windows of the pentagon from this hotel room! And NOTHING IS in the way!!

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/CITGO2-1.jpg

[LSSBB]

Frank Legge, a truther? Gotcha. So long as they have some letters after their name and some of their claims-all except the 9/11 truth ones- support yours. Ok gotcha.

Well perhaps you should do some reading before you make yourself look anymore foolish.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21025

I still take their word over yours. Face it dude, a plane hit the pentagon.

[WildCat]

Why don't you come back after you've reviewed the evidence? Do you even know what we are talking about?
No, never heard that before... :boggled:

[leftysergeant]

Thinking right now about the Paik interview. Paik saw the plane out the front window, so we know that it was more likely on the other side of the street.

He points sort of toward the Navy Annex, knowing that the Pentagon is on the other side of the NA. Look at that curve in the road. He may not know the exact angle from his shop to the Pentagon. He would not be able to see much of it driving down the road until he was around that curve.

As for the people at the Citgo, it may be that they are confusing where they HEARD the plane with where they SAW it. They all seem to have had to come out from under the canopy to get a better look.

The extremity of the stimulus which such an event might present can mess with your sense of direction, especially as regards an object above the horizon.

[triforcharity]

Does it make you scared?


Nope.

Angry that someone figured it out?


Nah. We're untouchable. Call the JCoS. You ain't got nothin. This ain't no Horn of Africa....

Are you a supporter of American false flag terrorism?


Sure. It goes good with killing Jooos and working for the NWO. And beer.


Do you feel the ends justify the means?


Why else would we do it, if not to meet some kind of goal?

Do you believe in sacrificing the few to save the many?


We just wish there was more to sacrifice.....

Is that what you sold yourself on, old guy?


No, it was the great 401(k) and benefits. Do you know we have a fantastic dental plan?


Just curious, can I verify your credentials and identity so we can know that your paper is valid (which we know it isnt)?

Just as soon as we can verify yours.

ETA: We've tracked your IP address. If I were you, I wouldn't answer the door, they know where you are.

[Reheat]

Radar data that doesn't match the c-130 crews account or witnesses on the ground. Please.

Why do you tell a LIE to support this crap. It is not even remotely questionable where the C-130 flew. In addition, it's on video...

Do you really want me to dig up that false intentionally deceptive photo that one of the CIT idiots posted in an attempt to deceive the gullible into believing the C-130 was where you want it to be? Maybe youi'd rather no one saw that again as it would show just how what a manipulative fraud CIT is....

[A W Smith]

Thinking right now about the Paik interview. Paik saw the plane out the front window, so we know that it was more likely on the other side of the street.

He points sort of toward the Navy Annex, knowing that the Pentagon is on the other side of the NA. Look at that curve in the road. He may not know the exact angle from his shop to the Pentagon. He would not be able to see much of it driving down the road until he was around that curve.

As for the people at the Citgo, it may be that they are confusing where they HEARD the plane with where they SAW it. They all seem to have had to come out from under the canopy to get a better look.

The extremity of the stimulus which such an event might present can mess with your sense of direction, especially as regards an object above the horizon.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/CITGO2.jpg

(hyperlinked so as not to spam)
That is Paiks drawing above. See his shop in the lower right? See the two inked lines? Notice the unfinished line? note the ink dot to right of his "corrected"' inked flight path? Connect the dot to the unfinished inked line.


This is Paiks shop window, Standard exterior door height is 80 inches. Note the painted red line across the front plate glass? he cannot see above that. Yet he saw flight 77. CIT are Ignorant As Could Be.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/paikwindowf.jpg

[beachnut]

So you think the witnesses all saw a "theory" on the north side of the gas station?
No one saw 77 north of the CITGO. CIT are morons and they are directionally challenged.

These are CIT witnesses, they are all POINTING South. CIT have no clue where south is. They are liars, they are idiots.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/pointingSouthOops.gif

I could not believe CIT shows these videos of their witnesses pointing south. The only thing north of the CITGO in this case were the witnesses who all agree 77 impacted the Pentagon. Not a single CIT witness says 77 did not impact the Pentagon. OOPS

PAIK says 77 almost hit the tower... PAIK is pointing south.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Edwardpointsouth.gif
When you take his testimony and map it out, his statements are verified by the FDR. Flight 77's FDR was found in the Pentagon, and the course information in the FDR make the NoC a delusional claim made by the idiots at CIT.

The DNA of the passengers was found in the Pentagon. To deny that is insanity. The FDR was found in the Pentagon, and many people saw 77 impact the Pentagon. You think you have some evidence, but you have nothing, you lack knowledge, do shoddy research and fail. What will you do now?

You failed on all your posts so far. Is that your goal?

[Reheat]

Hay Curious, this is a photo that Waldo posted at the old LCF. Can you tell me what's wrong with it? Several folks are watching, you know....

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9344/tribbyc130ploton4.jpg

[Robrob]

No I don't have a hard time *accepting* that people think they saw an impact or want to believe they saw an impact.
You keep making this claim yet none of the testimony agrees with you. Why?

[beachnut]

Interesting. So here we have a CIT detractor, jref forum member, and official story supporter not holding back and stating that people "who use the Pentagon security videos to prove that Flight 77 leveled off over the lawn, are sadly mistaken" and that "there is no way in Hades that that airplane approached the Pentagon level." Declaring it is "Impossible!".
Wow.
I was there ... memorial on September 11, 2008, I....
After having been there myself, I came to the realization that the people who use the Pentagon security videos to prove that Flight 77 leveled off over the lawn, are sadly mistaken. There is no way in Hades that that airplane approached the Pentagon level. Impossible!
... You have turned the stuff inside out, and back-wards, in a mirror bizzaro world of woo. Wow.

I was there ... memorial on September 11, 2008, I....
After having been there myself, I came to the realization that the people who use the Pentagon security videos to prove that Flight 77 leveled off over the lawn, are sadly mistaken. There is no way in Hades that that airplane approached the Pentagon level. Impossible!
911 truth, in general, says Flight 77 leveled off and hit the Pentagon. Boone 870 was at the Pentagon (but you can find the topo online if you try) and found the terrain constantly slopes down to the Pentagon. Thus, therefore, etc, etc, the claims of 911 truth ARE FALSE!. What 911 truth says is impossible, not that hitting the Pentagon is impossible.

The reason 911 truth thinks the plane was level, a fish-eye distorted lens, which warps the view and makes it look like 77 was level hitting the Pentagon. Ironic, you are discussing a video (but you don't know it) which shows 77's impact, and you are debunking yourself.

Boone is saying the plane hit the Pentagon after it approached right to the impact zone in a dive. Simple stuff supported by reality, 77 was found in the Pentagon. Boone is saying the terrain precludes a level approach, and supports the reality 77 impacted in a dive. Not sure why you picked CIT claims to support, they got nothing correct about 911.

CIT witness interviews are pathetic. All CIT witnesses agree 77 impacted the Pentagon. If your goal is failure; you achieved your goal, big time.

I have worked aircraft accidents, CIT has no clue how to do aircraft investigations. The big problem using CIT for your source, CIT are the investigation team for Balsamo and his failed pilots for 911 insane claims.


That means... It means you failed to understand 77 impacted the Pentagon. It means you are gullible and picked the worse investigation team in history.

The ASCE is "sadly mistaken", Purdue University is "sadly mistaken", Integrated Consultants is "sadly mistaken", and the govt's own grainy video is "sadly mistaken" not to mention a host of others. Wrong on four counts.

This would mean anyone who claims to have seen an impact would be "sadly mistaken". It means you failed to do rational research, and you prefer to spread moronic lies out of ignorance.

I completely agree as the steep decline in topography, obstacles, final altitude shown in the data, and the 757 limitations prevent it from impacting low and level into the first floor on the official south of Citgo path.
You spew nonsenses you can't support out of ignorance.

Not too steep for a 757, you are wrong and failed to present evidence.

77 knocked down the obstacle, and the truth is a pilot can't see the lampposts, which would be nothing when you are going 488 knots.

What 757 limitations? You mean like a speed limit? Do you explode when you go over the speed limit? You are talking nonsense. Please explain the 757 limitations, or retract your idiotic lies.

Why can't a 757 hit low?

77 impacted at the second/first floor. Not the first floor. Both floors! Try to get something right.



I am curious to know why no one here viciously dog-piled Boone870 for making such a bold declaration? It just seemed to silently slip by you guys. Do you agree with him? Is that why it slipped by silently? If you don't agree with him how come no one said anything? Boone assessment support the fact 77 impacted the Pentagon, you have no idea what you talking about. Better take your claims to your teacher, you did not comprehend what he meant. You failed.

Boone debunked 911 truth claims; you messed this up big time. Is there someone who can explain to you how you messed this up? Your shoddy research could be the problem, because you failed to realize what Boone's point was. You failed two ways.

-4.9
-5.1
-5.4
-5.6

What are these numbers? Take guess. good luck

Okay, I will tell you because after you messed up what Boone said, you need help. Those are the Pitch of 77 before impact, 4 seconds before impact.

These are the last 4 seconds of pitch. (sampled at .25 hertz, something you can't get help from Balsamo, he has no clue)
-5.8
-5.6
-5.6
-5.6

-5.6
-5.8
-5.4
-4.7

-4.2
-3.7
-3
-2.6

-2.3
-2.1
-1.8
-1.2

Boone said 77 impacted in a decent. The FDR confirms his claim.


BTW, the NTSB FDR decode stopped, and did not decode the last 4 seconds because the data was messed up. A software engineer took the raw data and decoded the remaining data.

The FDR RAD ALT show 77 at 4 feet in the last second. 4 feet above the ground. Bet you mess this up too. Good luck.

[sylvan8798]

Wow. Just wow.

[Oystein]

...
These are the last 4 seconds of pitch. (sampled at .25 hertz, something you can't get help from Balsamo, he has no clue)
-5.8
-5.6
-5.6
-5.6

-5.6
-5.8
-5.4
-4.7

-4.2
-3.7
-3
-2.6

-2.3
-2.1
-1.8
-1.2
...

Just a minot quibble: That's 4 Hertz, 4 data points per second, as 1Hz = 1/s

[Grizzly Bear]

Yet, you have a hard time excepting that witnesses saw flight 77 hit the pentagon. In a addition, you ignore the radar data that tracks flight 77 to the pentagon, ignore the plane debris at the scene, and ignore the DNA evidence of the victims of the flight.

CIT's "theory" is an extremely special kind of stupid, but in reality all of the no-planer theories for the pentagon (CIT or otherwise) involve ignoring all of that. The sole reason the mainstream truthers don't have no-planer leanings for the WTC is because there's clear video, not because there's video + witness corroboration + DNA + plane wreckage + damage consistent with a crash; In that respect they're basically the same. What CIT adds is illiteracy in defining "witness corroboration" which they haven't figured out after being slapped with it in the face for a few years.

[sheeplesnshills]

duplicate

[sheeplesnshills]

It's really simple: P4T still has no eyewitnesses to a flyover. No eyewitnesses, no flyover.

Any questions, Turbofan?

No necessarily true, even if there are no witnesses for something it does not mean that the event did not happen. However if there are many witnesses that see the contrary that its a pretty good indication that it did not. Numerous witnesses report the impact and many were in position that would have let them see an flyover without difficulty. Not a single witness reports that with the sole exception possibly of Roosevelt Roberts but his story make no sense as the plane cannot possibly been where he claims it was at the time he claims.
http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/PentagonandReaganNationalwithflight.jpg

he can be mistaken but math cannot lie.

[sheeplesnshills]

Physical evidence? pfff! LMAO! The magic Pentagon walls, and lack of debris found? Lack of photos...yeah. Carry on.



What was magic about the pentagons walls? They were reinforced concrete with a thick limestone facing. Strong enough so that only the fuselage was massive enough to break through. The rest simply ablated on the exterior in the same manner as does this Phantom traveling at the same speed hitting a solid concrete wall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8

If you think something else should have happened please show us what. List all assumptions made and show working. If you do not do so then we will conclude, correctly, that what you assume should have happened is merely the product of a dark malodorous place.


Debris? Photos? there are lots of debris and photos. That the debris and photos do not look like YOU expect them to is a result of your ignorance and is of no interest to educated people.

[Reheat]

he can be mistaken but math cannot lie.

Neither can the aerodynamics. Airplanes don't turn square corners and all of those square corners in your diagram are not representative of possibilities even at the slowest speeds feasible.

Quite frankly, it's incredibly stupid to even address it in any rational manner. This entire quagmire is a journey into the deepest depths of irrational insanity.

None of CIT's imagined garbage happened as they have devised it and that's been proven over and over again. It is simply a zombie which refuses to die. It is simply not worthy of further discussion as there is nothing to learn except how incredibly stupid and obstinate some people can be.

This thread needs to just die and go away...

[WildCat]

What was magic about the pentagons walls?
Has anything been heard from Turbofan since his epic meltdown at the ATS forum where he and Balsamo got in a world-class hissy fit and parted company?

eta: I wonder if he's still a truther? Nothing about 9/11 on his Facebook page.

[16.5]

Neither can the aerodynamics. Airplanes don't turn square corners and all of those square corners in your diagram are not representative of possibilities even at the slowest speeds feasible.

Quite frankly, it's incredibly stupid to even address it in any rational manner. This entire quagmire is a journey into the deepest depths of irrational insanity.

None of CIT's imagined garbage happened as they have devised it and that's been proven over and over again. It is simply a zombie which refuses to die. It is simply not worthy of further discussion as there is nothing to learn except how incredibly stupid and obstinate some people can be.

This thread needs to just die and go away...

I agree. While we had our laughs in the day, any thread about CIT that does include the phrase "CIT has released all of their raw video on the following web site" is pointless.

/And no that does not include posts that say "it will be a cold day in hell before CIT has released all of their raw video on the following web site" future smart alecks!

[sheeplesnshills]

You should contact members of PFT for a more detailed explanation of how
to properly compute the values. It might make more sense if a professional
explains the procedure rather than myself.



ROTFLOL, contact P4T? Thats a joke. raise any point of fact that does not match their fantasy and you get banned.
Try for example asking them how Mr Morin can be considered a NOC witness when if his account is accurate it has to be of a SOC flightpath? You might also ask how he could possible have missed a flyover

http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/Pentagonandcitgoannotated.jpg

Perhaps you might also ask how Turcious saw a plane through a building and gas station canopy? Or how he managed to run some 60 feet in less than two seconds, minus his reaction time?
http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/Turciousundercanopy.jpg

try joining P4Tunder a sock puppet and posting these questions and see how long you last :)

[tsig]

He also ignoring the fact that no eyewitnesses saw the plane fly over. Just another sock-puppet troll..

Yep, the only point of interest is which one.

[tsig]

No I don't have a hard time *accepting* that people think they saw an impact or want to believe they saw an impact.

Did the radar data witness the plane on the south side of the gas station? Radar data is released from the govt ie the perps and it is manipulatable. Radar data that doesn't match the c-130 crews account or witnesses on the ground. Please.

Plane debris at the scene? Enough to consititute an entire 757? Show me. Then show me it came from tail number N644AA.

DNA? You matched it? You confirmed that the sample given to labs was actually from the passengers? Show me.

At the end of the day, the plane is still on the north side of the gas station.


Nah, it wound up inside the Pentagon.

[tsig]

No I don't have a hard time *accepting* that people think they saw an impact or want to believe they saw an impact.

Did the radar data witness the plane on the south side of the gas station? Radar data is released from the govt ie the perps and it is manipulatable. Radar data that doesn't match the c-130 crews account or witnesses on the ground. Please.

Plane debris at the scene? Enough to consititute an entire 757? Show me. Then show me it came from tail number N644AA.

DNA? You matched it? You confirmed that the sample given to labs was actually from the passengers? Show me.

At the end of the day, the plane is still on the north side of the gas station.

Nice pre-move of the goalposts.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So to try clarify what i'm getting from this song and dance.

He wants us to believe these witnesses in that they saw the plane fly north of a gas station.

But not believe them that the plane actually did hit the building


Pretty much. The witness claims of a "north of Citgo" flight path are proven beyond a shadow of doubt because 13 of them make roughly the same claim, no other documentary or physical evidence necessary. The witness claims that the plane hit the building are, for no clear reason, simply "deduced" by the witnesses and therefore likely to be incorrect.

I don't get it either.

[jaydeehess]

You act as if I said otherwise. I was clear that Dihle was referring to when he went outside and heard his co workers yelling that the plane kept going.

Sorry, but that is direct support for the flyover. To say otherwise, is simply denial and goal post moving on your part.

Sorry but heresay is not considered evidence in any venue other than gossipy sewing circles.

What were the exact words uttered by the people Dihle was hearing? What, you don't know, vcan only go by what Dihle himself recollects about it? Of course! It is quite possible that someone was referring to the fact that the plane kept moving towards the Pentagon and never pulled up. This would be a natural human reaction to the horror of the scene. Dihle howevr never saw the plane himself and could understandably interpret the wording litteraly as meaning that the plane actualy flew past. THAT is why heresay is considered highly unreliable.


So witnesses who allegedly saw it "impact" are not particularly reliable? Especially considering none of their details are corroborated.

As I mentioned earlier, the witnesses are not computers or cameras but they are sure about the general placement of the plane in relation to the gas station. They are all corroborated and they ALL place the plane on the north of Citgo flight path.
As for eyewitness testamony, you know very well that physical and docuemtary evidence is considered much more reliable than human recollections.
Eyewitnesses who substantially tell the same thing are considered more reliable than those who tell substantially different accounts. Your NoC witnesses tell of paths that have the plane anywhere from over Columbia Pike to over Patton Drive, a separation of 1000 feet. All the eyewitnesses to impact put the plane within a few dozen feet of each other's. Added to that is the fact that some of these paths would have made it impossible for others to have seen the plane at all.

Add to that the fact that the CIT ignores the fact that Paik points south indicating where he first saw the plane AND that he was inside his shop and would therefore not have been able to see a plane as close as the CIT puts it to him. This means that the plane was at least as far south of Paik as the VDOT tower.

Add to that that Morin says he ran south to the parking lot and then saw the plane descend below the view past the trees. If the plane was on any path NoC then Morin would have lost the plane past the SE corner of the Annex, not as it went past the trees on the hill. In order for Morin to kept the plane in view as it followed a path NoC he would have had to run all the way accross Columbia Pike. However if it stayed SoC then he would see what he reported from the Annex parking lot.

[jaydeehess]

Pretty much. The witness claims of a "north of Citgo" flight path are proven beyond a shadow of doubt because 13 of them make roughly the same claim, no other documentary or physical evidence necessary. The witness claims that the plane hit the building are, for no clear reason, simply "deduced" by the witnesses and therefore likely to be incorrect.

I don't get it either.

Indeed it is as curious as it gets. 13 people place the flightpath nominally NoC whereas the DFDR indicates a path south of that location, aircraft parts, body parts are found inside the Pentagon, DNA on those remains confirm themn to be from passengers on Flt 77, 100 feet on only the ground floor wall is missing with a 20 foot diameter hole at the second level and none of this missing wall masonry is scattered about in front of the Pentagon, a gen-set has moved TOWARDS the Pentagon
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and yet we are to DEDUCE from the 13 witness statements that no plane hit the Pentagon much less Flt 77.

I have said in the past that the CIT and PFT would be better off saying that the plane was teleported to the Bermuda Triangle as it reached the Pentagon rather than to push their pet contrivance of a theory.

[jaydeehess]

What was magic about the pentagons walls? .

I got this:
The walls of the Pentagon's fisrt floor simply disappeared in the detonation of explosives inside the building. We know this because none of that masonry was scattered in front of the building and obviously it could not have gone inside. So it must have simply vapourised.

Also magic was the walls of the floors above the ground floor as these remained largely intact making this explosion somewhat of an oddity since it blew out 100 feet on the ground floor and only a 20 foot round hole in the second floor.

That's what's magic about the Pentagon walls!

[DGM]

I will post it soon.
Can I have an clue as to when "soon" will be?

[KDLarsen]

Has anything been heard from Turbofan since his epic meltdown at the ATS forum where he and Balsamo got in a world-class hissy fit and parted company?

eta: I wonder if he's still a truther? Nothing about 9/11 on his Facebook page.
He has posted at ATS a couple of times, his interest is mainly in the nanoo nanoo therm*te area these days.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

After having been there myself, I came to the realization that the people who use the Pentagon security videos to prove that Flight 77 leveled off over the lawn, are sadly mistaken. There is no way in Hades that that airplane approached the Pentagon level. Impossible!


http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/outputl.gif

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/outputg.gif

The plane in the dubious video frames is definitely level guys. That's why Integrated Consultants shows it as such in it's video presentation.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/generatorIC.gif
http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x180/T-Guide/ICA-8.jpg

And Purdue University:

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/purdue1_sim.jpg
Note the missing engines...
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/Purdue_animation_penetration.gif

To make things even worse you've got those darn untouched spools in the way. Note column 14 AA hanging on the second floor...

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/pentagonhole1.jpg

So basically you guys are just saying the videos and the ASCE, Integrated Consultants, and Purdue University are wrong?

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

No necessarily true, even if there are no witnesses for something it does not mean that the event did not happen. However if there are many witnesses that see the contrary that its a pretty good indication that it did not. Numerous witnesses report the impact and many were in position that would have let them see an flyover without difficulty. Not a single witness reports that with the sole exception possibly of Roosevelt Roberts but his story make no sense as the plane cannot possibly been where he claims it was at the time he claims.
http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/PentagonandReaganNationalwithflight.jpg

he can be mistaken but math cannot lie.

Hi sheeple,

You have the fuselage line too close to the Citgo canopy, it was closer to the ANC fence. But I understand you are tring to make it seem implausible. Even though it's what everyone saw. Obviously you didn't take into account the semi slow gliding then gunning it did as it came over the annex into the right hand bank. I love how you make straight lines as if it makes turns like the motorcycles from Tron.

Btw sweety, Roosevelt Roberts was at East Loading Dock (ELD).


ROBERTS: I was in south parking, and I was at the east loading dock when I ran outside and saw the low-flying aircraft above the parking lot.

http://i42.tinypic.com/js147b.jpg

[NoahFence]

To make things even worse you've got those darn untouched spools in the way. Note column 14 AA hanging on the second floor...

Why do truthers constantly post pictures that contradict what they're describing?

If the photos prove your theories wrong, don't use 'em!

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Add to that the fact that the CIT ignores the fact that Paik points south indicating where he first saw the plane AND that he was inside his shop and would therefore not have been able to see a plane as close as the CIT puts it to him. This means that the plane was at least as far south of Paik as the VDOT tower.



Jaydeehess, why do you lie?!!!

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1013&st=0
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/911-1.jpg

http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/PaikLarsonBodyOverShopNOC.jpg

[Dumb All Over]

CuriousAsCouldBe, are you Craig Ranke?

[Dog Town]

CuriousAsCouldBe, are you Craig Ranke?
Survey says...

[tsig]

Jaydeehess, why do you lie?!!!

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1013&st=0
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/911-1.jpg

http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/PaikLarsonBodyOverShopNOC.jpg

Did you notice that in the picture the guy is inside the building?

[beachnut]

Jaydeehess, why do you lie?!!!

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1013&st=0
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/911-1.jpg

http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/PaikLarsonBodyOverShopNOC.jpg

You cherry pick your way to delusional conclusions.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/PaikpointssouthdebunksCIT.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/PaikpointssouthdebunksCIT.jpg
Paik said Flight 77 almost hit the tower on the right. Go push your lies to people too lazy to look it up. I listed to all of Paik's testimony, you are cherry picking the parts to support your lie.

When we investigate aircraft accident we don't ask witnesses to draw a flight path they can't draw because they were not in a position to draw it.

What did CBS say when you presented this super information? What will you do next with your moronic lies?

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Did you notice that in the picture the guy is inside the building?

And?

Did you click the link? Here you go, click this one:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1013&view=findpost&p=2371654

[LSSBB]

Btw sweety, Roosevelt Roberts was at East Loading Dock (ELD).

Take your pick:

I was in south parking

**vs**

I was at the east loading dock

[beachnut]

And?

Did you click the link? Here you go, click this one:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1013&view=findpost&p=2371654
The idiots of CIT have people draw flight paths of a jet going 488 knots. Can't be done. The turn are not possible. Did you fail to do the physics? You showed flight paths which are impossible.

Further, the final true course is 61.5 degrees, the flight paths you showed are not real.

Where is your Pulitzer? Why have you failed, like CIT failed, to get 20/20, 60 minutes, or anyone to break the story? Because you have idiotic claims made up by idiots, CIT.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

You cherry pick your way to delusional conclusions.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/PaikpointssouthdebunksCIT.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/PaikpointssouthdebunksCIT.jpg
Paik said Flight 77 almost hit the tower on the right. Go push your lies to people too lazy to look it up. I listed to all of Paik's testimony, you are cherry picking the parts to support your lie.

When we investigate aircraft accident we don't ask witnesses to draw a flight path they can't draw because they were not in a position to draw it.

What did CBS say when you presented this super information? What will you do next with your moronic lies?

I know you have some anger management issues, beechnut. But are you also a habitual liar?

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/Edwardpointsnorth.gif

http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/PaikLarsonBodyOverShopNOCoutside.jpg


And the stuff about the VDOT tower is ridiculous.

NOBODY reports seeing the plane hit the tower.

The VDOT says that the tower was NOT HIT as confirmed by the two biggest CIT detractors ever: jrefer John Farmer (http://www.thepentacon.com/JohnFarmerDisinfo.htm) (who we know that Larson is colluding with because he posted advance screenshots of Larson's Paik interview on jref weeks ago) AND former Pentagon attack researcher Russell Pickering.

Caustic Logic admitted as much about both of them here:


I've seen Farmer again confirm with the VDOT - after trying not to - that there was no damage. And I re-located and read Pickering's assessment that the FBI was putting up the extra antenna for communications.
source (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=112&view=findpost&p=1513800)

Here are Pickering's exact words from September 10th 2006 (bold added):


"I went to the VDOT to confirm it hadn't been hit. It had not. Then in Edward's interview I asked him if he actually saw it hit the tower and he said no. Then I asked him if it hit the solid metal part of the tower and he said no. What he said was that it hit a smaller antenna of 2-3 meters in length on the top. He ended up telling us the reason he thought it had been hit was because he saw somebody up on the tower working the next day.

What had happened then is he incorporated a conclusion from something he saw later into his memory of the original account. The real story is that when the FBI took over the VDOT as a command post they added antennas to the tower for communication.*

If we hadn't taken the time to follow this through and get to the bottom of it we might have another Pentagon myth on our hands.
source (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12857&st=0&#entry7175834)


Here is where John Farmer got official word via FOIA that the VDOT antenna was not damaged:



Lynn Spencer (author, "Touching History") joined me in a FOIA with the State of Virginia for any records of the activity on the tower in the 9/11/2001 time frame. The following is their 12/9/2001 response.


After thorough research by both VDOT and VSP personnel who were present that day, there was no damage to the antenna installation at Columbia Pike, September 11, 12, 2001. In addition, a request for information was directed to the VSP Radio Division, the owner of the antenna in question. They provided further confirmation that there was no damage to the antenna. There is no information that documents any activity on this structure/antenna.

Please let us know if we can help you in any other way.

Kim A. Kile-Davidson
Policy & Planning Specialist
Northern Virginia District

source (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4323669&postcount=1)


Apparently he asked another way to be double sure:




Just to reiterate, VDOT and VSP found no information that documents any activity or damage on this structure/antenna.

Kim A. Kile-Davidson
Policy & Planning Specialist
Northern Virginia District




Furthermore the photographic evidence shows NO VISIBLE DAMAGE!

Here is a comparison shot:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/towertopcompare.jpg
source image from 9/11 by Steve Riskus.
High res copy available on his site here (Image #20): criticalthrash.com/terror/
Low res copy here (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/P1010020.jpg).

Yet Erik Larson is happy to perpetuate this proven false rumor anyway.

But the irony of all ironies is that G force calculations (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5732289044586758033&hl=en#) show that a descent from the top of the VDOT antenna to light pole #1 with a pull up to be level with the lawn would cause the plane to break up anyway!

More on the VDOT antenna:

Broken VDOT antenna claim, the desperation of CIT detractors (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=112)

The VDOT antenna back in the limelight, more deceptive manipulations from Farmer (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=345)

[LSSBB]

The idiots of CIT have people draw flight paths of a jet going 488 knots. Can't be done. The turn are not possible. Did you fail to do the physics? You showed flight paths which are impossible.

Further, the final true course is 61.5 degrees, the flight paths you showed are not real.

Where is your Pulitzer? Why have you failed, like CIT failed, to get 20/20, 60 minutes, or anyone to break the story? Because you have idiotic claims made up by idiots, CIT.

But if you believe it, with all of your heart, then it must be true!

Why listen to criticism, it will just shake your faith! Just keep replying with more cherry picked facts! If a fact doesn't fit, well, throw it out! Pesky outliers.

[beachnut]

I know you have some anger management issues, beechnut. But are you also a habitual liar?


You spread lies, and you don't know it.

Paik said 77 almost hit the VOT tower, makes your moronic flight path north of the Citgo, false.

The FDR final true course, 61.5 degrees, please show your work as it relates to 61.5 degrees true course. Can you do the math? Can you do navigation? Can you do more than cut and paste lies by morons? No.

Can you get 60 minutes to cover this? No, you have lie made up by morons, CIT.

The final true course for Flight 77 last seconds is 61.5 degrees. The drawing made by witnesses does not match reality, because you can't have people tangential to the flight path draw the flight path. You presented the dumbest support for your claim. What is your claim?

You have to call the FBI, FAA, NTSB, Navy, Military, liars. Good job, be all you can be, cut and paste lies from CIT. You are so cool.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Take your pick:

I was in south parking

**vs**

I was at the east loading dock

East loading dock is in south parking.
:)

[LSSBB]

I know you have some anger management issues, beechnut. But are you also a habitual liar?



CACB, who exactly are you quoting about the "stuff about the VDOT tower"?

[LSSBB]

East loading dock is in south parking.
:)

Not on the map you provided, they are quite separate.

[A W Smith]

Did you notice that in the picture the guy is inside the building?

Jaydeehess, why do you lie?!!!

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1013&st=0
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/911-1.jpg

http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/PaikLarsonBodyOverShopNOC.jpg


So flight 77 flew through the sheraton in the background? it would have to for it to be directly over Paiks shop. For him to see even the wing tip it would have to be directly over Columbia pike.
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Aone.jpg

[LSSBB]

So flight 77 flew through the sheraton in the background? it would have to for it to be directly over Paiks shop. For him to see even the wing tip it would have to be directly over Columbia pike.


That is one magic 757. Maybe it was an Orb.

What a maroon.

[WildCat]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/Edwardpointsnorth.gif
Since you're totally not Craig Ranke you should probably stop hotlinking to Craig Ranke's photobucket account. :rolleyes:

[beachnut]

I know you have some anger management issues, beechnut. But are you also a habitual liar?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtlzCyKbw5Q&feature=gv&hl=en

Here is you source. Balsamo, he does 11.2 g fantasy math, where you make up numbers based on stupid.

Here is it still posted years later. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html
He left up the wrong stuff, and put up dumber stuff. He goes from 11.2 g to 34 g. A dolt who can't do math, and he never flew left seat heavy jets. Plus, Balsamo uses CIT as his research team.

11.2 g, just made up out of ignorance. Then you posted the lies in the video; the final G forces for the last 5 seconds! Your video is wrong. You are gullible.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1Flt77Glast5sec8hz.jpg
Last 5 seconds of G force, Balsamo presented g force before 77 was at the VOT tower. Big fail. Funny Balsamo is too stupid to figure out much more than how to sell DVD with lie to people too dumb to know he is a liar.

You are posting the dumbest stuff on 911. How do you filter out the reality and end up with stupid? Do you have a stupid filter on your Google? So sad to see you are fooled by idiots. Looks like you picked liars to be your sources. And Balsamo, he is so nice, and he is saving a bullet for me when you guys take over. Good for you guys, when are you coming to get me?

Your movement has the anger issues, your sources are nuts.
“Mark Roberts deserves to die a traitors [sic] death for trying to suppress 9/11 families from seeking the Truth.”–"Pilots for Truth" founder, and ex-commercial pilot, Robert Balsamo
...And a few months later:

"Mark Roberts does deserve to die a traitors death....
I will not apologize for it this time. I will be there for his death should America fall into Civil War. That is not a threat. .that is a promise.
If he gets in my way of defending our Constitution.. it will be my pleasure to put a bullet in his head to defend our Constitution from enemies foreign or domestic." –"Pilots for Truth" founder Robert Balsamo, panicking after I challenged him to a debate. (Punctuation left as is.)


You have fallen for lies, and you have to call everyone who disagrees with you a liar. You spread lies, it is easy to see, but you have to open your eyes. Final course of Flight 77, 61.5 degrees. Do you have a clue the turn radius of a plane going 488 knots? No

[Dog Town]

Since you're totally not Craig Ranke you should probably stop hotlinking to Craig Ranke's photobucket account. :rolleyes:

Does he have a photo, of his seesaw analogy? :D
That was Rankboi, wasn't it?

[cantonear1968]

I asked for evidence of light poles being planted the night before. Not more theories you just made up.





I asked for evidence that eyewitnesses "deduced" seeing a plane hit the Pentagon rather than actually seeing a plane hit the Pentagon as they stated. Not more theories you just made up.




I asked how many NoC witnesses actually saw a flyover. Not more theories you just made up.

Bump for CuriousAsCanBe.
You must have missed this.

[jaydeehess]

Jaydeehess, why do you lie?!!!

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1013&st=0
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/911-1.jpg

http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/PaikLarsonBodyOverShopNOC.jpg

Thank you for proving my point.
Paik points out his window(SOUTH) and the only way he could see it at all would be for it to be not going over his building but much further to the south. In fact Paik does opine that it may have hit the VDOT tower which it simply could not possibly have done if it went over his shop.
When out in the parking lot he still points south and then gestures east as the trajectory of the plane. From well south of his position in the parking lot and travelling east.

Now we have the trajectory he draws that shows it going over the Navy Annex. By what method did he arrive at that? He,,, wait for it,,, deduced it while being fed leading questions from Larson. Larson did not ask what the plane might have flown directly over, no, he asks if it went over Paik's shop. That is called leading the witness.

Paik cannot see the Pentagon from his shop, he also cannot see the Annex from his shop, yet you present him with a photo showing the Annex and ask him where the plane went and decid to ignore his gestures and go with this drawing as gospel to feed the dogmatic followers of a deluded group of misfits.

Remember Turcois? Turcois points south when asked where he saw the plane. Then he is asked if it went over the station, then asked if its wing was over the station, then the tree to the north, each time he puts it a bit further north until its a hell of a lot different that the orginal answer. Of course AFAIK you guys don't use Turcois anymore since it was proven that everything he said was untrue.:D

I did not say that the VDOT tower was hit. I said that Paik opined that it could have been which clearly puts the plane well to the south of Paik's shop. So here we have Paik saying it may have hit the tower, a good hundred yards south and 120 yards east of his shop, obviously agreeing with the 'official flightpath', and then only in reply to a leading question saying it went over his shop, a path that would have meant the plane would impact the Sheraton and a path which would preclude Paik even being able to see it at all?

Hmmm, which to believe,,,,,,,,,,

So curiousas, why do you continue to lie? Give that dogma a bone.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

CACB, who exactly are you quoting about the "stuff about the VDOT tower"?

That is from the Ed Paik thread. That is Craig Ranke.

[beachnut]

That is from the Ed Paik thread. That is Craig Ranke.

With your support, why have CIT and Balsamo's Pilots for Truth failed?

Will you retract the video you posted? It lied about G in the final seconds of the FDR. Balsamo used the seconds before the final four seconds.

The last two seconds of G averaged 1.93 and 1.73 g at impact. The video is wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtlzCyKbw5Q (6:00) He fooled you. Why are you so darn gullible? You hooked up with the dumbest 911 truth movement, right behind the nuts who think beam weapons and nukes were used.

[LSSBB]

That is from the Ed Paik thread. That is Craig Ranke.

Ok, why I asked is because I was wondering why you even posted it when, like jaydeehess said, he was not claiming that the tower was hit.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Not on the map you provided, they are quite separate.

That is the only East Loading Dock there is. That is the only East Loading Dock looking out over South Parking lot.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/CIT%20site/pentagon-eld-east-loading-dock.jpg

[Reheat]

Hay, Curious. Why are avoiding addressing what's wrong with the photo at the very top of page 5?

[LSSBB]

That is the only East Loading Dock there is. That is the only East Loading Dock looking out over South Parking lot.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/CIT%20site/pentagon-eld-east-loading-dock.jpg

That loading dock looks even farther away in the photo. He couldn't be in both places at the same time, could he? Did he run really fast, like Flash or something?

[Reheat]

That loading dock looks even farther away in the photo. He couldn't be in both places at the same time, could he? Did he run really fast, like Flash or something?

Not only that, but South Parking is in DIFFERENT locations in the two photos. Not even close...

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

So flight 77 flew through the sheraton in the background?
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Aone.jpg

No of course not. Is that what he described based on his assessment? No. Is what he drew? No.

You also forget about all the other witnesses they documented south of Columbia pike leading up to Paik. Paik has it crossing over to the north side of Columbia pike, over his shop.

Did he draw his line through the Sheraton? Yes or no?
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/911-1.jpg

What is wrong with you people?

[Reheat]

Did he draw his line through the Sheraton? Yes or no?
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/911-1.jpg

What is wrong with you people?

What the He11 is wrong with YOU? Paik pointed to the East down Columbia Pike and thought that the aircraft had possibly hit the VDOT tower. Do you not know freaking directions or are you simply dense?

And Morin corroborates him.. We have corroboration and you like that, don't you. You keep bragging about it, so here it is... Pretty darn close to the known flight path. Not exact, but one hellova lot closer than how you interpret what they say.

[LSSBB]

That is the only East Loading Dock there is. That is the only East Loading Dock looking out over South Parking lot.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/CIT%20site/pentagon-eld-east-loading-dock.jpg

Wait, this is how the CiT transcript reads, does it not:

I was in south parking, and I was at the [east?] loading dock, when I ran outside and saw the low flying aircraft above the parking lot.


What's with the [east?]? Looks like a guess by the transcriber to me, and he clearly said he was in the south parking. There is a South Loading dock also.

[The Platypus]

What is wrong with you people?


Classic cry of those in denial about themselves being the problem...

[Reheat]

Wait, this is how the CiT transcript reads, does it not:



What's with the [east?]? Looks like a guess by the transcriber to me, and he clearly said he was in the south parking. There is a South Loading dock also.

I believe if you'll go back and check when they first started using Roberts it was the South Loading Dock and Lane 1 of South Parking... Like other things they've made up it changes when it gets shot down.... They are just stupid enough to think no one notices....

[LSSBB]

I believe if you'll go back and check when they first started using Roberts it was the South Loading Dock and Lane 1 of South Parking... Like other things they've made up it changes when it gets shot down.... They are just stupid enough to think no one notices....

I don't see how they could honestly pump something like that out. Is this all some elaborate attention getting scheme? Do they get paid to put this stuff out? No wonder the other Truthers all keep their distance from them or think they are disinfo agents.

[Reheat]

I don't see how they could honestly pump something like that out. Is this all some elaborate attention getting scheme? Do they get paid to put this stuff out? No wonder the other Truthers all keep their distance from them or think they are disinfo agents.

Yep. It was worse in years past. They were more active than they are now. Everything they have made up has been defeated multiple times, yet like a zombie they keep appearing... That's why it's a cult, if they were normal people they would be gone by now.... Believe me, they are not normal...

[leftysergeant]

You also forget about all the other witnesses they documented south of Columbia pike leading up to Paik. Paik has it crossing over to the north side of Columbia pike, over his shop.

No. Look again at that GIF. Whoever filmed the interview was looking at Paik's arms, rather than his finger. Different angles.

If you follow the pointing of his arm toward the Pentagon, it goes over the roof. If you look at his index finger, it is pointed directly at a utility pole on the side of the street, well south of Citgo. The hand tends to point automaticly at an inteded target. This fact is incorporated into the training doctrine for use of a hangun in combat. What is wrong with you people?

[Robrob]

Yep. It was worse in years past. They were more active than they are now. Everything they have made up has been defeated multiple times, yet like a zombie they keep appearing... That's why it's a cult, if they were normal people they would be gone by now.... Believe me, they are not normal...

It's easy when all you have to do is ask questions over and over, that have been answered a hundred times before. And when you get tired of one location (WTC1,2 WTC7, Pentagon, PA) you simply slip slide to another one.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

"You can't endorse North of Citgo, and then try to say but you don't believe in the flyover, because if the plane really was NoC, then it could not have caused the physical damage seen." ~Pat Curley
screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/08/peter-dale-scott-tries-to-rowback-his.html

So does everyone agree with this statement?

We all agree that the north side flight path proves an "inside job" right?

You ladies and gents basically believe all those witnesses are wrong about the north side of the citgo flight path?

You demand just one witness to a flyover but you won't accept 14+ witnesses at different and opposing vantage points, including the pentagon area itself, that place the plane on the north side of the gas station?

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Wait, this is how the CiT transcript reads, does it not:



What's with the [east?]? Looks like a guess by the transcriber to me, and he clearly said he was in the south parking. There is a South Loading dock also.

Is English your second language? He definitely said east.

Let me ask you, did you have any trouble hearing the dozen+ witnesses who described a north side of the Citgo flight path?

[beachnut]

Is English your second language? He definitely said east.

Let me ask you, did you have any trouble hearing the dozen+ witnesses who described a north side of the Citgo flight path?
The witnesses are all pointing to the south flight path. All CIT witnesses agree 77 impacted the Pentagon. Oops.
RR, saw the C-130. He sounded drunk. Good luck spreading lies proved wrong on 911. You are spreading idiotic junk and the your best tactic is playing the ESL card. Good job.

When will 60 Minutes pick up your effort at plagiarism?

[triforcharity]

Recently there was an airshow in my neck of the woods. I was working on the house, and I am in the direct flight path and very close proximity of the AFB that was used for the runway. Throughout the day, I would see the planes making all kinds of turns and approaches. However, I would have had difficulty placing them on a map with any kind of accuracy.

It would be very difficult for anyone to accurately do this.

But hey, you can continue with your BS all you want. I'm going to get drunk and watch you make a fool of yourself. Again.

[AJM8125]

So does everyone agree with this statement?

Sure.

We all agree that the north side flight path proves an "inside job" right?

Nice try, but NoC only proves the pushers of this garbage are deluded.

You ladies and gents basically believe all those witnesses are wrong about the north side of the citgo flight path?

Pretty much, since there are far more witnesses as well as other evidence which contradicts them.

You demand just one witness to a flyover but you won't accept 14+ witnesses at different and opposing vantage points, including the pentagon area itself, that place the plane on the north side of the gas station?

See above.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Classic cry of those in denial about themselves being the problem...

Speaking of denial. Let me ask you, what does this witness(describing the plane over the highway) gif say to you?

Low, level first floor impact or flyover?
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4be5841f07a4.gif

Converted hotlink to regular link. Please see Rule 5.

[beachnut]

"You can't endorse North of Citgo, and then try to say but you don't believe in the flyover, because if the plane really was NoC, then it could not have caused the physical damage seen." ~Pat Curley
screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/08/peter-dale-scott-tries-to-rowback-his.html
The NoC is impossible due to physics. RADAR and the FDR show the correct path. RADAR is from 5 different sources, the FDR was found in the Pentagon on the final course which defines the damage. The NoC path does not exist.

The statement means CIT story is a lie, and if you accept the NoC you have to accept the flyover part of the moronic scam made up by morons, CIT.

It is impossible to fly the NoC and flyover the Pentagon where 77 actually hit. You have to call thousands of people lairs to have your delusion. Final true course of 77, 61.5 degrees, which makes your claims insane.

So does everyone agree with this statement? The statement is limited to belief in NoC means you have to believe in the flyover. It is a trick statement since 77 did not flyover, and did not fly north of the Citgo. You are using stuff which debunks you, to support your insane claims. You failed to make a point.

We all agree that the north side flight path proves an "inside job" right? No, the north side flight path proves you are gullible, proves you can't do math, proves you don't know anything about aircraft investigations, proves you don't comprehend RADAR, proves you don't understand FDR, and proves you prefer lies and fantasy as you disrespect those who died by falling for lies and repeating them mindlessly.

You ladies and gents basically believe all those witnesses are wrong about the north side of the citgo flight path? The witnesses are all right, they all agree 77 impacted the Pentagon, knocked down the lampposts and terrorists did it. Darn, you forgot to listen and look.

You demand just one witness to a flyover but you won't accept 14+ witnesses at different and opposing vantage points, including the pentagon area itself, that place the plane on the north side of the gas station? There are zero flyover witnesses. The CIT witnesses all point to the official flight path, or agree 77 impacted the Pentagon. What will you do now? What did 60 minutes say?

CIT witnesses pointing to the 61.5 degree final true course flight path of Flight 77. Why are they all pointing south?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/pointingSouthOops.gif
It is amazing, they are pointing to the flight path of 77, the one which knocked down lampposts.

Why did you post a video with lies in it? Will you retract the lies?

[leftysergeant]

Speaking of denial. Let me ask you, what does this witness(describing the plane over the highway) gif say to you?

Low, level first floor impact or flyover?

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4be5841f07a4.gifI can't hear what he is saying, and I do not know where he was standing. There is no pertinent information in the exhibit.

[Reheat]

Hay Curious, Your ANC grave diggers were wrong about the path of the C-130. Since we know the C-130 followed AA 77, they are wrong about AA 77 too. It was on the known flight path followed by the C-130, won't you agree?

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

Sure.



Nice try, but NoC only proves the pushers of this garbage are deluded.

You can't bring yourself to verbalize it can you? You can admit and agree that the NoC proves flyover because a NoC plane cant cause the damage seen as Pat Curley says, but you can't bring yourself to say and logically agree that that also means "inside job". Why?



Pretty much,

Pretty much? So not all the way? So part of you believes them?

since there are far more witnesses

Which witnesses? You have videotaped interviews with witnesses on or next to the Citgo property specifically describing the south side path through the light poles?
as well as other evidence which contradicts them.

So you believe in evidence that was produced and in existence after those people all saw the plane on the north side, IOW after those people witnessed a state sponsored false flag crime. You trust in evidence produced by the very people behind the crime essentially.

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

I can't hear what he is saying, and I do not know where he was standing. There is no pertinent information in the exhibit.

Have you not seen his interview?! Have you seen any of the interviews? If not, how come you've been commenting on this subject?

[beachnut]

Speaking of denial. Let me ask you,.....


The FDR shows a final true course of 61.5 degrees, and before the last 3 or 4 seconds, 61.2 degrees. Which witness flight path averages the required 61.5 degree in the last seconds? RADAR does, who else?

Here are CIT witness flight paths. Which one is the real flight path?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1CITdelusions.jpg
Did you do the math to see all the CIT flight paths are impossible?
Do you know the turn radius at 488 knots for a 757?
Which is the real flight path?
Pick one!
Pick a flight path, and explain why the other flight paths are not the real flight path?
How did all the witnesses come up with different flight paths?
Are you saying all the witnesses are right?
What is your point?
Why can't CIT pick a flight path?

Have you been gullible your entire life, or just on 911 issues?

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

CIT witnesses pointing to the 61.5 degree final true course flight path of Flight 77. Why are they all pointing south?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/pointingSouthOops.gif
It is amazing, they are pointing to the flight path of 77, the one which knocked down lampposts.

Why did you post a video with lies in it? Will you retract the lies?

So are you guys seriously ok with beachnut altering images and lying about what the witnesses actually said? Don't you think he makes you look bad?

I mean, he just altered images and competely misrepresented what the witnesses said.

You know what that says to me? That says he knows it was an inside job and he is simply trying to keep it covered up for his own selfish and cowardly reasons. That's just my opinion.

[beachnut]

So are you guys seriously ok with beachnut altering images and lying about what the witnesses actually said? Don't you think he makes you look bad?

I mean, he just altered images and competely misrepresented what the witnesses said.

You know what that says to me? That says he knows it was an inside job and he is simply trying to keep it covered up for his own selfish and cowardly reasons. That's just my opinion. You are calling me and all the military liars. You are calling the NTSB liars. You are calling the FAA liars, and the list goes on. That is all you can do, you can't do math, you can't do physics, you are left spreading lies for nuts.
... beachnut altering images and lying ... .
A lie, I never altered an image.

From the CIT video! lol, their witnesses pointing exactly to the official flight path. I was trained in aircraft accident investigation, I was laughing so hard when I saw the CIT videos and heard CIT lie as their own witnesses debunk what CIT was saying. You must be super gullible not catching how CIT is failing to analyze witnesses correctly.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/pointingSouthOops.gif

The witnesses all said 77 impacted the WTC. You are a liar if you say different. Go ahead lie, it seem like your only skill.

DNA, RADAR and FDR debunk your lies - real evidence. 61.5 degrees true track at impact debunk you, one number beats your lies. Got math? Balsamo math is the best you have, a failed pilot leading pilots who are nuts on 911.

[triforcharity]

Have you not seen his interview?! Have you seen any of the interviews? If not, how come you've been commenting on this subject?

No, we haven't seen any raw footage of any of CIT's interviews. I wonder why that is CACB? Do you have any inside knowledge of why that is?

Many here would love to see it......

[triforcharity]

So are you guys seriously ok with beachnut altering images and lying about what the witnesses actually said? Don't you think he makes you look bad?

I mean, he just altered images and competely misrepresented what the witnesses said.

You know what that says to me? That says he knows it was an inside job and he is simply trying to keep it covered up for his own selfish and cowardly reasons. That's just my opinion.

And this is when you back up the claim that Beachnut altering the images.

Post the unaltered image, and beachnut's supposed altered image.

We'll wait.......

[A W Smith]

So are you guys seriously ok with beachnut altering images and lying about what the witnesses actually said? Don't you think he makes you look bad?

I mean, he just altered images and competely misrepresented what the witnesses said.

You know what that says to me? That says he knows it was an inside job and he is simply trying to keep it covered up for his own selfish and cowardly reasons. That's just my opinion.
How did he alter the images?
(http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pics/CIT_Images/AllGroupsMap.jpg)

[triforcharity]

How did he alter the images?
(http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pics/CIT_Images/AllGroupsMap.jpg)


I saw the same. But, figured I would call him out to see what he presented, then throw that link up for all to see who the liar really is.

[The Platypus]

Speaking of denial. Let me ask you, what does this witness(describing the plane over the highway) gif say to you?

Low, level first floor impact or flyover?

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4be5841f07a4.gif

1st of all, The witness in the gif doesn't say anything, there's no audio.

What does this say to me...Let's see.

Another joe shmoe on the internet, who came here to try and convert people into some alternate reality he got from other joe shmoes on the internet. Gives me a post with an animated gif from one of these cult websites, with no audio, dictating the context to me, and telling me that i have only two possible answers, as if i have no choice but to play along with these delusions. So what does this say to me?

Don't trust this guy, meaning you. He's clearly not being honest and he's only interested in recruiting people into this delusional cult, that's what it says to me.

[LSSBB]

Is English your second language? He definitely said east.

Let me ask you, did you have any trouble hearing the dozen+ witnesses who described a north side of the Citgo flight path?

English is my first language. I also know that he can't be in the South Parking Lot and at the East Loading Dock at the same time, when they are on other sides of the Pentagon. If you think he can, I think I have a Parrot you might want to buy, he's pining for the fjords.

How many of your dozen+ witnesses saw the plane fly by the Pentagon?

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

The FDR shows a final true course of 61.5 degrees, and before the last 3 or 4 seconds, 61.2 degrees. Which witness flight path averages the required 61.5 degree in the last seconds? RADAR does, who else?

It also shows the final alt as 699ft ASL.


http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/ntsb-alt-descent.gif

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/ntsb-alt-descent1.gif

This makes the low and level impact into the first floor extra IMPOSSIBLE!!!

Why are you cherry picking the data, beachnut?


Here are CIT witness flight paths. Which one is the real flight path?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/.jpg

The one that takes it on the norh side of the gas station.

Did you do the math to see all the CIT flight paths are impossible?
Do you know the turn radius at 488 knots for a 757?

No but Pf911T did the math to show it is completely aerodynamically possible.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509


Which is the real flight path?
Pick one!
Pick a flight path, and explain why the other flight paths are not the real flight path?

Why? These are witnesses. They are not computers. They all place it head to or on the north side other Citgo.


How did all the witnesses come up with different flight paths?

Different? They are all on the north path.

Are you saying all the witnesses are right?

About the plane being on the north path? Obviously, they all corroborated each other.

Have you been gullible your entire life, or just on 911 issues?

Have you been belligerent, angry, and abusive all of yours?

[Reheat]

Curious is obviously ignoring me. He actually loves me, but his manly ego just won't allow him to admit it...

Here is their photo originally posted on the LCF Website.

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9344/tribbyc130ploton4.jpg[/QUOTE]

Now, what's wrong with it? It is an obvious and intentional manipulation designed to deceive the gullible.

The large overhead portion of the photograph is from a different camera position and angle than the smaller inset showing the smoke column and the C-130. The inset was taken at approximately 1:55 of the Tribby video... I do not know the source of the overhead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV4ja...eature=related

We can see they are from a different viewing positions because the smoke column was never North of the impact point at any time. The winds were northerly and the smoke column drifted South. Also, note the different angles of the oil/fuel tanks. They are different, vividly indicating a different camera position.

This proves that CIT is a fraud and are liars to support their deluded agenda...

An analysis was done of the Tribby Video here several months ago showing that the video verifies the 84th RADES data and totally refutes CIT's version of the ANC grave diggers statements that the C-130 arrived on the scene from the NW and departed to the NW. The C-130 arrived from the SW and departed to the NW just as the pilot said and that the radar returns show....

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120994

Curious, you may tell Ranke and Waldo that they are FRAUDS and LIARS. (It might be easier to simply look into a mirror and whisper)

[beachnut]

It also shows the final alt as 699ft ASL.

...?
No, the FDR show the final altitude on the RADALT as 4 feet. You lost this round, try again when you get out of the pit of ignorance where you think CIT are investigators.

You can't get much right. Are you a pilot?

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon in a dive, not level. You sure to spread the false information. Is it out of ignorance or on purpose?

[jaydeehess]

I believe if you'll go back and check when they first started using Roberts it was the South Loading Dock and Lane 1 of South Parking... Like other things they've made up it changes when it gets shot down.... They are just stupid enough to think no one notices....

You know that's what I thought when CACB first mentioned Roberts. Then he says that Roberts was on the east side of the building.
Before this they had Roberts out in the parking lot, lane one and this was directly south of the building not where the word "south' is in that pic above.

CiT playing musical chairs with Roberts?

[CuriousAsCouldBe]

And this is when you back up the claim that Beachnut altering the images.

Post the unaltered image, and beachnut's supposed altered image.

We'll wait.......

Um he took out of context gifs of the ANC witnesses and Ed Paik for that matter and made it appear as though they were explicitly supporting the official flight path.

The fact that you didnt catch it shows how little you even understand witness interviews.

Disgusting. But predictable.

[Reheat]

I love it when twoofers whine! :D:D:D:D:

[The Platypus]

Um he took out of context gifs of the ANC witnesses and Ed Paik for that matter and made it appear as though they were explicitly supporting the official flight path.

The fact that you didnt catch it shows how little you even understand witness interviews.

Disgusting. But predictable.

Hilarious coming from a guy that just minutes ago, gave me some gif, dictated the context to me (like i'm supposed to trust anything he says), and then tried to make it appear as if it explicity supports his delusions about a flyover... Like i wouldn't catch it...:D:D:D:D

Oh the irony...:p

[triforcharity]

Um he took out of context gifs of the ANC witnesses and Ed Paik for that matter and made it appear as though they were explicitly supporting the official flight path.

The fact that you didnt catch it shows how little you even understand witness interviews.

Disgusting. But predictable.

That is not what you claimed. You claimed he ALTERED an IMAGE. Do you understand what ALTERING means?

And you're assuming alot. Considering you don't know me from the man on the moon, your assumption that I have "little understanding of witness interviews" is baseless.

What's even funnier, is that I have interviewed more "witnesses" than CIT has. I do witness interviews almost daily, sometimes multiple witnesses in a row.

Anyway, how's that "altered""Image" coming along?

How about the raw data that the gifs come from?