Turbofan provides math to support a possible NoC flight path and Pentagon flyover

[dtugg]

I'll be waiting. This should be good.

Are you guys really that clueless that you need math to figure out the
obvious?

The Annex is on a hill. The elevation is

2620 feet from the East edge of the Annex to the Pentagon.

Elevation at this point is 120 feet ASL.
Roof height at least 10 feet (could be a few stories).
Total above sea level: 130 feet minimum

Pentagon elevation 33 feet ASL
Roof height 77 feet from ground.
Total above sea level: 110 feet

Are these values good enough for you before I waste my time with slope,
g loads, etc.?

Sure, go for it. Please draw a map for the flight path you are using also.

[dudalb]

I think we have some Comedy Gold coming up, folks.

[Reheat]

Hey TF, Haven't replied to you in a while, but I see that I can help you out. Since you don't know how to do the math you can use this calculator to help you.

http://www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html

Once you've picked the flight path out of all of those available we'll be glad to help you with the vertical part for the pull up and over. Oh, and don't forget the South Parking lot for that "fly over" witness.

If you need any more help I'll be around this evening. In and out, but I'll be checking in periodically to see if you need more help.

You're Welcome! :D

[WildCat]

I think we have some Comedy Gold coming up, folks.
I doubt the comedian will show up in this thread, or if he does he won't be providing any calculations. Truthers have an aversion to math it seems.

[16.5]

Well, here is the absolutely documented and fully corroborated forensic flight path as described by Craig and Aldo and their witnesses:

Over the Navy annex, banked North of Citgo, descended below the tree line, pulled out of the bank, pulled out of the descent and then pulled up into an ascent right before the wall and over the impact site at the Pentagon, and then flew into the south parking lot after the explosion.

[WildCat]

Well, here is the absolutely documented and fully corroborated forensic flight path as described by Craig and Aldo and their witnesses:

Over the Navy annex, banked North of Citgo, descended below the tree line, pulled out of the bank, pulled out of the descent and then pulled up into an ascent right before the wall and over the impact site at the Pentagon, and then flew into the south parking lot after the explosion.
The G-force required for that 90o turn over the Pentagon are mind-boggling all by itself!

[911files]

Goody, goody...here is a tutorial on using latex Turbo.

Tutorial (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=49008)

I am so excited :D

[UNLoVedRebel]

Screw the math. I wanna know how they came to this "conclusion."

*Special note: Many detractors to the information we present suggest we are wrong because the witnesses at the CITGO station believe the plane hit the building. This is what true critical thinkers call circular logic. We claim the fact that the witnesses place the plane on the north side of the station proves it was used as an instrument of deception during a perfectly timed military sleight of hand illusion because it is impossible for a plane in that location to have created the physical damage. In other words, the intended goal was to fool witnesses into believing the plane hit the building. The fact that the witnesses were successfully deceived exactly as the perpetrators intended does not prove that they are incorrect in their placement of the plane. Quite the opposite is true. Their placement of the plane proves that they were deceived in regards to the impact.

[dtugg]

Screw the math. I wanna know how they came to this "conclusion."

Because they are stupid, fraudulent, and delusional.

[Bobert]

Funny isnt how in the REAL WORLD that REAL INVESTIGATORS typically have ZERO PROBLEMS providing THE MATH to back THEIR CLAIMES!
Yet along comes the CIT riding their bigwheels and making OUTRAGEOUS claims and they get all mad when you ask them to prove their FANTASTIC flight path with math!

[Drudgewire]

Because they are stupid, fraudulent, and delusional.


Ever since someone told them Santa Claus wasn't real, they've been under the impression everything is a grand lie to fool them.

2004 was a very bad year for Craig and Aldo. :(

[Turbofan]

Goody, goody...here is a tutorial on using latex Turbo.

Tutorial (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=49008)

I am so excited :D

Hey Johnny, how about this e-mail about the altered South path?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=5083

You seem to change your mind quite a bit. Are you getting heat from
the big boys on George's team? If so I can understand.

If not, you're pretty two faced. At one point you put down all the
JREF'ers and now you like them?

Don't worry I'll get your math, but more questions are forthcoming about
the cab scenario.

May I use the average of the witness flight paths for this math?

[1337m4n]

Turbofan provides math to support a possible NoC flight path and Pentagon flyover

Nope.

[dtugg]

May I use the average of the witness flight paths for this math?

Show us how you came to "average," and I suppose this could work.

[911files]

You seem to change your mind quite a bit. Are you getting heat from
the big boys on George's team? If so I can understand.

If not, you're pretty two faced. At one point you put down all the
JREF'ers and now you like them?

Don't worry I'll get your math, but more questions are forthcoming about
the cab scenario.

May I use the average of the witness flight paths for this math?

Who is George? And sure, as long as you use ALL of the eyewitness flight paths and not just the one's you like.

But lets get one thing straight Turbo. A path is a point in 3D space which changes position over time. What is under discussion is velocity (change in position) and acceleration (change in velocity). These are mathematically quantifiable elements but there must be a common frame-of-reference (the origin). I'll defer to you, define the origin of the coordinate system we will be discussing.

[Turbofan]

Funny isnt how in the REAL WORLD that REAL INVESTIGATORS typically have ZERO PROBLEMS providing THE MATH to back THEIR CLAIMES!
Yet along comes the CIT riding their bigwheels and making OUTRAGEOUS claims and they get all mad when you ask them to prove their FANTASTIC flight path with math!

Funnier yet, one of your members "exponent" [e^n] already proved the NoC path
is possible (*cough haha Reheat), and you still want me to provide more
math?

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/pentagonleastforce801.jpg

YOu are fighting your own member! LOL!

I like how Reheat comes back after all this time to discuss this very topic. :cool:

[bje]

Hey TF, Haven't replied to you in a while, but I see that I can help you out. Since you don't know how to do the math you can use this calculator to help you.

http://www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html

Once you've picked the flight path out of all of those available we'll be glad to help you with the vertical part for the pull up and over. Oh, and don't forget the South Parking lot for that "fly over" witness.

:bigclap

Go going, Reheat. CIT and P4T are going to choke on this.

Even maxing out at turning at a 70 degree bank angle at a slow speed of 350mph, the jet would experience 2.9 gs and take 9.2 seconds to do a 90 degree turn.

Turbofan won't get near this baby.

[bje]

Funnier yet, one of your members "exponent" [e^n] already proved the NoC path
is possible (*cough haha Reheat), and you still want me to provide more
math?

Since you, CIT, and Balsamo can't provide any eyewitnesses to a "flyover" of any jet over the Pentagon anywhere in the DC area, your math is irrelevant.

You don't have any evidence, Turbofan. But you already knew that.

[Reheat]

Funnier yet, one of your members "exponent" [e^n] already proved the NoC path
is possible (*cough haha Reheat), and you still want me to provide more
math?

Since when is a line on a digital map math?

You forgot a few witnesses. Where's Morin's perspective? He would not even have been able to see the aircraft in that position. Even your mentor, Cap'n Bob showed the aircraft directly over Morin's head. Do I need to dig that one up to help you arrive at a claimed path? What about the ANC witnesses who said the aircraft was coming straight at them?

And, how 'bout that South Parking Lot for the "flyover witness"? This graphic is not even close to what he described.

This one fails the test of adhering to your witnesses statements. It is no where close to an average of all of those lines Ranke has drawn. It is the only one that even remotely possible even at unrealistic and unreasonable bank angles and G and you still didn't include any math. I guess copying and pasting is the best you can do. That is your speed and you fail just like you have continued to fail on nearly every post you've made on this Forum.

Now, hop to it. Produce a path complying with an average of ALL of the CIT witnesses or admit you can't. I won't wait up late in hopes you can do it....

[Turbofan]

Since you, CIT, and Balsamo can't provide any eyewitnesses to a "flyover" of any jet over the Pentagon anywhere in the DC area, your math is irrelevant.

You don't have any evidence, Turbofan. But you already knew that.

Oh now I show you that it's possible via one of your own members
so you no longer want me to peform the math because there are
no witnesses? :confused:

WHen are you guys going to agree on something? Maybe stick to one
answer so you don't look so dumb.

[Turbofan]

Since when is a line on a digital map math?

You forgot a few witnesses. Where's Morin's perspective? He would not even have been able to see the aircraft in that position. Even your mentor, Cap'n Bob showed the aircraft directly over Morin's head. Do I need to dig that one up to help you arrive at a claimed path? What about the ANC witnesses who said the aircraft was coming straight at them?

And, how 'bout that South Parking Lot for the "flyover witness"? This graphic is not even close to what he described.

This one fails the test of adhering to your witnesses statements. It is no where close to an average of all of those lines Ranke has drawn. It is the only one that even remotely possible even at unrealistic and unreasonable bank angles and G and you still didn't include any math. I guess copying and pasting is the best you can do. That is your speed and you fail just like you have continued to fail on nearly every post you've made on this Forum.

Now, hop to it. Produce a path complying with an average of ALL of the CIT witnesses or admit you can't. I won't wait up late in hopes you can do it....

Did you and e^n go over this on ATS? LMAO

Do I have to link you up?

Go to sleep, or whatever. I'll get the math some time soon.

This is becoming a true comedy. Jonh Farmer shows up and then Reheat
comes along.

Both of them contradicting themselves from previous math and forum posts

:big:

[dtugg]

So did anybody see the extreme bank angles necessary for that flight path you are talking about?

[Jonnyclueless]

Darn those contradictions. Now back to using those witnesses who saw the plane hit the building to claim the plane didn't hit the building.

[16.5]

Funnier yet, one of your members "exponent" [e^n] already proved the NoC path
is possible (*cough haha Reheat), and you still want me to provide more
math?

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/pentagonleastforce801.jpg

YOu are fighting your own member! LOL!

I like how Reheat comes back after all this time to discuss this very topic. :cool:

Uh, Turbo, where is the math for the CIT NOC flight path? e^n has made clear that isn't the CIT NOC flight path, and it's not. Cripes Turbo, for god's sake, that does not calculate the descent or the pull up! C'mon, tell your pals feeding you e^n's work that they are full of it.

Here is your task, supply the math to support this flight path:

Over the Navy annex, banked North of Citgo, descended below the tree line, pulled out of the bank, pulled out of the descent and then pulled up into an ascent right before the wall and over the impact site at the Pentagon, and then flew into the south parking lot after the explosion.

Get to it man, you said it was easy this morning.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Uh, Turbo, where is the math for the CIT NOC flight path? e^n has made clear that isn't the CIT NOC flight path, and it's not. Cripes Turbo, for god's sake, that does not calculate the descent or the pull up! C'mon, tell your pals feeding you e^n's work that they are full of it.

Here is your task, supply the math to support this flight path:

Over the Navy annex, banked North of Citgo, descended below the tree line, pulled out of the bank, pulled out of the descent and then pulled up into an ascent right before the wall and over the impact site at the Pentagon, and then flew into the south parking lot after the explosion.

Get to it man, you said it was easy this morning.

Where is yours? Let's have something to compare.

[WildCat]

Where is yours? Let's have something to compare.
Not our claim, why should we provide math?

[bje]

Oh now I show you that it's possible via one of your own members so you no longer want me to peform the math because there are no witnesses?

So now you are backing off from claiming it "actually happened" to maybe it was "possible."

That's progress.

Given that you can't come up with any eyewitnesses to any plane flying over the Pentagon, it's also a wise move.

[911files]

Go to sleep, or whatever. I'll get the math some time soon.

This is becoming a true comedy. Jonh Farmer shows up and then Reheat
comes along.

Both of them contradicting themselves from previous math and forum posts

:big:

Turbo, you keep up the personal attacks because that is all you got. We started a thread just for you to demonstrate empirically that the "official path" is impossible and the tooth fairy path is possible. Maps and cartoons are nothing to this discussion unless they represent the mathematics graphically.

I sincerely want to be educated here Turbo, so please don't keep me waiting too long or I will get bored and start doing my own.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Not our claim, why should we provide math?

Your counter opinion doesn't need any math?

How surprising.

[WildCat]

Your counter opinion doesn't need any math?

How surprising.
You want the math for a steady descent into the Pentagon? It's already been done here.

[16.5]

Where is yours? Let's have something to compare.

I'm not the one who made up an impossible flight path.

But I'll tell you what, truther, given that I've been asking for six months (yes six months, wow you'd think that even the most brain dead of truthers would realize the fact that CIT has been ducking us for that long would prove they were frauds) isn't it reasonable that the proponents of the theory provide their data first?

Ah, who we kidding Truther, you ain't gonna do the freaking math, so why don't you run along?

[beachnut]

Funnier yet, one of your members "exponent" [e^n] already proved the NoC path
is possible (*cough haha Reheat), and you still want me to provide more
math?

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/pentagonleastforce801.jpg

YOu are fighting your own member! LOL!

I like how Reheat comes back after all this time to discuss this very topic. :cool:

77.9 degrees of bank (never seen on 9/11 by anyone) and 4.77 Gs, a wing bending maneuver nobody saw. So another impossible path, never seen a 757 do 77.9 degrees and 4.77 Gs, it would bend the aircraft and an engine may fall off.

With the maximum bank angle of 10 degrees seen and verified on the FDR, how can you spew another false path?

Anyone see a 77.9 degree bank turn? No.


Cute funny face, is that a Balsamo thing?

Did you and e^n go over this on ATS? LMAO

Do I have to link you up?

Go to sleep, or whatever. I'll get the math some time soon.

This is becoming a true comedy. Jonh Farmer shows up and then Reheat
comes along.

Both of them contradicting themselves from previous math and forum posts

:big:

Cool you can't explain this, you just say these things as if you knew what was going on. Farmer researches things and comes to conclusions, you make up stuff and spew lies about 9/11. Great you have talked but can't back it up.

Show us what contradicts; show us how the math works! But I expect more talk, since you are with the 11.2 G failure physics group of terrorists apologists, p4t, the only pilots who can't fly as good as the terrorist pilots. Maybe HI can help you with math.




So you use a path that is possible to fly for Reheat and myself, but for Flight 77 it was impossible due to your own CIT witnesses. How sad you are unable to understand by adopting Reheat's possible flight path for real pilots in fighter jets, you have proven your NoC paths are all bogus. You need some help with the math, physics and witness statement analysis. Should have had your failed experts help you with this fiasco. Wait, they don't have a clue what a 500 mph 757 Pentagon impact looks like and they prove it by spewing stupid ideas on 9/11.

You could present some expert stuff, but I have seen all your expert's statements, there is not one credible expert at p4t, or CIT.

You are given paths, and you have no clue why they are still impossible while spewin Reheat says they are possible. Yes, Reheat and I and thousands of Air Force Pilots, Naval Aviators, and Marine Pilots can do the turn you presented, but for 77 it was impossible. Reheat has told you this. Why do you prove yourself wrong and not know you are doing it?

[rwguinn]

Hey--They did it in ID-4, and "Star Wars" do it all the time.
You don't need this "Aerodynamic Force" Booshwah to 'splane it! Just point the nose the way you wanna go, and the airplane follows!

[WildCat]

I predict Turbofan won't be producing any math to support his fantasy.

No, stating the obvious won't qualify me for the $1 million.

[WildCat]

Turbofan?

Got math?

[Bobert]

Where is yours? Let's have something to compare.
Sorry bud but TF and the rest of the CIT are the ones making EXTRAORDINARY claimes so it is not our job to do the math for them or provide them math of any flightpath.

[Bobert]

Your counter opinion doesn't need any math?

How surprising.
NO!
I am sorry but it is a pretty basic concept to back up an outrageous claims with proof and evidence.
The CIT seems to think that people are guilty until proven innocent.
Going by their standards I could accuse anyone of anything without provding real hard evidence.
Arent Truthers supposed to be against things like dictatorships?

[Turbofan]

Uh, got an answer yet? Can your team of GL's come up with an agreement
so I can carry forward?

Which path am I allowed to use? e^n's, or the average of the 13 witness accounts.

Should I use the FAA, or NTSB animation?

Let me know and I'll get started...but you have to tell your peanut gallery
to agree with your statement.

The elevation and building heights were already confirmed in another thread,
but I'll post them here for all to review:

Aircraft altitute above Annex 230 ft ASL. Pentagon roof height 110 ft. ASL
Distance from north east corner of Annex to edge of Pentagon 2600 feet.

Are these figures OK with everyone?

[16.5]

Uh, got an answer yet? Can your team of GL's come up with an agreement
so I can carry forward?

Which path am I allowed to use? e^n's, or the average of the 13 witness accounts.

Should I use the FAA, or NTSB animation?

Let me know and I'll get started...but you have to tell your peanut gallery
to agree with your statement.

The elevation and building heights were already confirmed in another thread,
but I'll post them here for all to review:

Aircraft altitute above Annex 230 ft ASL. Pentagon roof height 110 ft. ASL
Distance from north east corner of Annex to edge of Pentagon 2600 feet.

Are these figures OK with everyone?

Hve you been reading the thread??? Why don't you use CIT's NOC flight path that is the blue flight path in post Number 8 in this thread? That flight path was put together by CIT itself.

You should start by calculating the bank angles, g forces, stall speed etc as a flat turn, and then Reheat and others have very kindly offered to assist you with the vertical calculations.

Just read the entire thread.

[911files]

Turbo, you are the one promoting a flight path. We want to see the math for the one you are promoting. Or, you claim the "official path" is impossible, so you can show us that math. We have linked resources for you to use and I for one am willing to help in any way that I can, but we have to get to real-world physics and math to have a rational conversation, not lines drawn on GE pictures or cartoons. A simple mathematical representation will suffice.

[Reheat]

Which path am I allowed to use? e^n's, or the average of the 13 witness accounts.

It's rather obvious why you're stalling. You asked this question two pages ago and then you produced a graphic for e^n's path as if it were the answer to your dilemma. You won't ever really produce any one of the numerous paths stipulated by the witnesses or produce the math for it and we all know why. Why are you asking people here which path to use? You're the one supporting the claim as proof that an aircraft flew North of the Citgo station. Since it's corroborated by 13 witnesses and "ultimate proof of a military deception" why is there such a dilemma arriving at the path to use?

The reason you won't produce a CIT/pffft supported path is because you're all COWARDS! Once you have to produce a viable path with the math and supported by the witnesses it will mark the end of your fantasy. It's much easier to just draw lines on a graphic and pretend. How many more pages are you going spew crap in order to stall? Since that's all you do anyway that was a rhetorical question.... I'll bet you're wishing this thread would just go away, but it's not or there will be others.

Choose one and produce all of the math and then we'll ask questions. You won't because you're a COWARD.

[Turbofan]

It's rather obvious why you're stalling. You asked this question two pages ago and then you produced a graphic for e^n's path as if it were the answer to your dilemma. You won't ever really produce any one of the numerous paths stipulated by the witnesses or produce the math for it and we all know why. Why are you asking people here which path to use? You're the one supporting the claim as proof that an aircraft flew North of the Citgo station. Since it's corroborated by 13 witnesses and "ultimate proof of a military deception" why is there such a dilemma arriving at the path to use?

The reason you won't produce a CIT/pffft supported path is because you're all COWARDS! Once you have to produce a viable path with the math and supported by the witnesses it will mark the end of your fantasy. It's much easier to just draw lines on a graphic and pretend. How many more pages are you going spew crap in order to stall? Since that's all you do anyway that was a rhetorical question.... I'll bet you're wishing this thread would just go away, but it's not or there will be others.

Choose one and produce all of the math and then we'll ask questions. You won't because you're a COWARD.


Coward? HAHA!

I'm not the guy that ran away for months after e^n showed you up on ATS
and that a NoC flight path is possible.

OK GL's, you have spoken. I will create the path and the math. You can
cry about it later.

[Reheat]

I'm not the guy that ran away for months after e^n showed you up on ATS and that a NoC flight path is possible.

OK GL's, you have spoken. I will create the path and the math. You can
cry about it later.

What is unknown to you is that I worked with e^n both in the open forum and via PM's when he was constructing that graphic. I'm not going to look up the thread, but what he posted on ATS was no surprise. Try again, LOSER!

[Turbofan]

We'll see who loses when I present a flight path and math for NoC...which
has already been proven by one of your members and supported by 15 points
of data!

:big:

You guys make me laugh. I love your latest addition to the family too. He's
a real card. :cool:

[dtugg]

Turbofan, what is your problem? It is very obvious that a NoC flightpath is possible. I could just draw a straight line for example, and a plane could do that. But we are not asking for any old flight path, we are asking for one that is consistent with what the CIT witnesses describe and can do a flyover and is physically possible.

[Turbofan]

Turbofan, what is your problem? It is very obvious that a NoC flightpath is possible. I could just draw a straight line for example, and a plane could do that. But we are not asking for any old flight path, we are asking for one that is consistent with what the CIT witnesses describe and can do a flyover and is physically possible.

I don't have a problem other than babysitting all of you with every reply.
First I said I'd take the average of the 13 drawn paths. People cried.

Then I said I'd use e^n line, and people cried.

Just recently I was told not to draw lines on pictures and provide math.

The problem is everyone here can't agree on anything. You all flock around
with ideas and don't come together on anything.

Don't worry, my flight path will absorb all of your considerations. You will
see a perfectly possible flight path well within aero limits and supporting
the video testimony flight paths.

[dtugg]

You do realize that anybody in the world can read this, right? It was clearly told to you that you can use an average of the CIT witnesses' flightpath as long as you show how you came to that conclusion. It was also told to you that e^n did not use the average of what the CIT witnesses say. And that that flightpath was only possible if the airplane was flying practically sideways.

Go ahead, prove that a flightpath as described as the CIT witnesses is possible. I dare you.

[WildCat]

:words:
What's wrong Turbofan? Cap'n Bob having trouble with the numbers?

[bje]

Don't worry, my flight path will absorb all of your considerations. You will
see a perfectly possible flight path well within aero limits and supporting
the video testimony flight paths.

But after all this you, CIT, and Balsamo go ballistic when it is pointed out to you that you have absolutely no eyewitnesses to any jet flying over the Pentagon.

Zero. Zilch. Nada. How many months has it been since I asked you to present any eyewitnesses to any flyover, Turbofan, and you ran away whining that nobody could make you?

Then when it is pointed out that out of all those people around the Pentagon, on the bridges, on the Interstate, in the Pentagon Parking lots, there would be many who would have had no trouble seeing or hearing a jet like this:

19KMLpc5Uu8

....you all whine that "locals are used to aircraft flying around in and out of Reagan like that."

Golly gee whiz.

No matter what flight path you try to construct over the Pentagon, you're still up a tree without a single eyewitness, Turbofan.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Some video evidence might help your case, but since when has that stopped you. Just try to do better than this train-wreck-of-an-attempt.

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/Vidcaptures/Doubletree_05_aircraft3_lg.jpg

[UNLoVedRebel]

It has to be over the Navy Annex, just like Prather, Carter, Stafford, Lagasse, et. al said.

[X]

Aaaaaand...

link to a handy thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128186)

link to PDF download (http://www.zshare.net/download/5121465639770f88/)

link to lift coefficient data for Boeing 757 (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/airfoils/q0073.shtml)


Courtesy of Reheat: a calculator (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128186)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

We'll see who loses when I present a flight path and math for NoC... [...]


Less talk; more math.

[HyJinX]

I wonder why Turbofan is avoiding this thread.

Turbo? Math and flightpath yet? Turbo?

Hmmmmm...

[Bobert]

He may have to first get permission from his CIT handler.

[nicepants]

I wonder why Turbofan is avoiding this thread.

Hmmmmm...

Assuming he or one of his pffft buddies can actually do the math....he/they are probably continually adjusting the flightpath to try to make the math work.

The way I see it, there are 4 possible outcomes:

1 - The math presented will be incorrect due to mathematical/physics/geometrical error(s).

2 - The math will be correct, but the flight path that the math is based on will contradict CIT's eyewitnesses.

3 - The path agrees with CIT's eyewitnesses, the math is done correctly and proves that a 757 could not have completed the maneuver, thus Turbo claims that it must have been some other aircraft.

4 - No legitimate math will be presented.

Based on what I've seen so far, my bet is on #2.

Or...I could be totally wrong, and Turbo chooses a flight path that agrees with CIT's eyewitnesses, does the math correctly, determines that the flight path was impossible and therefore the NOC flight path is wrong......nah.

[dtugg]

Looks like Turbofan got himself suspended. Too bad. I am sure he was about to produce the flight path and math for it.

[jaydeehess]

Tf wants to use a flight path that is the 'average' of the 13 cherry picked witnesses. Fine, that would then have to include impact with the Pentagon since that's what they all say occured.

[WildCat]

Damn! I bet the suspension happened a half second before he hit "reply" with his math. :mad:

[chillzero]

Due to incivility, an inability to stay on topic I'm placing this thread on moderated status. Do not personalise discussions, ergardless of the 'call-out' in the title.

Moving several posts to AAH as they have nothing to do with this topic.

After a month or so of good behaviour, the forum section is slipping again lately.

[dtugg]

Edited for topic.
I guess they're a little nervous abuot me posting up the flight calculations?

<snip>

Farmer wants calculations for the flight path not a drawing (no way!). I guess I have a couple of weeks to work on this now...16th is my suspension lift. Should have enough time to finish up the cab scenario as well.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=15715&view=findpost&p=10760224

So he is going to do the flightpath and math, I guess. I can't wait!

[911files]

I am excited. I love math and physics because it constrains speculation to a range of realities. That is how we got past the geocentric view of the universe long ago, and if Turbo will keep it within the same boundaries of scientific debate, perhaps we can make some real progress.

As my old engineering manager would say..."ain't science fun!"

[RKOwens4]

I usually don't get involved in these threads dealing with the North of Citgo flyover theory (since it's just as ridiculous, if not more so, than the WTC no-plane theories), but I have a thought about why some of the eyewitnesses may have thought the plane passed north of the Citgo station. Anyone who has ever heard a plane fly by low overhead knows that often when you hear it, you look up in one part of the sky, then move your head to another, and have to search all around before you spot the plane. That's because the sound echoes and often the first spot in the sky that you look at isn't where the plane actually is at all.

In the case of Flight 77, in which the sounds of its jet engines were probably bouncing off of buildings and hills (I've been to the Pentagon and there are a lot of hills around) and echoing all over the place, it's not surprising that some of the people who only heard the plane thought the plane sounded like it was in a direction that it actually wasn't.

[dtugg]

We'll never get to see the independently verified, 13 times cooberated flightpath which proves military deception that Turbofan proves possible using math. He is banned now. Too bad. Perhaps he will post it at the PfffffT forum.

[WildCat]

We'll never get to see the independently verified, 13 times cooberated flightpath which proves military deception that Turbofan proves possible using math. He is banned now. Too bad. Perhaps he will post it at the PfffffT forum.
It's amazing how he commits suicide by mod as soon as he has to show mathmatical proof that the CIT flight path is even possible.

[chillzero]

Probably not much requirement for this to be on moderated status any longer. Don't turn it into a mess though. Try and keep it on topic (the math), and civil.

[1337m4n]

I know you're reading this, Turbofan. Go ahead and post your math at PilotsWhoLie, if you think we're "nervous". I assure you we will be reading anxiously.

[16.5]

Sigh.

I really thought someone at CIT or PFFFT was going to answer my request for the math that shows that a plane can do what CIT claims it did.

I know that Craig, Aldo and Cap' Bob and all the rest have linked to this thread in the Pfft Tree House. So maybe one of you guys could stop dodging the question, and just finally show that an airliner can do what CIT claims:

Over the Navy annex, banked North of Citgo, descended below the tree line, pulled out of the bank, pulled out of the descent and "then pulled up into an ascent right before the wall" and over the impact site at the Pentagon, and then flew into the south parking lot after the explosion.

Every single move in that path was taken directly from CIT. So, what are you waiting for guys?

[Reheat]

Just so there are no delusions among newcomers who haven't been here very long. You will never see legitimate math for a flight path that adheres to the compliment of "witnesses". Perpetrators of this fraud can continue to use the arc that TF drew just as they have in the past. Although this graphic posted by TF has been attributed to e^n it was actually drawn by Balsamo months ago. Of course, math showing the parameters were not included and when Beachnut and I posted the math, we were accused of using an incorrect radius. It's all just a devious fraudulent game at this point.

The North of Citgo crap has been proven to be a fantasy by numerous data points that keep piling up. Not to steal his thunder, but 911files will soon post a graphic of the entire flight path of AA77 supported by multiple radars and the FDR. One would think that with all of this mountain of data, the perpetrators of this nonsense would just fade away, but they don't. As long as they have a few supporters they will continue to just spin, lie, cheat, and steal in order to continue. They should have torn down their tree fort and retreated to Mommy's basement months ago, but they continue. There have been several threads on the rational of this type of behavior, so that is not on topic for this thread and will not be discussed.

I suppose what will happen next is that we see another emissary who will go through the process again just as we've seen in the past. I guess it's some sort of perverted entertainment, so I'll continue to drop in occasionally for the grins it provides.

For one, I hope that 911files' criminal complaint is successful. Ending up in a Court of Law defending their behavior is a fitting end to this nonsense. Even if the criminal prosecution is not successful this fraud is over. The only problem at this point is that the perpetrators just won't admit it yet.

[jaydeehess]

TF and PfT would demand an exacting, detailed description of how this particular FDR lost or corrupted several seconds of data. On the other hand they believe that the aircraft flew over the SE corner of the Navy Annex, banked left to take it north of the Citgo while desending to tree top level near the Citgo, which is itself downhill from the Annex, leveling out both the bank and the desent and then pulling up and over the Pentagon at the (generally recognized) impact point. The last part, the pulling up and over, supposedly hidden from the view of onlookers by the fireball.

The irony is that to date no one at PfT or CiT, despite their claims to expertise, has bothered to do any calculations that would illustrate that such an aircraft can perform this manouvering. They demand exacting details of how the FDR lost data but will not apply the same level of detail to themselves.

Remember the description is of a large, fast aircraft, not a tiny one, not a slow one, not one that is banking severely.
No one has stated that the fireball occured prior to the aircraft getting to the Pentagon (large planes cannot go vertical in an instant).
No one saw a large fast aircraft roar over the Pentagon either.
All witnesses in position to render an opinion of the matter stated that the aircraft hit the Pentagon, many stating it hit a low floor which is itself obviously inconsistent with a flyover deception.

TF/PfT/CiT are fond of the 'big picture' yet ignore that not only do the above points form part of that 'picture' , it also includes the remains of the passengers listed as having been on AA flight 77 being found in the Pentagon, it includes the fact that none of those people has ever een seen again, it includes aircraft debris consistent with a Boeing being found within the Pentagon and fuselage parts on the lawn consistent with the AA paint scheme.
Carrying the 'picture' analogy futher we note that in order to account for all of those points, TF/PfT/CiT must claim that the 'big picture' has effectively been photoshopped.

No one stated they saw the fireball occur prior to the plane reaching the Pentagon - they were fooled into not seeing that = photoshopped deception somehow

No one saw a fly over - they were fooled into not seeing that = photoshopped deception somehow

Witnesses state it hit the ground floor - agents lieing = photoshop deception

Passenger DNA - planted by agents = photoshop deception

Aircraft parts - planted by agents = photoshop deception

Lamp posts downed - planted by agents = photoshop deception

Of course there is no evidence that lamp post, DNA, aircraft parts were planted = no evidence of 'big picture' photoshopping
No evidence that any witness is an agent of any sort = no evidence of 'big picture' photoshopping

No flyover witnesses, no early fireball witnesses = no evidence of 'big picture' photoshopping

[lapman]

Eyewitnesses that saw a large airliner fly over the Pentagon.
C=CITGO, P=Pentagon

0 NOC
0 SOC
0 NOP
0 SOP
0 EOP
0 WOP

[911files]

TF and PfT would demand an exacting, detailed description of how this particular FDR lost or corrupted several seconds of data.

Perhaps we are getting a step closer to helping with this. The NTSB called me this afternoon regarding the Court case, so we are now entering the fun discovery and "how do we get out of this" phase. TF had asked me somewhere how the Court case was going so I'm providing this update to help keep him informed.

[jaydeehess]

I've missed something. You have a court case pending?

got a link for details?

[911files]

08-cv-02051 Complaint (http://aal77.com/foia_complaint/08cv02051_complaint.pdf)

The FAA has already settled out of Court, the NTSB and FBI are still pending.

[Bobert]

Yes a link would be very helpful!
Why would the NTSB call you?
If you are involved in some sort of legal proceeding why would they call you?
Are you saying that you are a lawyer and they called you?
If you are an attorney its seems odd that you would phrase it the way you did.
Anyway I look forward to hearing more about this case!

[dtugg]

Yes a link would be very helpful!
Why would the NTSB call you?
If you are involved in some sort of legal proceeding why would they call you?
Are you saying that you are a lawyer and they called you?
If you are an attorney its seems odd that you would phrase it the way you did.
Anyway I look forward to hearing more about this case!

I think you are thinking about his legal action against Craig. But he is talking about something else entirely; getting info from the NSTB about 9/11.

[911files]

Yes a link would be very helpful!
If you are involved in some sort of legal proceeding why would they call you?
Are you saying that you are a lawyer and they called you?
If you are an attorney its seems odd that you would phrase it the way you did.

It is a pro se action, meaning I am the defendant (whoops, plaintiff) and the "attorney". So yes, they have to deal with me directly. Like I said, the FAA part is done. I do have several attorneys advising me as friends (one a FOIA attorney) and going over my legal stuff. If you want to track it and have access to the Pacer system, then just enter the case number for the full case history.

Yes I know, the person who acts as his own attorney has a fool for a client. But when you are a poor boy like me, you can either sit back and take it as it comes, or go with what ya got. Read my signature, Davy and my-great-great-grandpappy used to go hunting together. So what else can a Tennessee boy do :)

[911files]

I think you are thinking about his legal action against Craig.

This is something I will no longer discuss publicly. It is an active criminal investigation being handled by the Memphis Police Department's Organized Crime Unit (OCU) and the Orange County Sheriff's Office. It would be improper for me to comment further.

[Drudgewire]

It is an active criminal investigation being handled by the Memphis Police Department's Organized Crime Unit (OCU) and the Orange County Sheriff's Office.


Simply hearing that warms the cockles of my heart. :)

[WildCat]

08-cv-02051 Complaint (http://aal77.com/foia_complaint/08cv02051_complaint.pdf)

The FAA has already settled out of Court, the NTSB and FBI are still pending.
Just to clarify, is it your belief that the NTSB et al is witholding the final 4-6 seconds of flight data, or do you believe that the final 4-6 seconds of data was destroyed/lost/corrupted in the crash?

[Bobert]

08-cv-02051 Complaint (http://aal77.com/foia_complaint/08cv02051_complaint.pdf)

The FAA has already settled out of Court, the NTSB and FBI are still pending.
This is ALL YOU HAVE?
The court did the right thing and slapped those agencies for not getting the required documents like they should have.
I would imagine that everyone posting here would agree they deserved this.
I commend Farmer for doing this.
Those agencies should be held accountable!
BUT again this is all you got?
So far what you are posting is a real snooze fest.
Now you are playing the "I wont discuss id publicly" game.
I think I need to get my boots on its getting pretty thick!

[911files]

Just to clarify, is it your belief that the NTSB et al is witholding the final 4-6 seconds of flight data, or do you believe that the final 4-6 seconds of data was destroyed/lost/corrupted in the crash?

I have no clue, hence the Court action to obtain the records to perhaps resolve that question. I am NOT an FDR expert, but the guys who are said they needed the serial bit stream (actually represented by voltage transistions) to determine what was happening at the end-of-recording. I don't mind admitting my ignorance in some (a lot actually) matters. I have given the NTSB the opinion of a full RO2 certified by them for the entire file. We shall see what happens. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[Bobert]

This is something I will no longer discuss publicly. It is an active criminal investigation being handled by the Memphis Police Department's Organized Crime Unit (OCU) and the Orange County Sheriff's Office. It would be improper for me to comment further.
Do you mean heap piles and piles of BS when you say "improper for me to comment further"?

[911files]

Sorry, I am a boring guy Bobert (or at least that is what my wife says). I actually found the radar and atc records quite exciting, but that is just me.

[Bobert]

I dont know how this begain to involve Craig but I also live in OC so since when does Craig have an active investigation going on with the OC Sheriff department?
I dont believe this even for a second.
I would however believe that some poor officer got stuck dealing with Craig so humored him a bit to get the F rid of him.
Ya see OC has quite a good crime problem and I would hope that my tax dollars are going to fight real crime instead of imaginary fantasies like Craig is reporting.

[dtugg]

I dont know how this begain to involve Craig but I also live in OC so since when does Craig have an active investigation going on with the OC Sheriff department?
I dont believe this even for a second.
I would however believe that some poor officer got stuck dealing with Craig so humored him a bit to get the F rid of him.
Ya see OC has quite a good crime problem and I would hope that my tax dollars are going to fight real crime instead of imaginary fantasies like Craig is reporting.

I think you misunderstand. Craig illegally recorded a phone call to 911files. That is what he is talking about, not investigating Craig's retarded fantasy.

[Bobert]

Ooops well I just put my foot in my mouth!
My apologies 911flies!
I was not tracking well there I guess!
Again I am sorry.
The weird thing is that looking back I didnt reallize that you are you.
I now see that you added an avatar and i think that I thought you were someone else.
Let me go and wash these 4 dozen eggs off me.....

[twinstead]

mmmmmmm. Eggggggggs

[Bobert]

LOL yes rub it in please!
:)

[UNLoVedRebel]

If and when Homeo provides math at Pretend Pilots 4 aTtention, watch out for stupid assumptions, such as it was an F-16 with the paint scheme of an American Airlines. That's why the eyewitnesses reported an AA.

I swear, you can see their BS coming from a mile away.

[911files]

LOL yes rub it in please!
:)

No problem Bobert...I personally dine on shoe leather often :)

If and when Homeo provides math at Pretend Pilots 4 aTtention, watch out for stupid assumptions, such as it was an F-16 with the paint scheme of an American Airlines. That's why the eyewitnesses reported an AA.

I swear, you can see their BS coming from a mile away.

I don't care what math they present, I would just love to have a good old rational debate over reality (mathematical and physics) than fantasy (a cuckoo flew over the cuckoo nest). I can counter bad physics with solid established laws (i.e. Newtons), but what do you say to "13 witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, who prove it flew over the Pentagon because they saw if fly north of the Citgo"?

[UNLoVedRebel]

but what do you say to "13 witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, who prove it flew over the Pentagon because they saw if fly north of the Citgo"?

Nothing. That's when my buddy Picard takes over.

http://burrowowl.net/shimmie/get.php/16448%20-%20facepalm%20picard%20star_trek.jpg

[R.Mackey]

I have no clue, hence the Court action to obtain the records to perhaps resolve that question. I am NOT an FDR expert, but the guys who are said they needed the serial bit stream (actually represented by voltage transistions) to determine what was happening at the end-of-recording. I don't mind admitting my ignorance in some (a lot actually) matters. I have given the NTSB the opinion of a full RO2 certified by them for the entire file. We shall see what happens. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.


Let me just echo Wildcat and say that, when we figure out the answer, it is likely to be very, very unexciting -- the 20 degree heading difference, for instance, is pretty well established as a simple mistake in correcting for magnetic North. Other calibrations and rough assumptions are surely present, and probably account for everything.

However, I have no problem at all with your asking, and you do deserve straight answers at the least.

[jaydeehess]

Nothing. That's when my buddy Picard takes over.

http://burrowowl.net/shimmie/get.php/16448%20-%20facepalm%20picard%20star_trek.jpg

So Jean-Luc gave the MIHOP order, "Make it so"?:D

9/11 conspiracy -solved!!11!eleventy11!

[Dave Rogers]

Ooops well I just put my foot in my mouth!


The Stundies committee have been looking for a debunker nomination...

Dave

[WilliamSeger]

911files, are you the Blue Collar Republican who argued that the video from the Sheraton showed a fighter jet flying at high speed over the Pentagon a few minutes before the attack? (If so, you may recall that we discussed it on Democratic Underground, where I argued that it was a helicopter over the south parking lot.) I believe that shortly after that, you also claimed that the FDR navigation plots showed evidence of systematic alteration; is that correct?

[911files]

911files, are you the Blue Collar Republican who argued that the video from the Sheraton showed a fighter jet flying at high speed over the Pentagon a few minutes before the attack? (If so, you may recall that we discussed it on Democratic Underground, where I argued that it was a helicopter over the south parking lot.) I believe that shortly after that, you also claimed that the FDR navigation plots showed evidence of systematic alteration; is that correct?

Actually Seger, that was the Doubletree video and at the time I was working with limited information. So yes, I am the one who found the "flying thing" in the Doubletree videos. Early estimates of position and speed based on triangulating on the wrong two trees had us exploring the possibility that it was AAL77 itself pre-attack, or a fighter. Using two other trees as reference, it was consistent with a helicopter over I-395. I went to Arlington in early 2007 to verify the reference points, and it was the two trees consistent with a helicopter that showed up in the Dock camera. I now have it pinned down to a specific helicopter which departed out of Andrews and later returned, and it has helped with the radar analysis greatly. So yes, you were correct.

I'm not sure what "plots" you are referring too, but yes there are "alterations" in the NTSB data releases. The NTSB made a number of adjustments to the data in the CSV file. You might want to read the Court complaint linked above. Still trying to resolve those issues.

[WilliamSeger]

Ah, yes, the Doubletree video. Didn't you also think that you saw the plane flying into the Pentagon in that video, but either going too fast or changing speed or something? I don't remember the details, but I remember thinking it really looked like a vehicle on the bridge.

I found the posting on DU where Rob Balsamo linked to your 911files.info site, saying it was "study done by a mathematician/statistician who determined the headings in the csv file and animation were altered and shows step by step how it was done." But those pages seem to be gone now?

[911files]

Actually, I don't recall that debate. There are a lot of things in that footage that can be misleading if a person is not familiar with the layout of the area. When I first started my research project, I would often "brain-storm" publicly and on the blog just to get feedback. I quickly learned that doing that can get you in trouble quickly, such as the
Rob Balsmo reference.

I'm not sure what your point is, but I did start out working with the P4T crowd and based a lot of my work on their "expertise", since I am NOT an aeronautical engineer. It did not take too long for me to realize that they were not giving me good information. The posts from that era were lost in a cyber attack on the blog at about the time I told P4T and CIT what I thought of them. If I were a conspiracy type of guy, then I would suggest that they might have had something to do with that. However, even if that was not the case, I have taken down the blog permanently now simply because I am no longer interested in playing the cyber tit-for-tat game that you are now attempting to start up.

I left P4T because I made a math error in an analysis I was doing which Rob had featured on the main page of P4T. I informed him of the error, but no retraction or correction was made on his site. I don't do business with bad faith "researchers" any more. So quoting something Rob or CIT has to say does not impress me much.

Any "studies" I have done are still posted at AAL77.COM. Did you take the time to read the Court complaint? I outlined everything in it as well.

[911files]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_290984944176fa5716.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14572)

This is one example to clarify "proof". This is a simple graph comparing the lateral acceleration and heading values stored in the RO2 file and CSV file for AAL77. My assertion is that they are different in the two files (vertical shift in lateral acc). There is also a void in the upper-left quadrant of the graph, when it should be equally distributed between the upper-left quadrant and lower-right quadrant is also an anomaly. So, the existence of an anomaly in the lateral acceleration values is established and is what in my profession is called a "special cause" distribution. There can be numerous explanations for the anomaly, ONE of which is alteration of the files.

Now, Rob would link and promote this as "John Farmer proves the lateral acceleration in the FDR was altered!" Well, it is not PROOF of any such thing. It could be evidence of that, but it could also be evidence of something much less sinister such as some value entered wrong when the data was converted to CSV. Or, it could be evidence of a host of other things which only an aeronautical engineer or FDR expert could address.

So be careful with Rob asserting that something is proof of anything.

[jaydeehess]

If you draw a line on that graph from the point -10(heading change), +0,02g to +10, -0.04 you have a line about which the two graphs are a fairly good mirror image of each other do you not?

That suggests not an alteration of the data but a mistake in the calculation.

[911files]

If you draw a line on that graph from the point -10(heading change), +0,02g to +10, -0.04 you have a line about which the two graphs are a fairly good mirror image of each other do you not?

That suggests not an alteration of the data but a mistake in the calculation.

Yes, it could be that, but I have to confess ignorance since I'm not sure what algorithm's the software used by the NTSB is employing and they are not telling. I am more concerned about the distribution than the offset, but again, there could be a logical reason for that as well. The same plot for UAL93 is quite normal.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_29098494427bfb19ee.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14576)

Unfortunately, the NTSB just enjoys making life difficult for us and is not telling.

Update: After re-reading your response, I think you are referring to shifting the distribution in both cases. I think that might be a stretch, but definitely possible that they made a boo-boo in the frame template when they pulled the data. But the RO2 was done by Undertow and the CSV was done by the NTSB, two different sources and equations. So I think it unlikely that both read-outs by two independent entities would suffer the same error. But it could happen.

Update 2: Playing devil's advocate for a moment, "...suggests not an alteration of the data but a mistake in the calculation" could also suggest a deliberate "mistake" in the calculation, hence an "alteration".

[R.Mackey]

Looks like a simple calibration correction to me. Both populations look identical, merely offset, if I read your graph properly.

Whether or not the calibration was done right, or whether it's an assumption, one can certainly ask. But this is not at all the kind of mistake that one would expect had foul play been afoot. A forger would change both records.

[911files]

Mackey, I personally think the issue is moot. I have been able to verify the FDR data of primary interest to me (positional) to what will be to the satisfaction of 90% of the general population. It will be 99.9% among those who understand math and physics to a degree greater than middle school. So, if the lateral acceleration was altered, the end result is no harm, no foul...except perhaps to someone grasping at straws.