Pilots For 9/11 Truth Present Their Math

[WildCat]

Since Turbofan got banned right before he was going to post the math pwning us all I thought I'd start this thread for anyone from PfffT who hasn't done the suicide by mod thing to show the freaking math already.

I was particularly inspired by the exchange on this page (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=15715&st=20&start=20) where Cap'n Bob runs his mouth:
I went over to the cesspool today for a laugh....

They must really be nervous about you posting up the math cause it now looks like you're permanently banned while you were suspended? How does that work? Only on a Govt Loyalist site surely..... (stupid smiley removed)

They really dont like debating P4T representatives over there huh? They've banned every one of our reps, denied my registration under my real name, and their "experts" refuse to debate here or live on air. Too funny...
What are the odds that every single PfffT yahoo that's been here managed to get banned before they could post a single claim of the CIT flight path? Yeah, we're scared of ya Cap'n Bob... because of math you can't produce! :p

[nicepants]

wow

Yes, bob...we were sooo nervous that we FORCED turbo to violate the rules here so that he would be banned...because we know that if we banned him then the calculations would never see the light of day!

Seriously, does that make sense to anyone?!

Assuming doing so is not a voilation of the posting for a banned member rule, I hope that someone posts the calculations here once turbo and the folks over at pfffft are done with them. My prediction in the original thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4260202&postcount=56) still stands

[dtugg]

They can even post it on their site if they don't want to, or can't come here. I know you guys are reading this. I'll be waiting anxiously for the official PffffT/CIT NoC flightpath and the math for it. Surely you will take this opportunity to pwn all of us Govt Loyalists.

[Reheat]

How dare you guys be so snide. Uh, uh, uh they even know HOW to do the math. That 34 G's and 11.2's proves it......

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

[T.A.M.]

It must suck to be a truther in the times of Obama.

Dead movement, with no one listening. Great way to spend a life I guess...lol

TAM:)

[DGM]

This seems like as good a thread to ask this as any.

Did the PFT brain trust ever correct the math they screwed up on their site or did they just admit the mistake and leave the "evidence" up?
I know fixing the math invalidated the point of the whole argument.

[WildCat]

I know fixing the math invalidated the point of the whole argument.
I can't say I know, but if the math invalidates their point I Bet they kill the math rather than abandon their claim.

[dtugg]

I can't say I know, but if the math invalidates their point I Bet they kill the math rather than abandon their claim.

Perhaps the NWO has been lying to the entire world about math and physics in preparation for the NoC Pentagon flyover. The conspiracy goes all the way back to at least Isaac Newton.

[nicepants]

This seems like as good a thread to ask this as any.

Did the PFT brain trust ever correct the math they screwed up on their site

From the article with the math errors:

Update: For those who have been visiting this page on a regular basis anticipating a revision to our calculations below, please be advised we are continuing our efforts to revise this article.

That was posted on 5/1/08. Since then the only other update was a video they released, but this video did not correct their math errors, and the incorrect math is still posted (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html).

[Hokulele]

That was posted on 5/1/08. Since then the only other update was a video they released, but this video did not correct their math errors, and the incorrect math is still posted (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html).


To be fair, high school math does take several semesters to complete...

[BCR]

Rob is correct about one thing. I did get an invitation today from a 3rd party wanting to sponsor a one-on-one live debate with him or one of the fly-over boys.

Would you be interested in participating in a public event -- billed as a
debate/discussion about the Pentagon strike? This would be a moderated event --
dealing only with issues and evidence. No personal attacks allowed. No
screaming.

The topic: Did Flight 77 hit the Pentagon (via the southern flight path)? Or
did it fly north of the Citgo and fly over?

You would be on one side -- with Farmer on the other. Each side would present a
summary of what they believe happened. Then back and forth in a moderated
manner. Finally, there would be a question/answer session.

The debate would be videotaped for later showing and eventually posted on the
internet.

Maybe we could turn the corner on this contentious issue -- and determine who
is correct.


Rob accepted the invitation, but I declined.

[Bobert]

WOW Turbofan has zero shame.
He admits everyone he did wrong yet still thinks that he shouldnt have been banned.
He really does need to seek therapy.

[Horatius]

Perhaps the NWO has been lying to the entire world about math and physics in preparation for the NoC Pentagon flyover. The conspiracy goes all the way back to at least Isaac Newton.



Well, it is the Newton World order, after all.

[dtugg]

I have said this before; I hope that these people never stop trying to prove their ridiculous fantasy. It is way too funny to me. Normally, I feel a little bad laughing at stupid/crazy people, but CIT/PfffffT are also fraudulent, scumbag, terrorist apologists so I don't feel bad at all.

Please, CIT/PffffT prove that a flight path as described by your witnesses years after the fact is even possible. I dare you, you stupid, delusional frauds. I know you are reading this. You must want to prove us wrong. Do it.

[dtugg]

Well, it is the Newton World order, after all.

Wasn't Newton the head of the Illuminati (or was it the Priory of Sion) according to Dan Brown? It all makes perfect sense if you think about it.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Rob is correct about one thing. I did get an invitation today from a 3rd party wanting to sponsor a one-on-one live debate with him or one of the fly-over boys.



Rob accepted the invitation, but I declined.

Good. I like Dawkins approach to "debating" nutcases. It's best to ignore them, they're only looking for publicity, controversy, and attention.

[apathoid]

LMAO taggers

fraud (http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=fraud), idiot (http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=idiot), liar (http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=liar), rob balsamo (http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=rob+balsamo)


:D

[Tweeter]

It must suck to be a truther in the times of Obama.

Dead movement, with no one listening. Great way to spend a life I guess...lol

TAM:)

As opposed to someone that spends their free time fighting the dead movement. Who is the crazy one?

[Klimax]

As opposed to someone that spends their free time fighting the dead movement. Who is the crazy one?

It is simple.Debukers like fun and as long as it is funny,they do not mind.(In their free time)

[1337m4n]

P4T whines that we banned one of their members when everyone from JREF who tries to post at P4T is banned sometimes before he even has a chance to post. How funny.

[T.A.M.]

P4T whines that we banned one of their members when everyone from JREF who tries to post at P4T is banned sometimes before he even has a chance to post. How funny.

Remember when Rob was posting under the username "JohnDoeX" at the Loose Change Forum, and when he became a mod and went completely Ban Crazy. He would ban people after one post. Hillarious.

TAM:)

[1337m4n]

It's the classic Twoofer double standard. When THEY ban someone, it's because whoever they banned was "disruptive" and "distracting from the issues" and "trying to conceal the Truth". When JREF bans someone, it's because we're all "afraid of teh Truth".

Go ahead P4T, post your Truth. We are reading that little thread of yours as we speak. Post this magic math.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

As opposed to someone that spends their free time fighting the dead movement. Who is the crazy one?


People like killing zombies in video games, too.

[SPreston]

The math? For what reason? But but but . . . . one of your own people (e^n) already proved the actual flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo possible, didn't he? Isn't this just one more gigantic hole in the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY? Aren't there hundreds of such holes?

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

PS: All the Truthers send their love and say thanks for all the publicity.


.

.

[WildCat]

Cap'n Bob quoted 911Files post in this thread, so we know they see it. I wonder when they'll get around to posting the math for the CIT flight path?

The math we're all so afraid of!

[WildCat]

The math? For what reason? But but but . . . . one of your own people (e^n) already proved the actual flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo possible, didn't he? Isn't this just one more gigantic hole in the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY? Aren't there hundreds of such holes?

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/pentagonleastforce801.jpg
And where does the "flyover witness" who placed the plane over the south parking lot fit in with that?

And I'll note that e^n's math didn't account for the changes in altitude claimed by CIT. And you do realize that even with this simpolified flight path (which is not the CIT flight path) the plane would be banking damn near sideways, which no one reported.

[16.5]

The math? For what reason? But but but . . . . one of your own people (e^n) already proved the actual flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo possible, didn't he? Isn't this just one more gigantic hole in the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY? Aren't there hundreds of such holes?

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

SP! Welcome back. Now you are aware that there are several things wrong with e^n's path, don't you? Here is the a big one: it does not take into account vertical moves. You know, the descent and the ascent that are CRITICAL to CIT's fantasy.

SP, doesn't it bother you that CIT and PFFT refuse to do the calculations that show an airliner could fly CIT's NOC path?

They are playing you for a fool.

[SPreston]

And where does the "flyover witness" who placed the plane over the south parking lot fit in with that?

And I'll note that e^n's math didn't account for the changes in altitude claimed by CIT. And you do realize that even with this simpolified flight path (which is not the CIT flight path) the plane would be banking damn near sideways, which no one reported.


Nobody?

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

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/ancgif2.gif

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

FAA flight path
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc

1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive (http://aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/fadar/1%20AWA%20714%20pentagon_more2.mpg)

[twinstead]

Oh goody. Maybe we'll see math now

[Bobert]

PS: All the Truthers send their love and say thanks for all the publicity.

Yes posting on internet forums that barely a soul visits (PFTF) is much more fun and exciting then well I dont know, BRINGING MASS MURDERS TO JUSTICE!
Keep up the good work the terrorists are proud of you!
:D

[16.5]

Oh brother, Spreston has picture posting rights.

"Nobody." SP do you even read what you post? Prather says it was "angled a little bit." He show about a 15 percent bank tops! What bank angle does e^n's path require?? Prather contradicts e^n's path!! You don't understand even that??

Further, he said it "dropped down a little bit.... it dropped down more." So calculate that drop, pull up and ascent! Do it sp, do it. You are so sure that CIT isn't lying, do the math!!!

they are lying to you SP, don't be afraid, the math will set you free!

[R.Mackey]

Until any math is forthcoming, my stock answer (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3966936#post3966936) to this incomplete hypothesis applies.

That goes for SPreston, TheLoneBedouin, or any other Pilots For Truth faithful.

[Reheat]

Oh goody. Maybe we'll see math now

Ha, Ha!

All you've see from present company are pictures. That's all he's authorized to post.

The last time he tried to post math he embarrassed himself and all of the other Forums on which it was posted. It required an apology and a few days in hiding so that it might be forgotten.

Note Cap'n Bob is too busy to post math, so he'll pass it off to one of his deluded minions. It's funny that he bragged about how it only took him 20 minutes to calculate and post an attempted refutation of my essay on the subject, but he doesn't quite have the time to do it now. It took him more time to posted his garbage than it does to do the math.

If you EVER see any math, rest assured it won't be anything to prove this FRAUD. It will just be pictures and hand waving to attracted more fools.

[SlightlyAbovePar]

Guys (and Gal),
Like you, I find the mental state of truthers fascinating. Truly, utterly fascinating. That is, the lengths truthers will go to remain committed to the delusion rather than a pure pursuit of the truth. The movement, as Pomorro (apologies if I don’t have the name completely correct) stated many months ago, simply can not admit even the smallest error. Why? Because then the entire fantasy becomes endangered in a piecemeal fashion.

This is why it’s been seven months and no corrected math is forthcoming. It never will be. Instead, they point to others supposed “proof” and claim since one flight path (which doesn’t conform to their own dam story) has been ‘proven’ “possible” then that proves their (many) flight paths are “possible” and therefore corroborative math is not needed for their own, very specific claim.

I, like many of you, find this logic-bending fascinating. However, engaging them in a tit-for-tat, neener-neener style of cross-forum posting is childish and lowers the bar to their level. There is no need to indulge in this kind of behavior. They – as history has shown – will implode under their own hypocrisy, lack of intelligence and behavior. There is no need to engage them in the above posting(s) manor. Simply point out the glaring errors, the repeated discussion of the same topics for for literally years now and move on.

Look at this very thread for examples. When – as for the last seven years – pressed for actual details, facts, math, context, etc what happens? Some truther fool posts what is essentially bait for a subject change and many of us take it. Can you see “9-11 Truth” has nothing to do with truth, or 9-11? It’s about getting attention, from us. It might have been something else many years ago, but at this point their existence is purely attention seeking in nature.

I understand CIT, PFT and others are a source for continuing comedy gold. I agree. I am merely suggesting that you don’t have to encourage the behavior by being a bad actor yourself. They will provide the comedy gold all by themselves. As a matter of fact, the less we engage them, the nuttier they get.

[jaydeehess]

Well other witnesses say that it was in port wing low bank when it hit the Pentagon which is completly contrary to that animation's starboard bank.

The flight path that e^n used, as noted above, does not take into account the vertical manouvers reported. Turcois for one saw the aircraft go below his line of sight beyond the highway. If it did so then how did it manage to pull up in time?

e^n's flight path also would make it impossible for Morin to ever have seen the aircraft. From where Morin was he would have the Annex between him and the aircraft until the plane was at the Citgo at which time, if other witnesses such as Brooks and Lagasse are correct, the plane would have been below his line of sight. So is Morin's testimony now thrown under the bus in order to use e^n's averaging of all witness statements?

PfT/CiT must supply a flightpath for which all of their witness's statements are consistent. Specifically they can be mistaken about the exact path but any final conclusion on a path must at least allow for every witness to have at least been able to see the aircraft. It must allow for an aircraft manouver in both the lateral and the vertical which can be performed. It must be consistent with a large aircraft, a fast (300+ knots) and it must put the aircraft at the point which all witnesses state as the impact point.

It should be noted that any 'flyover' will, by definition, be ignoring the multitude of witness statements in which the aircraft hit the Pentagon. It ignores those witness statements that had the port wing touch the ground prior to impact. It ignores witness statements about the aircraft hitting the ground floor as opposed to an upper floor.

Any NoC statement ignores the statements by some who say they saw the lamp posts get hit.

Any theory which states that the fireball somehow hid the pull up would require evidence of a fireball that occured several hundred feet in front of the Pentagon given that no aircraft can go vertical, at several hundred knots ground speed, within its own length (let alone a lesser distance).


Once again it should also be noted that although the logical route would be to draw up a consise technical paper outlining how PfT arrives at the conclusion that the FDR data describes a grossly different flight path than does the damage to the lamp posts. Instead, they choose argue inccessantly on the internet with persons they claim do not have the expertise to understand the concepts involved.

The logical route would be to draw up a route, with a margin of error on each side, that would be consistent with the eyewitness reports they tout and to show that this path is technically possible for a large fast aircraft to perform while still being consistent with the eyewitness statements. Instead, after seven years, the members of the CiT and PfT have yet to come up with a flight path for the alledged flyover. This allows them the flexibility to state that if a debunker on the internet comes up with any math on any flight path they can then state that this is not the path the aircraft took ( in the case of the 11 g gross mistake by PfT, when corrected by a debunker they made this claim despite the fact that this path was a fabrication of PfT's in the first place)

The logical route would be to take these consise technical papers to organizations whose raison d'etre is flight safety such as ICOA, the FAA, the NTSB, the unions representing the pilots and air crews and such publications as "Aviation Week". Instead, they choose argue inccessantly on the internet with persons they claim do not have the expertise to understand the concepts involved.

It is patently obvious that for whatever reason, PfT and the CiT are not following the logical route instead much prefering to spit and shout back and forth on the internet and in the fringe media with the anarchists and anti-semites as their allies.

[T.A.M.]

PS: All the Truthers send their love and say thanks for all the publicity.


Given the minute amount they currently get, I can understand their appreciation. Tell them, no sweat...any time.

TAM;)

[jaydeehess]

PS: All the Truthers send their love and say thanks for all the publicity.

.

this is a small part of the internet, hardly "publicity"

perhaps when the PfT and CiT actually get around to doing what it would take to get organizations with expertise in FDR data analysis to take them seriously they will actually garner some real publicity but I fail to see how anyone at JREF can do it for them.

[twinstead]

Wow. Here's a situation where Truthers again are shown to be either idiots, frauds, or both. But, they thank us for the publicity. I guess the old adage any publicity is good publicity holds true, but sheesh...how can a buch of folks who want to be taken seriously hold their heads up high when 1. Nobody takes them seriously anyway and 2. They usually come accross as idiots?

Things don't appear to be going well for our intrepid investigators. It would be almost sad if they weren't accusing perfectly innocent people of being complicit in mass murder, but now it's funny as hell.

[16.5]

Publicity?

Can you remember the last time Fat Aldo and Craig got publicity in the OC Weekly? It sent Craig into full blown drama queen mode on You Tube, with the heavy sighs and emotional voice all quivering!

That was awesome! Thanks for the reminder SP.

Say, how is the math coming at the tree house.

What do ya say Cap'n Bobby?

[twinstead]

Until any math is forthcoming, my stock answer (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3966936#post3966936) to this incomplete hypothesis applies.


I am reasonably certain that the above is the stupidest hypothesis ever conceived for any purpose, including parody, intentional humor, or even stress tests of human perception in psychological experiments.


That about sums up the entire 911 truth movement.

[A W Smith]

The math? For what reason? But but but . . . . one of your own people (e^n) already proved the actual flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo possible, didn't he? Isn't this just one more gigantic hole in the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY? Aren't there hundreds of such holes?

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

PS: All the Truthers send their love and say thanks for all the publicity.


.

.

Wasn't it you SPreston that pointed out my path was physically impossible? You remember? the slight banking dip described by witnesses (in the opposite direction I might add) just before the impact? Would you like me to retrieve that post of yours from the invision board?

This path?

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

[jaydeehess]

AWSmith, does Morin not state that the plane was over Columbia Pike as it went by? That would put the plane in a better position to make that final slight left bank. Morin's account is consistent with where Paik, who was near the other end of the Annex from where morin was, points for the path the plane took. Here we have two witnesses with very closely matching descriptions, even though Paik later draws a path on a piece of paper that puts it more in line with your picture above.

On your point to SP, if that slight left bank is not possible then certainly the bank that would be required for the path that e^n drew would not be possible especially if the aircraft would later be required to be in a slight left bank as it met the Pentagon wall.(described by several witnesses as having occured)

Fact is that in order to satisfy all their witness statements CiT will have to have the plane flying very close to the side of the Annex where Paik and Morin were. If then the plane went to the north of the Citgo it will have to have performed a near vertical bank something not reported by ant witness anywhere let alone by those who were at the Citgo such as Lagasse and Brooks.

If the plane did not bank steeply then it had to remain closer to Columbia Pike and that allows for a near straight on shot to the Pentagon impact site. It also allows for all witnesses to have seen the plane.

Those in the Arlington Cemetary simply saw a plane higher than the Annex and mistook the distance to the plane thus describing it as to the north of or directly over the Annex. If they were correct though then Morin and probably Paik could not have seen the aircraft let alone described the path they did.

Turcois' statement orginally puts the aircraft to the south of his position. Craig leads him to change his mind.
IMHO Tucois statement is unreliable. Farmer puts Turcois as running towards the Citgo rather than towards the Pentagon anyway.

The witnesses in the south parking lot do not describe a fly over the parking lot. they describe an aircraft that passed out of their line of sight when it went by the SE corner of the building. One of them states he saw the lamp posts get hit. It is truly a thing of amazement what contortions the CiT will put the witness statements through in order to twist them to their own politically driven needs.

[TjW]

And where does the "flyover witness" who placed the plane over the south parking lot fit in with that?

And I'll note that e^n's math didn't account for the changes in altitude claimed by CIT. And you do realize that even with this simpolified flight path (which is not the CIT flight path) the plane would be banking damn near sideways, which no one reported.


Nobody?

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

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/ancgif2.gif


<some images snipped by TjW>


I've been to a lot of airshows, yet for me, something the size of flight 77 at 300 mph in a 75 degree bank at low altitude would be a memorable experience.

Instead of the 10 or 15 degrees away from horizontal demonstrated with the model, the wings of any aircraft flying e^n's flight path would be 15 degrees away from vertical. Yet both interviewees show a shallow angle of bank.

So, if we can trust their recollection of what they saw, the flight path flown was nowhere near the flight path used for e^n's calculations.

[BCR]

I'm just wondering, if the plane did an extreme starboard turn and then flew through or close to the impact zone, then does an extreme pull-up and over maneuver, would that not put it on almost a direct bearing for Reagan?

Does anyone have the ATC audio of the DCA controllers screaming at the other air traffic in the area in direct line of this crazy loose-cannon plane flying into their congested air traffic areas?

Just asking questions.

[Horatius]

Wasn't Newton the head of the Illuminati (or was it the Priory of Sion) according to Dan Brown? It all makes perfect sense if you think about it.



Well, he was in charge of the Mint for a while, which is an obvious ancestor to the Fed.....I'll let you connect the dots.....

[bje]

PS: All the Truthers send their love and say thanks for all the publicity.

There's a rumor going around that CIT is having a going-out-of-business sale on DVDs.

Are you trying to drum up business?

[UNLoVedRebel]

The math? For what reason? But but but . . . . one of your own people (e^n) already proved the actual flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo possible, didn't he? Isn't this just one more gigantic hole in the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY? Aren't there hundreds of such holes?

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

PS: All the Truthers send their love and say thanks for all the publicity.


I used to think CIT were a couple of lost souls looking for attention. Now I've come to realize that they might be on to something. That NoC flight path matches perfectly what "flyover witness" Roberts said.

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Roberts_Flight_Path.jpg

Gotta love all that "corroboration." [/sarcasm]

[dtugg]

So, somebody started a thread at the PfffT forum about this. (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=15747) Cap'n Bob thinks it is one of us, and perhaps so. But for some insane reason, no flightpath and the math to prove it's possible was presented and Cap'n Bob closed the thread.

[UNLoVedRebel]

So there's a mole at P4T, huh? It's like the movie Scream, everybody's a suspect.

[Bobert]

Well, he was in charge of the Mint for a while, which is an obvious ancestor to the Fed.....I'll let you connect the dots.....
Then the JOOOOOOOOOS took over EVERYTHING!
Am I connecting the dots correctly?

[Bobert]

There's a rumor going around that CIT is having a going-out-of-business sale on DVDs.

Are you trying to drum up business?
BUT!
Where they ever IN BUSINESS to begin with?

[BCR]

I don't know Bobert, TB seems mighty upset with you.

You will see that the math will be presented and I'm not running AT ALL.

I'm even calling them out to debates as you will read in the threads.

Funny how I was banned when asking Macgyver to debate our experts and that I would provide a possible North approach
scenario.

Coincidence?

Naaaa....

You can read through the PM's linked up top and also check Boberts behaviour through the forums. Tell me if I was out of
line for telling the child to stop following me around and posting garbage in tech threads.

Just remember, life goes on without the govt loyalist site. Soon Reheat (rearheat) and the rest of those crybabies will get put in their place.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

[Bobert]

So there's a mole at P4T, huh? It's like the movie Scream, everybody's a suspect.
oday otnay alktay aboutway ethay olemay
easeplay eferray otay ethay eetingmay otesnay omfray ethay
EFJRAY ONWAY eeringstay ommitteecay

[Bobert]

WOW the kids have a super duper cool nickname for us.
We are not "GL's" as in "government loyalists"
Do you regularly sign up to forums with a spam harvester IP? Do you regularly type almost word for word the arguments of GL's? You just signed up to this forum today you are very familiar with the term GL trying to argue their points. What do you think that means
:dl:

[WildCat]

I don't know Bobert, TB seems mighty upset with you.



Be afraid, be very afraid...
Oh noes! Turbofan is finally going to present his math!

:dl:

[Bobert]

I dont want to harp on Turbofans ban but I made it very clear to him that I was going to report his PM's. I even went as far as to tell him that abusive PM's violate the MA.
He responded that he felt that the PM's between the both of us were priviate and not covered my the MA.
I pointed out to him that this was incorrect and that every PM that we receive has a "report PM" button.
He then continued to attack me and all that I replied with was "reported" yet he continued.
He sunk as low as to make a joke about my mother.
He has no character and zero class.

[16.5]

"So let it be known that CIT does not support the efforts of Turbofan or anyone to speculate values and answer to the GL's irrelevant pointless demands that have absolutely NO BEARING on the evidence.'

AHAHAHAHA!!!!

"So let it be known that CIT does not support the efforts of Turbofan or anyone to speculate values and answer to the GL's irrelevant pointless demands that have absolutely N"O BEARING on the evidence."

Oh my god, i never thought they would admit it!

They know the math would not work!!!!!

"So let it be known that CIT does not support the efforts of Turbofan or anyone to speculate values and answer to the GL's irrelevant pointless demands that have absolutely NO BEARING on the evidence."

"So let it be known that CIT does not support the efforts of Turbofan or anyone to speculate values and answer to the GL's irrelevant pointless demands that have absolutely NO BEARING on the evidence."

Hey SPreston, where are your gods now!!!!

FAIL!!!!

God, i love to run mutts to earth.

[Bobert]

Has anyone posted this revelation by Craig over at ATS.
I am curious what they will have to say about this.

[Bobert]

What is with the CIT and their supporters and jokes about people mothers?
From Criag to 16.5
16.5 must have gotten a beating from his mom tonight and decided to lash out while of course making himself look like a fool in the process

[SPreston]

Wasn't it you SPreston that pointed out my path was physically impossible? You remember? the slight banking dip described by witnesses (in the opposite direction I might add) just before the impact?

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

That's because you were tied to the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY. Your flight path had to adhere to the OFFICIAL FLIGHT 77 FLIGHT PATH and jink all over the hillside and lawn just a few feet above ground level. You would have buried an engine or wing tip, and completely missed the light poles anyway. Come on and try to be honest about it. Your flight path was impossible and nothing like what the ANC witnesses testified to and nothing like the flight path the FAA has now admitted to. Your flight path was no better than Reheat's nonsense setting up some strawman flight path based on his disjointed imagination.

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

You cannot fly over the Naval Annex and then somehow get back to the first light pole. You are banking right and then left much faster than the control surfaces can react; especially at the official speed of 535 mph. One gradual bank to the right is much simpler the two quick opposing banks in a shorter distance. Get real.

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/pentwlpuw9JFK3.jpg

[UNLoVedRebel]

http://www.911myths.com/images/0/06/Et7.jpg

That's because you were tied to the OFFICIAL CIT STORY. Your flight path had to adhere to the CIT FLIGHT 77 FLIGHT PATH and fly over the Navy Annex, North of the gas station and over the pentagon. You would have had hundreds of eyewitnesses saying they saw the plane fly over the pentagon. Come on and try to be honest about it. Your flight path was impossible and nothing like what the hundreds of witnesses testified to and nothing like the flight path the FAA has now admitted to. Your flight path was no better than TheLoneBedroom's nonsense setting up some flyover flight path based on his disjointed imagination.

http://www.911myths.com/images/6/64/Awmap.png

[BCR]

nothing like the flight path the FAA has now admitted to

What kind of nonsense is this? I have just about everything the FAA has released thus far and I assure you that you cannot source this claim. Are you referring to the animation released by the FAA that I posted at YouTube? If you are, you might want to back off since that is a NORAD created animation. More will be forthcoming regarding the back-ground on this animation, but suffice to say it is based on 84 RADES radar data which lacked coverage of the Pentagon area beyond the Sheraton below 300 feet. It is impossible for any flight path segment to be based on that data for the final 6-8 seconds of flight of AAL77.

Try again!

[KDLarsen]

<snip>
Congratulations, you've cracked the case of 9/11. Now go and see someone who can do something about it, like an attorney, police officer or politician.

Don't worry, we'll be waiting here until you get back :rolleyes:

[applecorped]

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/rolleye/rolleye0018.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-ashamed-smileys.php)

[Foolmewunz]

:spjimlad:Oh, I get it.... the OP was being sarcastic.

I looked through the whole thread expecting numbers, and all we get is Yukon King's dumber half posting contradictory interviewees again.

Oh, well, Ultima1 should be back sometime tomorrow, right? Maybe he'll have some num- .....

I can't do it! I almost got that line out without laughing, but even for a PFT-CIT thread, it's too improbable to type with a straight face.

[WildCat]

And just like that, the thread linked to in the OP has been disappeared by Cap'n Bob.

So SPreston, why does your hero hide from the hard questions? Does it ever occur to you you're being taken for a chump and a fool by Cap'n Bob and his ilk?

[twinstead]

I think SPreston just needs a hug

[jhunter1163]

Fascism ROCKS!

[Jonnyclueless]

"Oh, well, Ultima1 should be back sometime tomorrow, right? Maybe he'll have some num- ..... "

Well, at least some good quotes for signatures.

[SPreston]

And just like that, the thread linked to in the OP has been disappeared by Cap'n Bob.


It is? Disappeared? Then why am I looking at it right now? It is still open and still getting posted to. Oh yeah there was one of your guys there knocking a video that he admitted he had never seen. Same old same old.

[DGM]

It is? Disappeared? Then why am I looking at it right now? It is still open and still getting posted to. Oh yeah there was one of your guys there knocking a video that he admitted he had never seen. Same old same old.
Your right I can still access the thread.

Now post the math that proves your flight path and smear egg in our faces. GO FOR IT TWOOFER!!!!!

[WildCat]

It is? Disappeared? Then why am I looking at it right now? It is still open and still getting posted to. Oh yeah there was one of your guys there knocking a video that he admitted he had never seen. Same old same old.
Looks like Cap'n Bob brought it back.

Has Turbofraud posted his math yet?

No?

I'm shocked!

[Hokulele]

<snipping irrelevancy>


A picture may be worth 1,000 words, but equations are priceless.

[Bobert]

I mean really why provide secondary stuff like math and physical evidence when you have a bunch of cherry picked witness statements?
AND THOSE CRAZY NWO BACKED JUDGES!
Ya like they want PHYSICAL EVIDENCE?
What is wrong with them?
WAKE UP BUSH LOYALIST (GL's) SHEEPLE!!!!!!!11

******All contents copyright C 2002-2005 by Pilotes For Da Truth. All rights reserved. No part of this document or the related files may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, by any means (electronic, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the publisher.*****

[apathoid]

Since its obvious that Balsawood Bob has no intentions(or ability) to do the math that will prove/disprove the stupidest hypothesis ever conceived for any purpose (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3966936#post3966936), why don't we Government Loyalists(of all corners of the political spectrum and nationalities) do it for him? :con2:

Yes, in retaliation there will be many stupid smilies which are supposed to convey extreme incredulity, and of course some lame attempts at a debunking which ultimately make them look like even bigger fools, and we'll be back at square one - but it'll be fun!

[BCR]

Math solved ----

$$ P_{cit} = \frac{W^{n}_p}{i} $$

Where,

$$ P_{cit} $$ = CIT flight path,

$$ W^{n}_p $$ = witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon to the nth (number of witnesses) power,

and $$ i $$ = insanity (an imaginary number per TjW).

[beachnut]

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/pentwlpuw9JFK3.jpg
Ed Paik, he said 77 was near the tower, on the read path! Oops!
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Edwardpointsouth.gif
See the tower behind Paik as he shows the flight path behind him and to the Pentagon impact point, making your, p4t, or CIT presentation total junk. As in wrong. Yep, Paik said 77 almost, or did hit the top of the tower behind him. As a trained aircraft accident investigator, I judge your ideas on 9/11 wrong; and your Paik blue line is junk.

Who drew the blue line? It has impossible turn.
This blue path instantly changes 5 degrees of heading. That is infinite G force, no wings for your flight path. So I will give you some radius of turn to complete your instant turn! I can pick almost any small radius less than 410 feet and fudge your infinite G turn down to 88.7 degrees of bank and 44 Gs. Funny, you should study the dirt dumb paths you post before you post them and prove there are no rational pilots at p4t to check anything. If you prefer we can stick with your 90 degree bank turn, and infinite Gs. Which is it?


Terry Morin said parallel to the outer edge of the Annex, this means not over the Annex, but next to the annex on a path that hits the lampposts. Reading Morin's statement proves the "official flight path" is true due to the fact the FDR confirms the heading, and true course. But who uses real data at p4t? Not terrorist loyalist Balsamo who can't figure out how many feet are in a NM; or dMole who has to apologize for Balsamo.

[beachnut]

Nobody?

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

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/ancgif2.gif
... The CIT witnesses point to the "official path". Watch the truther supplied gif above as the witnesses point to the south path. They point to where 77 was really flying as it hit lamppost and hit the Pentagon.

Debunking CIT with their own stuff; good job SPreston. Where is your math?

[chillzero]

Couple of things for you all to bear in mind here.

1 - Keep it civil and don't keep getting personal with each other.

2 - Keep it on topic, and that means on topic to the forum and forum section, as well as the thread topic.

3 - Don't repeatedly spam large format photos that hve previously been posted. Please use links instead.

4 - Most importantly - be aware of the very fine line about posting on behalf of banned members. Do not replicate posts and discussion sections from other boards, and do not use this forum to hold one half of a conversation with other boards.

[WildCat]

Couple of things for you all to bear in mind here.

1 - Keep it civil and don't keep getting personal with each other.

2 - Keep it on topic, and that means on topic to the forum and forum section, as well as the thread topic.

3 - Don't repeatedly spam large format photos that hve previously been posted. Please use links instead.

4 - Most importantly - be aware of the very fine line about posting on behalf of banned members. Do not replicate posts and discussion sections from other boards, and do not use this forum to hold one half of a conversation with other boards.
It used to be when you quoted from a post that had a pic only the link to the pic would show up, not the pic. Has this changed, or is my memory off?

[Bobert]

Chillzero,
Is Craig considered banned?
I was under the impression that he is not but just declines to post here.
Are we allowed to post quotes from him from other boards here?

[WildCat]

Chillzero,
Is Craig considered banned?
I was under the impression that he is not but just declines to post here.
Are we allowed to post quotes from him from other boards here?
He is banned.

[jaydeehess]

Looks like Cap'n Bob brought it back.

Has Turbofraud posted his math yet?

No?

I'm shocked!

The PfT captain has a history of moving threads and posts generated by anyone he deems aGL to skeptics subforum which is hidden to anyone not registered at PfT. Given that he believes that the Shute posters is one of the JREF members he may well have done that and then moved it back for reasons known only to the Cap'n.

[Bobert]

He is banned.
Ok if he is banned along with most of the PFT then I guess I wont post anything from them anymore since we are not supposed to do that.
That is ok with me!
:)

[Hokulele]

It used to be when you quoted from a post that had a pic only the link to the pic would show up, not the pic. Has this changed, or is my memory off?


It is an option in your User Control Panel (under Options) called Convert [IMG] to [URL] in Quotes. I can't remember the default setting, but some people have it turned on and some don't.

[/derail]

[jaydeehess]

Ed Paik, he said 77 was near the tower, on the red path! Oops!

CiT cherry picking results in them using Paik's drawing which puts the plane over the Annex. However in the video of Paik he is supposedly standing where he was when he saw the plane. The Navy Annex is not visible and as you point out, he indicates a path along Columbia Pike and states the plane hit or nearly hit the VDOT tower in the background of that video.

the selection of the drawing by CiT then is quite disingenuous at best. Any true 'investigator' would realize that his description does not match that drawing and observe that he could not see the Annex from that location anyway.


[quote]Who drew the blue line? [/FONT][/COLOR]

..............
Terry Morin said parallel to the outer edge of the Annex, this means not over the Annex, but next to the annex on a path that hits the lampposts. Reading Morin's statement proves the "official flight path" is true due to the fact the FDR confirms the heading, and true course.

If the blue line were correct then Morin would not have been able to even see the aircraft once it was halfway over the Annex. However Morin states that he could see the vertical stabilizer all the way to impact. He most certainly does not state that he lost sight of the aircraft as it went over the Annex.

Now we have both Morin and Paik who were basically at opposite ends of the aircraft's travel along Columbia Pike. If Paik's drawing is correct then Morin could not have seen the plane as it passed by him. Several other flight paths drawn by CiT, as per their interpretation of other witnesses, puts the aircraft on paths that neither Paik or Morin could have seen. The location of those witnesses however would enable them to see the plane while it was over Columbia Pike as long as it was a few feet higher than the Annex roofline. Therefore the so-called official flight path is consistent with Paik, Morin and the witnesses who put it closer to themselves than the Annex by mistake.

I find it interesting where in the picture above that Turcois is placed. In the CiT video Craig takes Robert to the north side of the canopy and Robert indicates that the palne was south of that location(points above the canopy). If Robert was at the indicated location and saw the aircraft to the south then he was seeing it along the 'official flight path' since he was under the canopy at the time. Only on Craig's leading does Robert change his story not once but at least twice, each time putting the aircraft further to the north and along a flight path that he could not have even seen from the indicated location.

Well that takes care of about half of the CiT alledged NoC witnesses.
Now for Boger. Could he see the roof of the Citgo station from his location well enough to know that the plane was directly over it or to the north or south slightly? It is not apparenet in anything that the CiT has produced. they did take pictures from the highway and from that location they could see both the heliport control building and the station but that proves nothing other than that the highway is a high point in between the two loactions. Given that they will not get permission to take photos from the heliport control building, they need to go to the east side of the station and take a photo from the level of the roof. If the heliport control building windows are in plain view from that location then, yes Boger could see the station. If they cannot afford a ladder or lift then the alternative is to go further up the hill and, using a level to keep the camera on a horizontal plane, find the location at which they can just see the roof of the station. If the heliport building is visible the Boger has a view of the station roofline.

[BCR]

CiT cherry picking results in them using Paik's drawing which puts the plane over the Annex. However in the video of Paik he is supposedly standing where he was when he saw the plane. The Navy Annex is not visible and as you point out, he indicates a path along Columbia Pike and states the plane hit or nearly hit the VDOT tower in the background of that video.

Paik is clear regarding this. He stepped out and ducked! When I spoke with his brother at A-One Auto this past September, he confirmed that they heard a noise, Edward stepped outside and then ducked covering his head. His view towards the Pentagon would have been blocked by a building next door to the shop and his time-window was extremely limited (most spent ducking).

Both of the Paik brothers give essentially the same account and Edward gave them the best estimate he could from his point-of-view. How you get from what he said to where CIT did requires a high value for $$ i $$.

[WildCat]

Going to be tricky to post this without violating mod rules, but a certain member of CIT claims that 2 of his expert aviation witnesses, Terry Morin and Sean Boger, have the "final descent" of the airplane they witnessed taking over 10 seconds to go from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon. This puts the plane at 180 mph max, dangerously close to stall speed for a 757.

Good luck banking at that speed so low to the ground, let alone pulling out of a descent.

The more these idiots talk, the more they stick their foots in their mouths.

[dtugg]

Going to be tricky to post this without violating mod rules, but a certain member of CIT claims that 2 of his expert aviation witnesses, Terry Morin and Sean Boger, have the "final descent" of the airplane they witnessed taking over 10 seconds to go from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon. This puts the plane at 180 mph max, dangerously close to stall speed for a 757.

Good luck banking at that speed so low to the ground, let alone pulling out of a descent.

The more these idiots talk, the more they stick their foots in their mouths.

Did you consider that maybe it wasn't a 757 but rather some sort of super secret NWO plane that can do anything necessary for Craig's fantasy?

[twinstead]

Did you consider that maybe it wasn't a 757 but rather some sort of super secret NWO plane that can do anything necessary for Craig's fantasy?

...and we have 9/11-investigator to explain how it works and who built it in minute detail.

[jaydeehess]

Given that the TM in general, and the CiT specifically, are not above inventing senarios to fit any data they might come accross into their fantasy. If a lamp post came down then it must have been planted by mysterious 'agents', and in this case, if Boger and Morin say something that would require the plane to be slower then they will invent a different aircraft, possibly painted in the AA scheme, to fit this small part of the reports about the plane. It matters not to them then that other statements describe the aircraft in various fashions that all come down to it being "fast". Undoubtably they will point out that 180 mph is 3 times faster than highway speeds and as such is indeed 'fast'. However humans are very context oriented speakers and in describing an aircraft of any significanmt size, 180 mph is simply never going to described as 'fast'.

[dtugg]

I think I've figured it out. They used a secret aircraft reverse engineered from the alien craft that crash landed in Roswell in 1947. They had a hologram projected over it to make it look like an American Airlines 757 and had sound projected from it so it sounded like a 757 at full throttle. This single spacecraft/projected hologram was able to fly on both the North and South side approaches simultaneously, but by some magic of alien technology, each witness was only able to see one of the approaches. One path was as described by the CIT witnesses and was made without having to make any almost sideways banking turns or stalling since it is reverse engineered from the aliens. The other went on the "official" flight path knocking down light poles and such. The alien technology also allowed them to do this while only having one set of RADAR tracks. When this spacecraft/projected hologram got near the Pentagon, it fired a force field missile covered with a AA 757 projected hologram and filled with AA 757 parts, a faked FDR, human remains, jet fuel, ect, this force field missile was able to fool all the eyewitnesses and everybody that examined the scene into believing a plane actually hit the Pentagon. As soon as the force field missile was fired, the spaceship went into cloaked mode and was completely invisible, both to human eyes and to RADAR. It flew over the Pentagon, turned west, and flew back to Area 51.

The reason why the did it like that is because they wanted people like CIT and PffffT to discover that plenty of witnesses saw the North side approach. Since the plane couldn't have caused the damage coming from there, the only conclusion, if you rely on the NoC witnesses is that it didn't hit the Pentagon and the light poles were planted. The only place is could go is over the building. But since nobody saw this happen and the whole plan sounds ridiculously insane, pretty much nobody would believe it except for stupid people like CIT/PffffT. The whole operation in addition to getting most people to believe that a plane hit the Pentagon, was also designed to discredit any dissenters, or "truthers," that may come out of the wood work.


Honestly, I think this is more likely than anything Craig or Cap'n Bob have said.

[jaydeehess]

Liar!! eleventy11!!

It was reverse engineered alien tech but it actually was installed on a 757 that flew along the 'official flight path', but instead of flying over the Pentagon it implemented a change in the vibartions of its individual mesons allowing it to fly under/through both the Pentagon and the earth and not re-emerge until it reached the Bermuda Triangle. As a side effect of this 'multidimensional meson phase modulation' (MMPM for short) several witnesses perceived the aircraft as being on a path further to the north than the actual path of the aircraft. Had the aircraft been flying away from the Pentagon along Columbia Pike there would have been several witnesses saying it was hundreds of feet south of Columbia Pike once they hit the MMPM switch.

No 'pull up' required, no 'fly over' required just a technology, that is by our understanding, indistinquishable from magic, .

[bje]

Has anyone posted this revelation by Craig over at ATS. I am curious what they will have to say about this.

In fact, yes, there was a thread about it at ATS exposing CIT until today. ATS has pulled a Cap'n Bob and deleted the entire thread.

Now, shouldn't a good conspiracy buff conclude that Ranke has ATS in his pocket?

[CHF]

Just so I'm clear on this...

Are the CIT the same people who say there was a flyover at the Pentagon even though their own witnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon?

[dtugg]

Just so I'm clear on this...

Are the CIT the same people who say there was a flyover at the Pentagon even though their own witnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon?

Yes. They are not very smart.

[jaydeehess]

Just so I'm clear on this...

Are the CIT the same people who say there was a flyover at the Pentagon even though their own witnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon?

In the land of the TM this does not mean that the eyewitnesses are corroborating each other about that aspect, that the plane hit the building.

In that land of sprites and nymphs the only thing that the eyewitnesses interviewed by the CiT (who they are telling anyone about at any rate) are corroborating, is that the plane flew somewhere to the north of the Citgo station and not on the path they refer to as the 'official flight path'. This they claim despite the extreme variance in those NoC paths and the fact that some of paths would preclude other witnesses from even being able to have seen the plane.

In that land of magic the idea that the plane hit the Pentagon is a deception accomplished by having the plane's pulling up and over the building, hidden by the fireball that the supposed impact created. This was accomplished so very well that all eyewitnesses were fooled.

In that land of Nod (NoC?) the same persons who managed such a complete deception could not arrange for an FDR to be found in the 'wreckage' that would definitively indicate that the aircraft flew along the 'official flight path'. Nor could they arrange for the aircraft to actually fly along the 'official flight path' instead of one that took it NoC.

In that land where spooks and agents scurry about unseen, lamp posts that were knocked down to indicate the 'official flight path' were allowed to be knocked down. The same people who managed such a complicated yet complete deception of the aircraft hitting the building somehow allowed the lamp posts to be placed even though they would not indicate the actual flight path of the aircraft nor have a faked FDR to back up the idea that the plane was on the 'official flight path'.

Clear now?

[WildCat]

Still no sign of the math that pwns us all from the PffffT couch cushion fort.

[Bobert]

Maybe because the court is picking the Jury?

[Klimax]

I hope they won't do calculation using Microsoft flight simulator...

[Klimax]

I hope they won't do calculation using Microsoft flight simulator... (or any simulation game...)

Maybe they will complet their calcualtion on 22.12.2012.

And outcome will be that plane flew through petrol station...

[jaydeehess]

Maybe because the court is picking the Jury?

For that we now check the Lawyers for 911 Truth and, lo and behold, nope, no court cases pending that I can find.

Just a lame petition asking for an 'new investigation' of 9/11.

You'd think that if anyone could develop a case when the TM tells us over and over again how obvious MIHOP is, it would be the lawyers in that group.

Once again a FAIL!!

[Mr.Herbert]

For that we now check the Lawyers for 911 Truth and, lo and behold, nope, no court cases pending that I can find.




Hmmm... well, that's not entirely accurate. One of CIT's witnesses has allegedly filed a lawsuit using a retired Lawyer from Lawyers for 911 Truth:

Career Army officer sues Rumsfeld, Cheney, saying no evacuation order given on 9/11

On behalf of retired Army officer April Gallop, California attorney William Veale has filed a civil suit against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and former US Air Force General Richard Myers, who was acting chairman of the joint chiefs on 9/11. It alleges they engaged in conspiracy to facilitate the terrorist attacks and purposefully failed to warn those inside the Pentagon, contributing to injuries she and her two-month-old son incurred.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/911_survivor_blasts_Rumsfeld_Cheney_No_1217.html





http://lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com/
William Veale.Bill Veale is a former instructor of Criminal Trial Practice at Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley, with an 11-year teaching career. Retired Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year career.

[WildCat]

Not Berkeley! I'm shocked, shocked, shocked I tell you!

I wonder how the math is coming along over at PfffT?

[jaydeehess]

It alleges they engaged in conspiracy to facilitate the terrorist attacks and purposefully failed to warn those inside the Pentagon, contributing to injuries she and her two-month-old son incurred.


This lawyer is going to attempt to prove that the defendants knew or at least suspected that an aircraft was going to target the Pentagon and that they deliberatly did not order an evacuation in order to increase the death toll which they could use for political gain?

Good luck with that.

With the attacks in NYC one could argue that Rummy et al could at least suspect that there might be another aircraft targeting the Pentagon and the Whitehouse. That much is true.
This would not however support a MIHOP senario, only a callous disregard for the personell under their command. I could buy into callous disregard as a possibility and perhaps even being proven satisfactorily for this lawsuit.

Furthermore, Rumsfeld and ,IIRC, General Myers, were both in the Pentagon at the time the aircraft hit the building (and Cheney was in the White House). In order to prove that they actually knew for certain that the building they were in were targeted by the terrorists ( thus showing LIHOP at least) the litigant will have to show not only how they knew that but also how it was that they knew they would be safe even if they remained in the buildings.

Rumsfeld never left his office until impact. In order to prove MIHOP then not only does Rumsfeld have to shown to have known about the targeting of the Pentagon but also the exact part of the building that the plane was to hit (which is the only way to show MIHOP) and that he could have enough confidence in that to allow him to remain in his office. That or show that Rumsfeld was enough of a zealot to set himself up as a potential martyr.

This is the best the TM can muster?

What would be the defence?
Well for starters the men remained in their respective buildings. They will strongly state that they are not the type to seek martyrdom.

They will show the number of threats to the Pentagon and the White House that are identified every year. This was yet another one.

They will speak about the fact that they needed their respective organizations to be up and running on Sept 11/01 and that ordering an evacuation would have compromised that effort. The White House was eventually evacuated showing that as the events of the day unfolded that measure was taken to ensure the large number of civilians in that building were safe, much as was the case with the Capitol building.

Far from desiring a higher death toll, Rumsfeld and Myers could argue that the USA was under attack and that the Pentagon is a military installation, not a civilian one and that during an attack it must continue to operate at full capacity.

[Bobert]

WOW that is some horrible grammar and sentence structure by that attorney!

[jaydeehess]

Somewhat schizoid as well.

the concrete objective was to facilitate and enable the hijacking of the airliners, and their use as living bombs to attack buildings containing thousands of innocent victims; and then to cover up the truth about what they had done
.............

To cause and arrange for high explosive charges to be detonated inside the Pentagon, and/or a missile of some sort to be fired at the building, at or about the time the wayward airliner supposedly arrived there, to give the false impression that hijackers had crashed the plane into the building, as had apparently happened in New York


hmmm suicide aircraft that they arranged for, or a missile, or a bomb

Gonna be hard to prove MIHOP if they cannot even decide on a mode by which the crime was committed.

Bobert, you're not suggesting that the TM scrapes the bottom of the barrel when it comes to lawyering up are you? (shocked smiley)

[WildCat]

How the hell did that guy ever pass the bar exam?

[Bobert]

Bobert, you're not suggesting that the TM scrapes the bottom of the barrel when it comes to lawyering up are you? (shocked smiley)
Well I dont know exactly but I would not at all be surprised to see this guy as their attorney:
http://www.nobodyasked.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/windowslivewriterthevastwasteland...aliveandwell.w ella-e3d8christopherlloyd3.jpg

[WildCat]

Huh, a week ago PfffT was gloating about how they were just about done with their math, just needed to dot a few i's and cross a few t's... and yet we have nothing.

I'm shocked, shocked, shocked!

[jaydeehess]

Huh, a week ago PfffT was gloating about how they were just about done with their math, just needed to dot a few i's and cross a few t's... and yet we have nothing.

I'm shocked, shocked, shocked!

On Dec 15 we had "not much longer to wait" so maybe TF and PfT intend this to be a Christmas present for their following. Not only will there be a "tech note" concerning the range of flight paths that PfT will do the calculations for but there will also be (naturally) a video animation to accompany this 'tech note'.

Although they may chafe at the fact that we speculate on how they will deal with the situation, the fact remains that all we can do is speculate until they actually release something, anything.

Craig was telling us that there was a stupendous, blow-your-mind revalation coming for months before "Pentacon" finally came out and it was a frankly a huge disappointment.

Now, although it has been the better part of a year that we having been requesting some math for a NoC flight path, which is consistent with the eyewitness statements, it is still taking them weeks to put something together. It seems that PfT does not consider technical details are worth anything unless they accompany it with an animation.

I wonder if the old, embarassingly erroneous, 11 G page will be finally withdrawn once the intrepid brain trust manages to get this next attempt at math, physics and aerodynamics completed?

[Mangoose]

Defendant Rumsfeld also made a striking prediction of the attack, as if speaking compulsively about his secret knowledge, that very morning, and several days later, he publicly referred to the “missile” that hit the Pentagon.


Oh lordy, not that old chestnut!

The Internet, too, is a potent tool for spreading conspiracy theories. PARADE found this out after Lyric Wallwork Winik interviewed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in Oct. 2001. In a transcript of Winik's interview with Rumsfeld, which was published on the Department of Defense's Web site, Rumsfeld seemed to indicate that the Pentagon was hit by a missile on 9/11 instead of a plane. It turns out that a transcription error led to the confusion, but conspiracy theorists latched onto Rumsfeld's supposed admission and spread it over the Internet.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041030031047/archive.parade.com/2004/0905/0905_intelligence.html

Transcribed as: "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."

Which obviously should be: "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens as a missile to damage this building and similar [planes?] that damaged the World Trade Center."

Even in the original transcript, "(inaudible)" indicates that the transcriber had trouble understanding the recording.

[jaydeehess]

I recently watched part of Pentacon again and I see I have a correction to make. Seems Turcois does initially say that the plane came by the trees just north of the station. This is contrary to my comments that Turcois initially pointed south. I have to watch the rest of his statement again though.

ETA: I see that over at PfT, TF has attributed this to Beachnut. I do not recall Beachnut saying this.

In light of 911files' analysis of the Citgo video though it seems this is a moot point. Farmer describes how Turcois is in the video and rather than run towards to the Pentagon as he says he did in 'Pentacon', he is seen to be running towards the Citgo building. In light of this how accurate can anything he says be?

[dtugg]

I see there is no math at the PffffT site. Shocked! I would have thunk that by now they would have pwned the hell out of us GLs. Oh well, I am sure it is coming.

[Bobert]

No Grand Juries either.

[jaydeehess]

hoo-boy!! I watched Turcois, Lagasse and Brooks in Pentacon again. Read 911files' analysis of their statements, confirmed that what Farmer says is in the video is true, watched the Citgo security video several times to see if I could see what Farmer describes (difficult due to the poor quality, but yes it all can be seen).

I would have very little to quibble about in his analysis of the statements.

Now that's an hour + that I won't get back again.

I commend 911files for the work put into it.

PfT makes much of the fact that we all condemned Farmer in the past and now we like him. Fact is when he was wrong we condemned his errors. Now that he has indeed corrected his work we applaud him. This is completely counter to the way PfT operates. They still have the "11g" page up with but a lame disclaimer that corrections will be forthcoming. No web page has ever been forthcoming with any corrections to their math on the erroneous page. Instead they produced a video with its own problems which they have also never addressed. It seems that PfT is simply unwilling to remove what they already know to be gross error on their part or correct the math for the flight path considered on that page.

[WildCat]

Still no sign of the math over at the PfffT forum. I do notice that "DwightShrute" has been banned for having the nerve to bring up the subject.

I'm beginning to think there won't be any math coming and I am shocked, shocked, shocked!

[jhunter1163]

Ranquis have WITNESSES! They don' NEEEEED no STEEEEENKIN' MATH!

[nicepants]

Still no math!?

A week ago turbo said "Not much more to wait, I promise! "

*yawn*

I wonder if we can expect it sometime this year...

[TheLoneBedouin]

t_ENbUHAXYM

[dtugg]

Your link doesn't work. I am sure that it contains the long awaited official CIT/PffffffT flightpath and the math for it. Please fix it because I eagerly await my pwning.

[Bell]

Your link doesn't work. I am sure that it contains the long awaited official CIT/PffffffT flightpath and the math for it. Please fix it because I eagerly await my pwning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_ENbUHAXYM&e

It's a trailer from PfT.
It says "The math is coming Christmas Day 2008"

[dtugg]

I predict that they either screw up the math or that they ignore most of the CIT witnesses.

[WildCat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_ENbUHAXYM&e

It's a trailer from PfT.
It says "The math is coming Christmas Day 2008"
Oh noes! It's all over in 2 days!

[Grizzly Bear]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_ENbUHAXYM&e

It's a trailer from PfT.
It says "The math is coming Christmas Day 2008"

I just got to know why a trailer was needed for that... WHY!!>!>!>!?!!?. How much time did they spend on that trailer that they could have devoted to their math?

[Bell]

Oh noes! It's all over in 2 days!

Maybe PfT choose that date so JREF can't burn it down... well, not immediately that is:

Forum downtime

The forum will be down from 0:01 UTC December 25, 2008 (8 PM pacific, December 24) for database work. This may take up to 48 hours, but we are aiming for it to be shorter.

[BCR]

Ask for math...get a cartoon.

[jaydeehess]

I predict that they either screw up the math or that they ignore most of the CIT witnesses.

Well the trailer certainly does not give any clues as to what the math will be.

I do note that they state "the math is coming" which would mean actual math and not a plot on graph paper with radi to a circle, the placement of which just appears with no explanation as to how it was determined that they were, in fact perpendicular to the tangent of the trajectory.

I also know that I and others have repeatedly stated that any range of trajectories that PfT does the math for must also be consistent with all witness statements. If their path(s) make it impossible for Morin and Paik(for instance), to have seen the aircraft in any way that would corresspond to his statements then their trajectory is out.

A Christmas Day release, same day that JREF will be down for maintenance. Coincidence? One wonders,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:D

[Bell]

I just got to know why a trailer was needed for that... WHY!!>!>!>!?!!?. How much time did they spend on that trailer that they could have devoted to their math?

And IF a trailer was needed, then why only 2 days before release?

Trailers are usually released a long time before the promoted movie hits the big screen (or YouTube in this case). I think trailers are used as a way to keep the intended audience interested.

Releasing a trailer 2 days before release, indicates, to me, a lack of professionalism on the moviemaker's behalve.

[jaydeehess]

I just got to know why a trailer was needed for that... WHY!!>!>!>!?!!?. How much time did they spend on that trailer that they could have devoted to their math?

I gotta say that the same thought crossed my mind.

[jaydeehess]

The 'trailer' is little more than text anyway. If the new release is all text, as it really should be for a purely technical report, then one wonders why produce a video at all.
I guess 911files said it all above.

The 'trailer' also states that it is 'officially docuemented' which I take to include the view that the FDR data illustrates a path grossly different than the path shown by the downed lamp posts. If so then one wonders why a purely technical paper has never been drawn up and submitted to all and sundry organizations with the recognized expertise to make comment on it and who would have an interest in accurate FDR recording.
Given that the 'official' records of the RADES data, the FDR data and others all do not corresspond with a flight path to the north of the Citgo station just how official the docuementation is that they are using.

[jhunter1163]

I also know that I and others have repeatedly stated that any range of trajectories that PfT does the math for must also be consistent with all witness statements. If their path(s) make it impossible for Morin and Paik(for instance), to have seen the aircraft in any way that would corresspond to his statements then their trajectory is out.

Obviously, either PfffffT will come up with a flightpath that'll make the propeller-heads here snort soda out their noses, or one or more of Ranquis' prized NoC witnesses is going to get thrown under the bus. I'm guessing the latter.

[jaydeehess]

I'm guessing that the path(s) they use will not be consistent with many of their own witness's statements.

Wait, I guess that is the same thing as
...one or more of Ranquis' prized NoC witnesses is going to get thrown under the bus

[Bobert]

Oh my I am sorry but is the CIT/PFTT now doing parody?
Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible

:dl:
My FAVORITE though is:
THE MATH IS COMING CHRISTMAS DAY 2008Comedy GOLD!
:dl:
BTW its not about justice for DEAD MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN nooooo NOT WITH THE dipsticks from CIT/PFTT.
According to Ranke
No turkey and ham for the pseudo-skeptics this Christmas! They're being served a different holiday meal this year.

[A W Smith]

the math is coming for christmas because thats when they get their calculators. (http://childparenting.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=childparenting&cdn=parenting&tm=11&gps=130_11_1148_684&f=10&su=p284.9.336.ip_&tt=3&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//education.ti.com/educationportal/sites/US/productDetail/us_ti10.html)

Technology for the Youngest Learner The TI-10 is perfect for the primary grades. It combines popular features of the TI-15 Explorer™, which makes it a unique tool for grades K-3. The TI-10’s comfortable, colorful design helps students find patterns in daily activities and helps educators reinforce math concepts in all elementary subjects

[Mangoose]

Check out what Craig says:--

But as I have said in the past, this argument is irrelevant to the evidence so I hope people understand the context of this piece is completely centered around answering the continuous badgering demands of a bunch of pseudo-skeptics for "math".

The reality is, math is not required to validate eyewitness accounts and eyewitnesses are not required to be mathematically accurate.

The notion is silly. <snip>

So while I find the argument completely unnecessary I am deeply thankful to Pilots for 9/11 Truth for spending so much time around the holidays putting something together to fully address this nonsensical, false, irrelevant, and foolish attempt by a band of intellectually dishonest war crime apologists to discredit all of the witnesses who were there and unanimously agree about this extremely simple right or left claim.

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


Dearest Craig,

You silly goof! The math is not to validate eyewitness accounts, the math is to demonstrate the CIT/Pfffft flyover "theory". The two are not the same, although you apparently do not realize this. None of the witnesses you list at http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/citgogif.gif claim that the plane flew over the Pentagon, and most describe the plane crashing into the Pentagon. Those requesting math here specifically are interested in the changes of altitude necessary for the plane to get over the Pentagon while on a banking maneuver...

SP! Welcome back. Now you are aware that there are several things wrong with e^n's path, don't you? Here is the a big one: it does not take into account vertical moves. You know, the descent and the ascent that are CRITICAL to CIT's fantasy.

SP, doesn't it bother you that CIT and PFFT refuse to do the calculations that show an airliner could fly CIT's NOC path?

And I'll note that e^n's math didn't account for the changes in altitude claimed by CIT. And you do realize that even with this simpolified flight path (which is not the CIT flight path) the plane would be banking damn near sideways, which no one reported.


Be sure to thank your friend Cap'n Bob for trying to make our Christmas merry. :D

[16.5]

Giggle!

God bless them!

Hey Cap'n Bob, make sure you calculate the bank, the descent AND the pull up.

And for Christ sake, try not to throw all the CIT witnesses under the bus.

Hee hee hee! Dance little doggies, dance!

/a "video" cripes what a bunch of dorks.

[1337m4n]

THE MATH IS COMING CHRISTMAS DAY 2008

Now look what you've done, JREF. This is supposed to be the one day of the year in which people forget about all their worries and get together with their families and just enjoy themselves, and you've got these poor guys doing math. Shame on you.

You've all ruined CIT's Christmas. I hope you're happy.

:D

[beachnut]

Balsamo’s video is under the category of education? Big fraud! The nutcase north flight path math from Balsamo, to be posted in 2 days; Balsamo thinks he is the Gary Cooper of truth as johndoeLXC (extra large crazy). Pure anti-intellectual stuff from p4t, how can it get better than 11.2 G failed physics, 34 G hockey stick flight path math, terrorist loyalist Balsamo, ace pilot and botched math wizard at p4t is about to present the mother of all goalpost moves and hopefully his best math yet.

Seems like many people have the lowdown on bad math Balsamo... The first comment...

No math Balsamo? You guys are a complete joke.

Now, delete this post like a good little fascist.
That was SS-hitMan (irony lost on me and Balsamo) who knows Balsamo can’t do math (common knowledge after 11.2 and 34 Gs of pure stupid hit the internet.)


johndoeXLC (3 hours ago) No, we'll leave your post to demonstrate you have comprehension problems. Please note the video clearly says the math is coming in two days. But then again, i dont expect an "SS" (hitler?) fascist to understand such plain words. Merry Xmas!
Christmas! typing challenged dolt. Can't even get the birthday right for Baby Jesus.

11.2 G Balsamo, who can’t figure out the feet in a nautical mile, talks of comprehension, and understanding. The expert FDR pilot of pilots who can’t hit a building in the safety of a simulator is about to break math again! Will it be 34 Gs of greatness, or 11.2 Gs of failed physics?


How will they get a flight path at 70 degree magnetic heading and at 534 mph? Where will they move the goalposts this time?

The funniest part of NoC; CIT's video with the witnesses pointing to the “official flight path”. These are the dumbest investigators in the world who post video showing their witnesses pointing to the “official flight path”.


http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/ancgif2.gif (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/ancgif2.gif)

CIT and p4t a marriage made deep in the pit of total ignorance. Pure stupid lives at p4tf and in Balsamo videos.

FDR and CIT witness have pre-debunked p4t failed NoC math presentation of woo.
The NoC flight path of pure garbage math, coming Christmas day. While the rest of the country prepares for tons of turkey, p4t prepare math even a turkey could do better.


Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible- as in, 11.2 G Stupid - 34 G Incomprehensible Junk

[Hokulele]

Aerodynamically Possible - Witless Compatible


Fixed that for them.

[chillzero]

Now look what you've done, JREF. This is supposed to be the one day of the year in which people forget about all their worries and get together with their families and just enjoy themselves, and you've got these poor guys doing math. Shame on you.

You've all ruined CIT's Christmas. I hope you're happy.

:D

Well.... if they wanted they could wait til after Boxing Day, since it's unlikely any of us will be here to comment for around 48hrs from xmas day (or did you forget the downtime notice?).

[dtugg]

I hope that I've helped ruin Ranquisamo's Xmas. It's little presentation is guaranteed to be crap and a good laugh for us.

[double_o]

Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible

Is that means they are going to show AA77 crashing into the Pentagon?
Because that's is the only witness compatible path I can think of.

[JoeyDonuts]

Well.... if they wanted they could wait til after Boxing Day, since it's unlikely any of us will be here to comment for around 48hrs from xmas day (or did you forget the downtime notice?).

Ah-HA! They've timed their release to coincide with our downtime. They will then tout the lack of response on JREF for 48 hours as unequivocal proof of its accuracy, as we will be rendered speechless for two solid days at its brilliance.

[chillzero]

Ah-HA! They've timed their release to coincide with our downtime. They will then tout the lack of response on JREF for 48 hours as unequivocal proof of its accuracy, as we will be rendered speechless for two solid days at its brilliance.

Of course

[dtugg]

Is that means they are going to show AA77 crashing into the Pentagon?
Because that's is the only witness compatible path I can think of.

You don't understand. There is evidence cooberated 13 times over proving that the plane flew NoC. Since the plane in question couldn't have caused the damage to the Pentagon and hit the light poles, that 100% proves a military deception. The only place it could have gone is over the Pentagon. The fact that the witnesses say it hit the Pentagon only proves that they were deceived by the greatest, most elaborate magic trick of all time. I mean, this is the NWO that we are talking about, of course they can do whatever they want to, even fool eyewitnesses into believing a large plane hit the largest office building in the world when it really flew over it.

[double_o]

You don't understand. There is evidence cooberated 13 times over proving that the plane flew NoC. Since the plane in question couldn't have caused the damage to the Pentagon and hit the light poles, that 100% proves a military deception. The only place it could have gone is over the Pentagon. The fact that the witnesses say it hit the Pentagon only proves that they were deceived by the greatest, most elaborate magic trick of all time. I mean, this is the NWO that we are talking about, of course they can do whatever they want to, even fool eyewitnesses into believing a large plane hit the largest office building in the world when it really flew over it.

Oh, now I get it. So the fact that they all saw the plane hit the pentagon is a proof that it didn't hit it. That makes prefect sense.

[dtugg]

Oh, now I get it. So the fact that they all saw the plane hit the pentagon is a proof that it didn't hit it. That makes prefect sense.

Wrong! The proof is that the 13 cooberated witnesses have it flying NoC. The fact that they say it hit the Pentagon only proves that the military deception which was the greatest magic trick of all time worked. Too bad for the NWO that there are really smart, competent, honest investigators that can figure this all out.

[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.

Do the math for that Flight path, Cap'n Bob.

[Bobert]

Now look what you've done, JREF. This is supposed to be the one day of the year in which people forget about all their worries and get together with their families and just enjoy themselves, and you've got these poor guys doing math. Shame on you.

You've all ruined CIT's Christmas. I hope you're happy.

:D
Christmas was originally planned by the NWO as a diversion because they knew that ONE DAY the CIT WOULD BRING THEM DOWN!

[Bobert]

DAMMIT!
Just when I change my subtitle to Government LoyalistTM Craig goes and changes us to "War Crime ApologistsTM"

[16.5]

DAMMIT!
Just when I change my subtitle to Government LoyalistTM Craig goes and changes us to "War Crime ApologistsTM"

My Lord, Craig is so freaking manic he cannot even put together a coherent sentence anymore.

However, he has established that "the math" will be presented in the form so familiar to mathematicians over the years:

A YouTube video.

Face palm.

[A W Smith]

My Lord, Craig is so freaking manic he cannot even put together a coherent sentence anymore.

However, he has established that "the math" will be presented in the form so familiar to mathematicians over the years:

A YouTube video.

Face palm.

9IoJb8LLhwU

[nicepants]

Aerodynamically Possible

If they are already saying that it's "aerodynamically possible" then either:

1 - They have already done the calculations confirming this and apparently aren't very interested in getting the word out quickly. (Perhaps they need the time to make DVDs, T-shirts, etc)

2 - They havent done the calculations, but they have already concluded that it is aerodynamically possible, therefore have to structure their calculations to reflect such.

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.

Something tells me that the math to be presented won't include all of the above aspects.....either that or it ignores the physical and aerodynamic limitations of a Boeing 757.

[jhunter1163]

Can you affirm the consequent with math?

[DGM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_ENbUHAXYM&e

It's a trailer from PfT.
It says "The math is coming Christmas Day 2008"
I was waiting for the 'download now for $9.95'.

Hey guy's let's wait until Christmas to blow the lid off the largest cover-up in history.:boggled:

"Truthers" should find it insulting that PFT thinks that they're stupid enough to fall for this round of BS.

[X]

Can you affirm the consequent with math?


They did last time.

Until it was pointed out that 30-some-odd G's was preposterous. And 11-something wasn't any better.

Mind you, they ignored (until, it seems, recently) those trivial details.

[TjW]

Well, you can present correct math on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx5KDyvlG3Q&feature=related).

[Arus808]

well its xmas. its 4 pm pst and i see nothing from the Guide who lie any math or youtube video.

guess this will go up there with the Cretinous Investigoogle Team's smoking gun video (the one that was promised 2 years ago).

[TheLoneBedouin]

Here's the link to the presentation (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509) that exposes your pseudoskeptism.

Of course, Reheat's idiocy is so clearly bs that it can be refuted without any math at all (see Regarding "Debunking the North of Citgo Theory" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118955)).

I eagerly await your cognitive dissonance and illogical responses.

:)

[jhunter1163]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509

Well, here it is. This ought to be good for a chuckle. They're claiming a bank angle of 56 degrees and, from my quick glance at it, appear to have the impact occurring over by the helipad control tower rather than where it actually occurred.

I don't have the math chops to refute it so I'll leave that to the pros.

ETA: They're also throwing Morin under the bus, as their flight path goes over the Navy Annex although Morin clearly states that it was parallel to the outer edge.

[A W Smith]

release the hounds, !!:dl:

less than 22 degree bank too shallow according to witness testimony? really? and zero witnesses for a south of citgo path? what about THESE witnesses?

from
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...ses/sgydk.html (http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html)



Steve Anderson

Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.

Does this soumd like a 22 degree NOC banked turn?

Deb Anlauf

location
14th-floor room in the Sheraton National Hotel in Arlington

Anlauf was watching TV coverage of the Trade Center burning shortly before 9:30 a.m. when she decided to return to her 14th-floor room from another part of the hotel. Once in her room, she heard a "loud roar" and looked out the window to see what was going on. "Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window," Anlauf said during a telephone interview from her hotel room this morning. "You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. "Then it shot straight across from where we are (the sheraton) and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). When it hit, the whole hotel shook."

Does this soumd like a 22 degree NOC banked turn?


James R. Cissell

''Out of my peripheral vision, I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower. ''If you couldn't touch it from standing on the highway, you could by standing on your car.'' ''I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' Cissell said. ''I remember thinking, 'The World Trade Center was just the beginning, there's going to be more.' '' He remembers the helipad the plane flew over before smacking into the Pentagon was close enough to him that ''I could have thrown a baseball at it and hit it.'' While he remembers seeing the crash, Cissell remembers none of the sounds. ''It came in in a perfectly straight line,'' he said. ''It didn't slow down. I want to say it accelerated. It just shot straight in.''

Does this soumd like a 22 degree NOC banked turn?


Mike Dobbs

"... we saw a plane coming toward us, for about 10 seconds ... It was like watching a train wreck. I was mesmerized. ... At first I thought it was trying to crash land, but it was coming in so deliberately, so level... Everyone said there was a deafening explosion, but with the adrenaline, we didn't hear it."

Does this soumd like a 22 degree NOC banked turn?


Albert Hemphill

"Having just witnessed the CNN coverage of New York" "with a head full of the horror in New York, I walked in the office and stood peering out of the window looking at the Pentagon. ... As I stood there, I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up. Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon. The aircraft was moving fast, at what I could only be estimate as between 250 to 300 knots. All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for approximately 3 seconds. The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack, on a direct course for the Pentagon. It was "clean", in as much as, there were no flaps applied and no apparent landing gear deployed. He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo, tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5. What instantly followed was a large yellow fireball accompanied by an extremely bass sounding, deep thunderous boom. The yellow fireball rose quickly as black smoke engulfed the entire Westside of the Pentagon, obscuring the whole of the heliport. I could feel the concussion and felt the shockwave of the blast impact the window of the Annex, knocking me against the desk

Does this soumd like a 22 degree NOC banked turn?


Mitch Mitchell

"Just as we got even with the Pentagon, I looked out to the front and saw, coming straight down the road at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American Airlines written on it, and it looked like it was coming in to hit us. I told my wife, 'It's going to hit the Pentagon.' It crossed about 100 feet in front of us and at about 20 feet altitude and we watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon, and there was no indication whatever that it was doing anything other than performing a direct attack on that building. The landing gear was up. There were no flaps down and it looked like a deadly missile on the final phase of its mission into the building."
"We saw what I estimate to be about the last seven seconds of the flight. It was a straight-in flight, angled slightly down, and there was--there was no intent to turn or to maneuver in any way. It was headed straight for its target and we were helpless to do anything about it but watch."

Does this soumd like a 22 degree NOC banked turn?


Terry Morin

I had just reached the elevator in the 5th Wing of BMDO/Federal Office Building (FOB) #2 – call it approximately 9:36 AM. I was already trying to make some sense out of the World Trade Tower attacks having heard about them on the radio. The news was sketchy, but the fact that it was a terrorist attack was already known. I then realized that I was wearing sunglasses and needed to go back to Lot 3 to retrieve my clear lenses. Since it was by no means a short walk to my car, I was upset with myself for being so distracted. Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5, I was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4 when I became aware of something unusual. I can’t remember exactly what I was thinking about at that moment, but I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left. As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening. I instantly had a very bad feeling about this but things were happening very quickly. The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB). Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities. Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon. There was a large explosion noise and the low frequency sound echo that comes with this type of sound. Associated with that was the increase in air pressure, momentarily, like a small gust of wind. For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2000lb bomb going off roughly 1/2 mile in front of you. At once there was a huge cloud of black smoke that rose several hundred feet up. Elapsed time from hearing the initial noise to when I saw the impact flash was between 12 and 15 seconds.

Does this soumd like a 22 degree NOC banked turn?


Phillip Thompson

I fought in the Gulf War. I saw bombs and missiles explode overhead. ... I was sitting in heavy traffic in the I-395 HOV lanes about 9:45 a.m., directly across from the Navy Annex. I could see the roof of the Pentagon and, in the distance, the Washington Monument. I heard the scream of a jet engine and, turning to look, saw my driver’s side window filled with the fuselage of the doomed airliner. It was flying only a couple of hundred feet off the ground — I could see the passenger windows glide by. The plane looked as if it were coming in for a landing — cruising at a shallow angle, wings level, very steady. But, strangely, the landing gear was up and the flaps weren’t down. I knew what was about to happen, but my brain couldn’t quite process the information. Like the other commuters on the road, I was stunned into disbelief. The fireball that erupted upon impact blossomed skyward, and the blast hit us in a wave. I don’t remember hearing a sound. It was so eerily similar to another experience during the Gulf War — a missile strike that killed a Marine in my unit — that when I jumped out of my SUV, I felt like I’d jumped into my past and was in combat once again. ... Sirens howled in the distance. ... Then a gray C-130 flew overhead, setting off a new round of panic.

Does this soumd like a 22 degree NOC banked turn?

you talk about cherry picking witnesses. you ignore all but 13. release ALL of your interviews.

[Dog Town]

From Capt'n Booby and the lost guides:
We will be publishing a tech paper as a supplement to this analysis

This ought'a be good!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)

[UNLoVedRebel]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509

Well, here it is. This ought to be good for a chuckle. They're claiming a bank angle of 56 degrees and, from my quick glance at it, appear to have the impact occurring over by the helipad control tower rather than where it actually occurred.

I knew Knew KNEW they were gonna move the impact spot. It was a 100% certainty. Anyhoo, reheat will chime in shortly and rip it apart.

For proof they were trying to weasel their way out of the "official story" impact spot, refer to this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4269061&postcount=60) post

[UNLoVedRebel]

Does this look like a North of Citgo approach/North of heliport impact?

http://www.911myths.com/images/6/64/Awmap.png

[Reheat]

First of all this was written for "twoofers". That's the only people who will believe it.

Just as predicted it is a combination of disregarding inconvenient witnesses, illusions, incorrect radius calculations and pure unadulterated horse manure. It's not surprising at all that it was done as a cartoon. They could not write this and pull the shenanigans shown.

The FIRST path shows the aircraft impacting near the helipad (pardon me, flying over the helipad) That radius is close enough and the calculations appear to be accurate. So that still rather extreme bank angle is planted in the viewers mind as being aerodynamically possible at FDR speeds, no less! As an after thought it is then mentioned that well, that's not exactly what happened, we'll now adjust it to the impact point.

Now, when it switches to the proper impact point, the razzle dazzle crap begins. The radius is WRONG. The radius for that flight path is approximately 7025'. That computes to a bank angle of 67.4 degrees, 2.6 G's at 460 knots. That flight path from Paik CAN NOT be adjusted to an increased radius and still pass North of the station and to the impact point. Of course, it can be flown at a slower speed and that is implied throughout the cartoon. OHhhhhhh, the innuendo of how that lines up nicely with a runway at Reagan. I'm truly impressed.

Where those huge turn radii and very shallow bank angles are derived from in the latter portion of the cartoon is anyone's guess. It is never clearly stated how and where those radii were derived nor to what flight path they apply. Maybe they are just ignoring Paik (well, his statements are ignored anyway except for what supports the delusion) and the impact point. They can draw any flight path they want if it ignores key witnesses. What does that prove?

A flight path to the North of that station from a straight approach would have never been questioned as to it's aerodynamic probability. It's adhering to where the witnesses place it that makes it aerodynamically impossible.

Note that no vertical pull-up was addressed at all throughout the entire charade. There is a good reason for that. I don't need to specify that as most understand that the calculated bank angle and G forces for the point to point flight path must be maintained in order to arrive at the destinated point. G must be added (as all of the witnesses stated that it was at a very low altitude) in order to fly over the building.

The innuendo of some type of exotic aircraft design was to be expected. It's funny that the witnesses describe a transport category aircraft, but that might be an inconvenient fact. We'll put exotic aircraft in anyway just for grins. Oh, and we'll also throw in a large aircraft at about 35 degrees of bank after take-off executing an idiotic low altitude turn just to show them it can be done. We just won't tell everyone that that's a lesser bank and G than any of our postulated turns require when we adhere to what the witnesses said.

Oh, the irony. The Ranquisamo clones will be all over this. They now have poof that the "Official" flight path was impossible, but the North Flight path is very reasonable. Why? Because Ranquisamo said so and it's in a cartoon.

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

[WildCat]

"0 witnesses placed the aircraft on a south path".

TLB, this is a lie, yes?

[WildCat]

"we do not know aircraft type, weight, speed" etc etc.

Another lie.

CIT claims it took at least 10 seconds to get from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon, which means a maximum speed of 185 mph.

[WildCat]

I also note they are ignoring the altitude changes claimed by CIT.

And what's with the claim that a 757 can't fly at 460 knots?

[UNLoVedRebel]

"we do not know aircraft type, weight, speed" etc etc.


The innuendo of some type of exotic aircraft design was to be expected.

I called that one too.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4265065&postcount=90

[Reheat]

The only plausible flight path that will work IN THE HORIZONTAL is exactly the one that we've seen for over a year. It is the same one that is now being referred to as e^n's flight path.

As I stated above that one is 67.4 degrees of bank, 2.6 G's at 460 knots. That path COMPLETELY ignores Morin. That bank angle and G at that speed MUST be maintained all of the way from Paik's position to impact. That does not account for a pull-up and flyover which would require more G.

All of the other horse manure in that cartoon is just twoofer razzle dazzle, nothing more.

[Reheat]

It pleases me greatly that the Ranquisamo gaggle finds the need to cast aspersions at my anonymity and misquote what I've said in order to deceive the ignorant. Here is the intentional misquote....

Here's the word reasonable in my paper....

....The airspeeds are speeds that cover the range of all reasonable speeds possible by any aircraft described by any witness. ....

Note that this turns into Reheat says these flight paths (as depicted in the cartoon) are reasonable. That's not what I said at all jackasses!

Of course, the flight paths depicted in my paper are not reasonable at all, but in adhering to witnesses statement there was no choice. Since they adhere precisely to what the witnesses (as a group) describe and the fact that they are NOT REASONABLE is what makes this entire charade a joke. I can not make an transport category aircraft not stall due to high G and I can not adjust the G limits or stall speed.

This is just one of the many lies that must be told in order to deceive the ignorant and continue the fraud......

[UNLoVedRebel]

Hi Tino! Did you learn yet that you can't counter one's argument by putting a 'rolls eyes' smilie on your post? :rolleyes: See, nothing happened. The pfffft cartoon still sucks.

[BCR]

I see they begin with "facts"

1) "All witnesses saw an aircraft"

2) "13 witnesses place aircraft north of Citgo"

3) "Zero witnesses place aircraft on South AP"

Well, I guess I can go along with number one, but the remaining two are complete horse manure. Among the 13 "witnesses" is Paik, and he did not see a plane north of the Citgo. Terry Morin is one of those witnesses and he did not see a plane north of the Citgo. Quite frankly the only witness to consistently claim seeing a plane north of the Citgo is Lagasse. There are earlier accounts by most of these witnesses which when compared to statements made 7 years later have obviously changed somewhat. Most of these 13 confirm that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon and many saw it clip the poles at the intersection. Claim number three is just a flat out lie. So much for facts.

Next they assert it is a logical fallacy to claim that the plane observed by the witnesses north of the Citgo was a 757.

Logical fallacy - "an argument which, being demonstrably flawed in its logic or form, renders the whole argument invalid"

Well, I can demonstrate with flight plans, ATC and radar records that a Boeing 757 identified as American Airlines flight 77 took off from Dulles International (IAD) at 10:20:22 and can be followed with unbroken radar coverage up until 13:37:47 (DCA last return) at a point just a few hundred feet west of Paik. So it is no logical fallacy to claim it was a 757, because it was a 757.

The next problem I see is that they estimate the speed at 460 knots at the beginning, but then claim that the average speed in the FDR is less, drawing the conclusion that the speed was most likely lower. Of course the average speed was lower than 460 knots because the plane was accelerating. This is a major flaw in their presentation and misleading to say the least.

http://aal77.com/jref/speedmodel.jpg

The fact that the speed is not constant, but increasing, invalidates the equation used by them to estimate the bank angle. I’ll do another post to illustrate this, but it is enough now to simply say that the equation used by P4T assumes constant speed. Even at that, a bank angle of 44 - 59 degrees was not described by any witness that I am aware of.

I will examine the equation they used in a later post (it is Christmas you know), but for now, I just wanted to address the underlying facts and assumptions used. In short, horse manure. Nice cartoon though.

[A W Smith]

Hi tino, i know you are reading this thread right now. we can still see the activity of banned members, you effed up on the math in your video there, You only did two dimensions, the arc, you ignored the pull up. sorry no good. start again.

:dl:


YOU get an F
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/yougetanF.jpg

Tinos "ride" unpimped

qgEvy60bZYI&

[dtugg]

Jeez what a bunch of idiots! Do they actually think their little cartoon proved anything at all (except for the fact that they a morons, delusional and frauds)?

I had a good Christmas, but this made it even better. Thanks Ranquisamo (did I invent that one?)!

[Bobert]

Here's the link to the presentation (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509) that exposes your pseudoskeptism.

Of course, Reheat's idiocy is so clearly bs that it can be refuted without any math at all (see Regarding "Debunking the North of Citgo Theory" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118955)).

I eagerly await your cognitive dissonance and illogical responses.

:)
So are you telling me that "exposes your pseudoskeptism" is MORE IMPORTANT than uncovering MASS MURDER?
It seems they have an oxygen deprivation issue on the planet you live on.

[Bobert]

It seems on Christmas EVe Captain Bobby had nothing better to do then to obsess on SEVERAL JREF posters and the fact that he is going to releasae address info, phone numbers, etc.
My biotch is never to far away Captain Bobby so pop on by.

[BCR]

It seems on Christmas EVe Captain Bobby had nothing better to do then to obsess on SEVERAL JREF posters and the fact that he is going to releasae address info, phone numbers, etc.
My biotch is never to far away Captain Bobby so pop on by.

Well, my information is already public information. I've invited Rob and Craig to stop by any time they wish for a cup of joe. Offer is still open.

[BCR]

In their presentation, P4T uses the following equation to estimate the bank angle:

$$ \theta = arctan \left({\frac {\left(\frac{v^2}{r}\right)}{11.26}}}\right) $$

At the heart of the equation is the following:

$$\frac{v^2}{r} $$

I'll leave it to the aeronautical guys to determine if the first equation is the proper one to use in this case. It is the core component in the second equation that I want to discuss. It is a simplified equation for centripetal acceleration. The following diagram explains the concept a little further in 2 dimensions.

http://aal77.com/jref/centripacc.jpg

I did this graphic a number of months ago when P4T injected the use of the centripetal acceleration formula in their previous venture. What they missed then, as now, is that it holds ONLY when velocity (or speed) is constant and the vector is limited to two dimensions. In this case, neither is the case. Whether it is eyewitness accounts (even theirs) or the FDR, the plane was accelerating towards the Pentagon, and it was dropping in altitude.

What this means is that we cannot ignore the three dimensional components of the veloctiy vector.

$$ \frac{v^2}{r} = \frac{\left(\frac{ds}{dt}\right)^2}{r} $$

$$ \frac{ds}{dt} $$ is a vector which is three dimensional. To solve for g-forces, each component, $$ {ds}_x $$, $$ {ds}_y $$ and $$ {ds}_z $$ have to be resolved individually.

So go back to the calculator P4T and let me know if you need any help resolving the components of the acceleration vector. The equation you are using is invalid for multiple reasons, the least of which is you are not dealing with a circular path in two dimensions for a constant velocity.

Note: Anyone know how to get parentheses to work right in latex? I could not seem to get them to work right.

Note 2: Never mind, got it figured out :D

[Cl1mh4224rd]

BTW its not about justice for DEAD MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN nooooo NOT WITH THE dipsticks from CIT/PFTT.
According to Ranke

No turkey and ham for the pseudo-skeptics this Christmas! They're being served a different holiday meal this year.


Well, damn... what the hell did I eat then, if it wasn't ham? :confused:

From Capt'n Booby and the lost guides:

We will be publishing a tech paper as a supplement to this analysis

This ought'a be good!


Why am I not surprised that they've got this as backwards as their thinking? Tech paper first, numbnuts, then the video supplement.

[Arus808]

holy damn. Just when you think that Balsalmo has gone of the deep end, he only ends up another 200 feet deeper. He's treading water but going nowhere.

His little "video" proves all along that he doesn't know WTF he is talking about.

[double_o]

Witness compatible?

Just look at what they are doing when they trying to match the flight path to Roosevelt Roberts' statement. They have the plane nowhere near the south parking lot (not to mention lane1) and flying southeast towards the airport which is completely opposite the what Roberts said. It seem that what they got right about this flight path is that there is no way for the plane to fly over the south parking lot.

In their own words:"It is possible for anyone to speculate on their bias while cherry picking witness statements"

[jhunter1163]

Thanks Ranquisamo (did I invent that one?)!

Yes, I believe you did. I'll be using it, if you don't mind.

[dtugg]

Yes, I believe you did. I'll be using it, if you don't mind.

That's cool. I believe I Ranquis came from you so you're more than half responsible anyway.

[Reheat]

So go back to the calculator P4T and let me know if you need any help resolving the components of the acceleration vector. The equation you are using is invalid for multiple reasons, the least of which is you are not dealing with a circular path in two dimensions for a constant velocity.

I wonder if we'll see the "hockey stick" math again?


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

[nicepants]

Rob doesn't seem to understand the difference between instantaneous values and average values. (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=15861&view=findpost&p=10761304)

Given the fact that the calculations are based on level flight, if you incorporate an initial descent, the G loads required are less, therefore the "pull up" will equal out the reduced G Loading during the descent.

[jaydeehess]

Strictly 2 dimensional
ignores Morin completely
ignores all statements about the aircraft being at tree top level
implies all manner of carp including some type of unknown specialty aircraft

At a 45 degree starboard bank with a 50 foot long wing(from fuselage to each wing) the fuselage would have to be at least 35 feet above the Pentagon. That is 45% higher than the roof of the building.. Odd that somehow no one noticed that the aircraft, which all describe as being low (some saying it was at tree top level, some saying that the (left) wing touched the ground, some who lost sight of it behind trees or embankments,) , was actually half again as high as the roof of the building they state it hit. Many claim it hit the ground floor which would be over 110 feet lower than the lowest possible height in the PfT video path over the building. 110 feet!!

Boger, an experienced air traffic controller certainly would have described a transport type aircraft at a 45 degree or greater bank as being in a steep bank. Same goes for Morin, though they thrown Morin's entire description out the window anyway.

They tell an obvious lie in stating that no one saw a SoC flight path.

PfT just gets worse and worse in their politically driven quest.

However, I do look forward to the technical paper coming soon from Cappy Bobby.

[jaydeehess]

Rob doesn't seem to understand the difference between instantaneous values and average values. (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=15861&view=findpost&p=10761304)

Wow! So a baseball travelling towards home plate at 100 mph getting hit by a baseball bat and then travelling at 100 mph right back at the pitcher experiences no g forces because they just all 'equal out'.:eek:

[A W Smith]

Wow! So a baseball travelling towards home plate at 100 mph getting hit by a baseball bat and then travelling at 100 mph right back at the pitcher experiences no g forces because they just all 'equal out'.:eek:


And a ride in a modern steel roller coaster is comparable to a ride to the 8th green in a golf cart, after all, it all averages out right? i mean the altitude of the platform where you board the roller coaster is the exact same altitude as the platform where you exit the ride, so you should experience no g forces in the vertical plane. THATS what Robbie is claiming.

[16.5]

Ha ha ha!!

I knew it! I knew those fools would one day try to do the math, and in doing destroy CIT and their stupid NOC theory! Oh man, do I enjoy making fools dance for my pleasure...

In so doing they completely threw Morin and Paik and Boger under the bus!

For god's sake they don't even calculate the freaking flight path for the stupid animation they show in the video! Can a brother get a laughing dog!

Here is the CIT 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.

Gee Cap'n Bob, Tino, ya missing something in your video? Remember when TurboFan was in here blabbing about the feet above sea level?

Thanks Tino, thank Cap'n Bob, you proved CIT and Pfft to be incredibly incompetent frauds.

Your pal, incredibly happy detractor, 16.5!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sogKUx_q7ig

[WildCat]

Wow! So a baseball travelling towards home plate at 100 mph getting hit by a baseball bat and then travelling at 100 mph right back at the pitcher experiences no g forces because they just all 'equal out'.:eek:
Isn't The TruthTM amazing!

[~enigma~]

Sort of like the idiot that tried to prove Newton's third was violated and my personal favorite the net force = 0 moron. Same bs in a different animal suit.

[Reheat]

Wow! So a baseball travelling towards home plate at 100 mph getting hit by a baseball bat and then travelling at 100 mph right back at the pitcher experiences no g forces because they just all 'equal out'.:eek:

It's worst than that. He continues to demonstrate that he has no clue regarding acceleration forces on an aircraft.

Perhaps someone who is a better search artist than I, should dig out that very old thread when he was registered here as JDX (I believe) in which he argued with Anti-Sophist about the difference in G forces between a Lear and a B-747. He refuses to learn and is spouting some of the same misconceptions now that he was then....

And to make it worse those idiots over on his Forum suck-up to him as if he knew what he was talking about.....

[WildCat]

Well, so we all agree that this was indeed a wonderful Chrstmas present!

Thank you Cap'n Bob and your little sidekick Tino, for giving the gift of lulz!

[SPreston]

Note that no vertical pull-up was addressed at all throughout the entire charade. There is a good reason for that. I don't need to specify that as most understand that the calculated bank angle and G forces for the point to point flight path must be maintained in order to arrive at the destinated point. G must be added (as all of the witnesses stated that it was at a very low altitude) in order to fly over the building.



Reheat are your comrades throwing you under the bus?

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/P4t_NOC.jpg

What pull-up? Why does the aircraft need to pull-up. The decoy aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex. The Naval Annex is at a higher elevation than the Pentagon. The roof top of the Naval Annex is AT LEAST 100 feet higher than the roof top of the Pentagon which is 77 feet tall.

Come on. Try some common sense here for a change.

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

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

[WildCat]

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/P4t_NOC.jpg

What pull-up? Why does the aircraft need to pull-up.
The aircraft in your little picture will hit the Pentagon if it doesn't pull up. Did you notice that the nose is pitching downward?

Care to try again?

[Reheat]

Come on. Try some common sense here for a change.

Well, if it isn't the "brain trust" of the Ranquisamo gaggle.

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


As if you would recognize common sense if it bit you in the azz!

[SPreston]

I'll leave it to the aeronautical guys to determine if the first equation is the proper one to use in this case.



Mr John Farmer you had better check with Mr Reheat before you risk your new cushy position here with your new compadres.

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

[BCR]

Let's see, almost all of the witnesses describe a descent beyond the Annex and acceleration (throttling up). One, Turcios even says that the plane required a pull-up to avoid hitting a structure on the roadway. Let's get consistent here Preston.

[BCR]

Mr John Farmer you had better check with Mr Reheat before you risk your new cushy position here with your new compadres.


Idiot! The first is a banking angle formula that P4T used and I am deferring to Reheat (aeronautical type) to discuss it. What you don't seem to grasp is that there are aerodynamic issues, and then there are strictly Newtonian physics issues. Forces acting on a body (whether it is a plane, a ball, a car, or a person) are independent of the body acted upon. Gravity pulls on ANY body with the same acceleration (the mass is different, which impacts the force). For every force applied, an equal and opposite force must be applied in order for the vertical net force to equal zero. In the case of a car, the ground exerts this force, in the case of a plane, aerodynamic lift is applied. So the mode of applying the force may differ and have unique characteristics (such as stall, etc) which aeronautical types need to address. However, the force it generates to overcome the force of gravity is a whole different commodity and is governed by Newtonian physics.

You guys really don't have a clue what you are talking about do you?

[16.5]

Reheat are your comrades throwing you under the bus?

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/P4t_NOC.jpg

What pull-up? Why does the aircraft need to pull-up. The decoy aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex. The Naval Annex is at a higher elevation than the Pentagon. The roof top of the Naval Annex is AT LEAST 100 feet higher than the roof top of the Pentagon which is 77 feet tall.

Come on. Try some common sense here for a change.



Spreston, please tell me you are not serious. Your own graphic in your own post clearly shows the descent and pull up!!!

Aldo CLEARLY claims the plane pulled up and over the Pentagon.

Don't you care that PFFT is unable to calculate the claimed flight path?

They are lying to you. Stop being one of the flock and demand an explanation from the mutts at CIT and PFFFt

[twinstead]

Forget math. If they want me to pay attention they'd better have beer.

[16.5]

Mr John Farmer you had better check with Mr Reheat before you risk your new cushy position here with your new compadres.

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


"What pull-up? Why does the aircraft need to pull-up." Uh oh SPreston, you better check with Mr. Marquis before you go calling him a liar:

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 bold sentence is a direct quote from Aldo.

Therefore, you fail.

Thanks SPreston!!!

[double_o]

What pull-up? Why does the aircraft need to pull-up.
That pull-up:
He claims he was on the phone with his sister with his back to the Pentagon at the time of the explosion which would explain why he missed the pull up and flyover.


This means he could not have watched the plane enter as he stated. He has also claimed since day one that he hit the deck so the obvious conclusion here is that he reacted as anyone would and hit the deck as the plane approached headed right towards him and simply missed the pull up.
http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic11.htm

[Bananaman]

It's been said before and obviously needs repeating again to Spreston, NO-ONE WITNESSED A PULL UP OVER THE PENTAGON. It's an insane idea. Yeah, we'll fly a passenger jet at the Pentagon that pulls up at the last minute while a missile or bomb or God knows what goes on underneath. It's so ridiculous it makes anyone who supports the idea look like a twerp. Like Spreston, really

Dear God.

Bananaman.

[Bobert]

Jesus what koolaid are you drinking SPreston?

[BCR]

Okay SPreston, I'll give you "experts" a chance to redeem yourselves and show us that you really do have a clue.

http://aal77.com/jref/centripacc.jpg

In the image above, I did not define fully one aspect of the equation. You will observe that $$ \frac{S}{r} = \frac{at}{v} $$. Why is this a true statement when $$ r_1 = r_2 $$ and $$ v_1 = v_2 $$?

[Mr.Herbert]

Seems a former member here claims that PFT can easily present the math for the Pull up.
I wont mention any names but it rhymes with Turbobanned.

"We can easily show that a pull up (ascent) is well within 757-200 limits
using several examples. The problem is, then they'll cry about the colour
of the grass...or the lack of brain cells they have.

It's all covered in the tech note in any case. We'll wait for them to scream
once we release that."

[WildCat]

The analogy is perfect in the sense that you're asking me to calculate stuff without any data. How stupid are people on this site?

How difficult is it for a plane to fly over the Annex on the north side of Citgo, and pull up over the Pentagon?
Has Turbofraud abandoned his "pull up" theory?

[Reheat]

Seems a former member here claims that PFT can easily present the math for the Pull up.
I wont mention any names but it rhymes with Turbobanned.

"We can easily show that a pull up (ascent) is well within 757-200 limits
using several examples. The problem is, then they'll cry about the colour
of the grass...or the lack of brain cells they have.

It's all covered in the tech note in any case. We'll wait for them to scream
once we release that."

They can show an aircraft rolling inverted and pushing up for all I care.

Where are ALL of their witnesses, yes every single one of them who saw an aircraft traveling sideways at 60 + degrees of bank?

Those shallow bank angles in the cartoon are pure horse manure. All it demonstrates is that they can draw lines on a map and make believe that's some sort of flight path their "witnesses" described. Ranquis has been doing that for over two years. This is more of the same.....

ETA: Have fun with the mental midgets, I've got better things to do....

[Mr.Herbert]

Pilots 4 911 Truth..... Their interpretation of the "Pull Up"

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/PULLUP.jpg

[16.5]

Seems a former member here claims that PFT can easily present the math for the Pull up.
I wont mention any names but it rhymes with Turbobanned.

"We can easily show that a pull up (ascent) is well within 757-200 limits
using several examples. The problem is, then they'll cry about the colour
of the grass...or the lack of brain cells they have.

It's all covered in the tech note in any case. We'll wait for them to scream
once we release that."

Hee hee hee! Turbofan essentially admits within 24 hours that their silly cartoon is BUNK because it does not calculate the pull up!

We got to wait for the technical note which will include a descent and pull up, all while maintaining a 60 degree bank angle! hee hee!

[nicepants]

We got to wait for the technical note which will include a descent and pull up, all while maintaining a 60 degree bank angle! hee hee!

At a 60 degree bank angle...wouldn't that be more of a pull OVER? (More lateral movement than vertical movement)

[BCR]

At a 60 degree bank angle...wouldn't that be more of a pull OVER? (More lateral movement than vertical movement)

I am going to derive the x, y and z components for this fantasy flight this evening (or perhaps tomorrow). We will see how my Newtonian physics vector angles compare with their calculated bank angles. Then I'll leave it to them to calculate the $$ a_z $$ required to pull up or over and what that means to the lift required at such an angle to achieve it. I love math :)

[TheLoneBedouin]

All of the criticisms of the video have been addressed here (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=15861).
If anyone wishes to debate these issues you are welcome to join the discussion.

[UNLoVedRebel]

CIT RANKE

Furthermore the plane DOES NOT have to pass exactly over the alleged impact point.

That is a myth that they made up.

All you're doing is weakening your hypothesis about the witnesses being "fooled." But we all know you have no intention and never did have any intention of actually discussing it.

[jhunter1163]

A minor point I'd like some clarification on.. when I explained the proposed flyover to my ex-father-in-law, who was a B-52 navigator in Vietnam with 55 missions to his credit, he kinda furrowed his brow and said "flying through an explosion like that would take big, round, hairy (rule10)s."

So, to you aeronautical types, what do you think? Could a plane fly through such a blast at maybe 100 feet without taking fatal damage?

[WildCat]

TLB, will the PfffT and the CIT be releasing an animation showing their new flight path where the plane stays on level flight high above the Pentagon in a sharp bank? Because I'm having a hard time seeing how this path provides the illusion necessary to convince anyone that the plane actually hit the Pentagon. I mean, the original version was already well beyond the bounds of credulity but this one is way beyond even that!

[UNLoVedRebel]

We all know the "witnesses were fooled" theory is stupid, and the fact that they were not fooled but actually saw the plane hit the pentagon is self-evident. But why it's even dumber than most people think may not be completely understood. I thought about starting a new thread about it, but figured it wouldn't lead to any scientific discourse but would just lead to a few cheap shots at CIT and it'd die shortly. I read lyte trip's "explanation" of how the witnesses were "fooled." I facepalmed myself so hard I got a concussion.

[BCR]

All of the criticisms of the video have been addressed here (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=15861).
If anyone wishes to debate these issues you are welcome to join the discussion.

No TLB, I do not care to debate in loony land. I will help you guys out with the math here among folks who understand math. I will even solve the bank angle for the descent which you guys did not do for your fantasy flight. Then it is up to you guys to show how Sean Boger was looking down from the helipad tower at the plane and how it suddenly managed to pull up and over the Pentagon during the time interval that he was hitting the floor in the tower.

Besides, P4T don't got latex so that we can talk math :)

[16.5]

All of the criticisms of the video have been addressed here (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=15861).
If anyone wishes to debate these issues you are welcome to join the discussion.

How stupid are you TLB?

THe people on that site are idiots, and Cap'n Bob is a freaking thug.

Cripes, Ranke claims we are moving the goal posts. God, what a half wit. I've been using that same freaking path for eight months.

You guys are idiots.

But thanks for your cartoon!

[Reheat]

A minor point I'd like some clarification on.. when I explained the proposed flyover to my ex-father-in-law, who was a B-52 navigator in Vietnam with 55 missions to his credit, he kinda furrowed his brow and said "flying through an explosion like that would take big, round, hairy (rule10)s."

So, to you aeronautical types, what do you think? Could a plane fly through such a blast at maybe 100 feet without taking fatal damage?

You're ex-father-in-law is absolutely correct. Lots of guys have been killed from their own bomb blast. In fact that very thing happened to a very good friend of mine in Vietnam.

For the level delivery of a 500 # high drag (this is a bomb with either retarding fins "Snake Eye" or the newer versions with a ballute (parachute device) at 200' the minimum airspeed would be 550 Knots or preferably faster. For slightly slower speeds the altitude must be higher. For a non-retarded "slick" 500 # the minimum level delivery would be 1000', 500+ knots. Shrapnel goes a L O N G way. In actual experience, bomb fragments from 500 # have been found over 1 mile from the impact point.

A 2000 # bomb CAN NOT be delivered at low altitude. There are no retarded bombs in this category. I don't remember the blast radius and safe escape criteria, but it is considerably higher that for a 500 #er.

I brought this up in discussions when Lyte Bulb was registered here. Guess what? He hand waved it away by postulating that the explosion was timed for the aircraft to be clear of blast fragments. I believe he also mention a shaped charge that wouldn't have created fragments above the explosion and the visible blast seen on the video was just "Hollywood fireworks".

He has a BS explanation for everything. That's why this FRAUDULENT DELUSION has persisted for so long.

[twinstead]

All of the criticisms of the video have been addressed here (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=15861).
If anyone wishes to debate these issues you are welcome to join the discussion.

Find some real experts who don't think you folks are idiots. I could care less about 'debates' on an internet forum. Ours OR theirs. If the evidence you have is so self-evident then make something happen NOT on the internet.

How much simpler can it get? DO SOMETING ABOUT IT.

[SPreston]

The only plausible flight path that will work IN THE HORIZONTAL is exactly the one that we've seen for over a year. It is the same one that is now being referred to as e^n's flight path.

As I stated above that one is 67.4 degrees of bank, 2.6 G's at 460 knots. That path COMPLETELY ignores Morin. That bank angle and G at that speed MUST be maintained all of the way from Paik's position to impact. That does not account for a pull-up and flyover which would require more G.


Why would e^n or you for that matter require a speed of 460 knots in your example?

Because you are creating a classic strawman argument so you cannot lose?

200 knots would be 370.4 kph (230.1 mph) (337.5 fps)
250 knots would be 463 kph (287.7 mph) (421.9 fps)
300 knots would be 555.6 kph (345.2 mph) (506.3 fps)

The official Flight 77 at 464.9 knots (861 kph) (535 mph) (784.6 fps) never happened. There is no need to use the speed of an aircraft which was not even in Virginia. Correct?

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/banking4.gif

The fraudulent Flight 77 FDR never happened
The faked 84 RADES Data never happened
The C-130 coming up from the southwest shadowing Flight 77 never happened

Incidently is that a F-111 Aardvark as your avatar?

http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/2/8/6/1/42927_1162921168_tb.jpg

[Dog Town]

The fraudulent Flight 77 FDR never happened
The faked 84 RADES Data never happened


Wow Brainiac got something right! Sadly for him, the only fraud belongs to
Capt'n Booby and the lost guides,which he pals around with!


PRICELESS!

[twinstead]

All I want is to be shown is how all those witnesses could possibly be fooled, and why SPreston is allowed to hand wave away any evidence that is contrary to his position as 'faked' with no corroborating evidence and still expect to be taken seriously.

Is that too much to ask?

[SPreston]

Mr John Farmer you had better check with Mr Reheat before you risk your new cushy position here with your new compadres.


Idiot!

The first is a banking angle formula that P4T used and I am deferring to Reheat (aeronautical type) to discuss it.

What you don't seem to grasp is that there are aerodynamic issues, and then there are strictly Newtonian physics issues.

Forces acting on a body (whether it is a plane, a ball, a car, or a person) are independent of the body acted upon.

Gravity pulls on ANY body with the same acceleration (the mass is different, which impacts the force).

However, the force it generates to overcome the force of gravity is a whole different commodity and is governed by Newtonian physics.

You guys really don't have a clue what you are talking about do you?

Why all the anger? What has any of that gibberish to do with my post you quoted? I only suggested you check with Mr Reheat before making a fool of yourself and getting tossed out of your newly found home away from home and subsequently away from all "Truthers". Do you feel safe here?

It wasn't me who deleted all of my files; screwing over thousands of people from both sides of the debate who had linked to your research and photos. Are you proud of yourself? Did it make you feel good getting even with . . . . . . everybody?

[Hokulele]

... why SPreston is allowed to hand wave away any evidence that is contrary to his position as 'faked' with no corroborating evidence and still expect to be taken seriously.


He isn't allowed to. The hand waving really isn't fooling anyone, as can be seen by the overwhelming rejection of this nuttery even by other CTists.

[twinstead]

He isn't allowed to. The hand waving really isn't fooling anyone, as can be seen by the overwhelming rejection of this nuttery even by other CTists.

You're right. I do keep forgetting that these folks are condered idiots by most other truthers as well, akin to the WTC no planers. That's gotta hurt.

[scissorhands]

Its good of SPreston to embed a video of a plane doing a 45 degree and plus bank, just to show how that would have been commented upon by the witnesses at the pentagon.
Thanks SPreston.

[UNLoVedRebel]

CIT RANKE

Furthermore the plane DOES NOT have to pass exactly over the alleged impact point.

That is a myth that they made up.

At http://thepentacon.com/ it shows the plane passing right over the explosion. Go figure.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_274944955711313760.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14698)

(click image)

[WildCat]

At http://thepentacon.com/ it shows the plane passing right over the explosion. Go figure.
I notice there is no banking by the plane in that animation either.

SPreston and TLB, when will CIT be producing a new animation that agrees with the flight path they are claiming currently?

[stateofgrace]

Why all the anger?

:words:



Nobody is angry, that I see. Maybe you could explain to us lurker types why you feel the need to defend people who produce maths that are two dimensional, in a pitiful attempt to describe a three dimension situation.Or maybe not.

Maybe it is because you also side with an "earnest scientist" who does not understand the difference between mass and weight?

Does it not anger you,SP, that you side with fools?

As it not sunk in, yet, that you are being taken for a mug by clueless fools?

PS..


Thanks Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Great presentation. http://209.85.62.24/18/3/0/e51988/e51988.gif


http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/1004475/1/

:dl::dl:

[jhunter1163]

I believe he also mention a shaped charge that wouldn't have created fragments above the explosion and the visible blast seen on the video was just "Hollywood fireworks".

OK, then, the obvious follow-up question is, supposing that the visible blast were "Hollywood pyrotechnics" (i. e. no shrapnel), could a plane withstand that from 100 feet or so? My gut feeling is no, but planes may be more robust than I think.

[Bell]

OK, then, the obvious follow-up question is, supposing that the visible blast were "Hollywood pyrotechnics" (i. e. no shrapnel), could a plane withstand that from 100 feet or so? My gut feeling is no, but planes may be more robust than I think.

I doubt Hollywood gasoline/petrol explosions can cause that much of a damaging shockwave to objects (AA77) 100 feet away from it, when those objects are traveling away from that blast at 535(?) mph.

But Irl, the object (AA77) did not so much as travel away from that blast, but was being PART of the blast.

[Reheat]

OK, then, the obvious follow-up question is, supposing that the visible blast were "Hollywood pyrotechnics" (i. e. no shrapnel), could a plane withstand that from 100 feet or so? My gut feeling is no, but planes may be more robust than I think.

I'm not aware of any experiments that have been done. It would be rather difficult to get anyone to volunteer for that test! :jaw-dropp

[Reheat]

I doubt Hollywood gasoline/petrol explosions can cause that much of a damaging shockwave to objects (AA77) 100 feet away from it, when those objects are traveling away from that blast at 535(?) mph.

But Irl, the object (AA77) did not so much as travel away from that blast, but was being PART of the blast.

You're forgetting that the engines would be ingesting all of the crap that would be in the air.

I fact, I believe there were large chunks of something flying all over the place in the one video we have seen. I would not choose to go through that.

Just as a reminder, Lagasse himself said he picked up aircraft parts quite a distance from the building. Also, pyrotechnics do not blow large chunks in the air above the building or emit oily black smoke. Why are we even discussing this?

[jhunter1163]

You're forgetting that the engines would be ingesting all of the crap that would be in the air.

I fact, I believe there were large chunks of something flying all over the place in the one video we have seen. I would not choose to go through that.

Just as a reminder, Lagasse himself said he picked up aircraft parts quite a distance from the building. Also, pyrotechnics do not blow large chunks in the air above the building or emit oily black smoke. Why are we even discussing this?

That was my feeling too, not so much structural damage as engine damage/failure.

The whole idea is ludicrous; this is just one more level of ludicrosity (if that's a word) that the Ranquisamo boys won't explore because it blows another hole in a theory already riddled with them.

[Bell]

You're forgetting that the engines would be ingesting all of the crap that would be in the air.

I fact, I believe there were large chunks of something flying all over the place in the one video we have seen. I would not choose to go through that.

Just as a reminder, Lagasse himself said he picked up aircraft parts quite a distance from the building. Also, pyrotechnics do not blow large chunks in the air above the building or emit oily black smoke. Why are we even discussing this?

Hollywood pyrotechnics -indeed- don't include such shrapnell to be blown all over the place. As a matter of fact... I just thought of this.. the Pentagon didn't need a fake Hollywood explosion, but a real biga$$ explosion, as to damage the Pentagon in the way we witnessed. Such an explosion would indeed hurtle debris into the air, and toward the plane and it's engines.

And about this discussion... you have PfT to blame for that :)

[BCR]

Why all the anger? What has any of that gibberish to do with my post you quoted? I only suggested you check with Mr Reheat before making a fool of yourself and getting tossed out of your newly found home away from home and subsequently away from all "Truthers". Do you feel safe here?

It wasn't me who deleted all of my files; screwing over thousands of people from both sides of the debate who had linked to your research and photos. Are you proud of yourself? Did it make you feel good getting even with . . . . . . everybody?

No anger here, nothing but love for ya. Stay tuned for future posts where I help your buddies at P4T with their math.

Actually nothing was deleted SPreston. All I did was take 911files.info offline because I was tired of dealing with online security issues and attacks. Boone870 was the first to notice, the same thing happened with AAL77.COM recently. It was php based as well and I had to convert it to html to get it back up. I simply decided to use JREF for commentary because it is professionally managed and secure. If there is any file you desire and cannot locate, let me know and I'll supply it for you.

Now how about answering my question from an earlier post.


In the image above, I did not define fully one aspect of the equation. You will observe that $$ \frac{S}{r} = \frac{at}{v} $$. Why is this a true statement when $$ r_1 = r_2 $$ and $$ v_1 = v_2 $$?

[A W Smith]

corroborated witnesses while you hand wave off physical evidence ?

OK then address this

from http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html

Steve Anderson

Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.


Treetop level equates to the height of the Pentagon? Those are pretty tall trees. If it looked like it dragged its wing along the ground. well then it would have to pull up to clear the Pentagon for a flyover, You need to address this and address it NOW or concede.


Lt. Col. Stuart Artman


"I saw the plane that hit the Pentagon. It went behind some trees."


Behind the trees planted on the roof of the Pentagon?


David Battle

standing outside the Pentagon just about to enter

"It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking."



SPreston, maybe it flew UNDER the pentagon? how does a plane "coming down head first" avoid plowing into the Pentagon? Perhaps you can show us one of your animated gifs with this nose down pull up maneuver?
address this or concede.


Richard Benedetto

"I heard an airplane. A very loud airplane. ... I heard the airplane coming from behind me. ... So I looked up, and I saw this airplane coming, heading straight down toward the ground. It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly. ... The plane went down and for a split second it was out of my line of vision because there was a bridge there and a hill. ... I didn't actually see the impact... I didn't see any flaps, it looked like the plane was just in a normal flying mode but heading straight down, sharply down. It was straight. No flopping. It was going pretty straight. ... The only thing we saw on the ground outside there was a piece of a - the tail of a lamp post."



A sharply down pull up? Gotcha.

Sean Boger

"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building. It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."


He "watched it hit the building"


James R. Cissell

''Out of my peripheral vision, I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower. ''If you couldn't touch it from standing on the highway, you could by standing on your car.'' ''I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' Cissell said. ''I remember thinking, 'The World Trade Center was just the beginning, there's going to be more.' '' He remembers the helipad the plane flew over before smacking into the Pentagon was close enough to him that ''I could have thrown a baseball at it and hit it.'' While he remembers seeing the crash, Cissell remembers none of the sounds. ''It came in in a perfectly straight line,'' he said. ''It didn't slow down. I want to say it accelerated. It just shot straight in.''


You could touch the plane by standing on your car as it pulled up over a seven story building? really?


Dennis Clem

"There was a commercial airliner that said American Airliners over the side of it flying at just above treetop height at full speed headed for the Pentagon."



Multiple choice question SPreston

Full Speed would be what?
A) 200 knots would be 370.4 kph (230.1 mph) (337.5 fps)
B) 250 knots would be 463 kph (287.7 mph) (421.9 fps)
C) 300 knots would be 555.6 kph (345.2 mph) (506.3 fps)
D) 464.9 knots (861 kph) (535 mph) (784.6 fps)


Dan Creed

"It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point. I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up."



Screaming at 230 mph SPreston?


Bobby Eberle

We set out in the car and immediately turned on the news radio to follow what was happening in New York City. After fifteen minutes into our trip, a new report came over the radio stating that a second aircraft (another passenger airliner) had struck the World Trade Center. ... As we slowly crept along in traffic at about 9:30 am, we rounded a bend and had the Pentagon in our sites -- right in front of us. ... Riding in a convertable with the top down, I then heard a tremendously loud noise from behind me and to my left. I looked back and saw a jet airliner flying very low and very fast. It's amazing what can run through your mind in just a matter of seconds. As a pilot, I can't help but look at an airplane and think about airplane topics. What I saw sent a shiver down my spine as I realized something was not right. The aircraft was so very low -- as an aircraft would be on its final approach to an airport. However, if you have watched any aircraft come in for a landing, even though the aircraft is descending, it is angled up slightly. This aircraft was angled downward. In addition, landing gear would also be visible on a aircraft so low and so near landing. This aircraft had its landing gear retracted. Finally, an aircraft on final approach is traveling rather slowly. This aircraft sped by very loudly an very quickly. All of this flashed in my mind as the aircraft passed from behind my left shoulder to in front of me. It was then that the other events of the morning crystallized in the realization that tragedy was about to occur. With all of these images spinning in my head, the only words that came out of my mouth were "Oh no!" With that, the airliner crashed into the Pentagon and exploded.


Another angled downward high speed "pull up"


Albert Hemphill

Having just witnessed the CNN coverage of New York" "with a head full of the horror in New York, I walked in the office and stood peering out of the window looking at the Pentagon. ... As I stood there, I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up. Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon. The aircraft was moving fast, at what I could only be estimate as between 250 to 300 knots. All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for approximately 3 seconds. The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack, on a direct course for the Pentagon. It was "clean", in as much as, there were no flaps applied and no apparent landing gear deployed. He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo, tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5. What instantly followed was a large yellow fireball accompanied by an extremely bass sounding, deep thunderous boom. The yellow fireball rose quickly as black smoke engulfed the entire Westside of the Pentagon, obscuring the whole of the heliport. I could feel the concussion and felt the shockwave of the blast impact the window of the Annex, knocking me against the desk.


Sharp downward angle of a pull up??


Michael James

"The plane came over the top of us and brushed the trees. Then it looked like it hit the helicopter pad and skipped up and went right into the first and second floors."




looked like it Hit the helicopter pad and pulled up? over the Pentagon?


D.S. Khavkin

We were watching the events unfolding on TV in New York. Then, at about 9:40 am Eastern Daylight Time, my husband and I heard an aircraft directly overhead. At first, we thought it was the jets that sometimes fly overhead. However, it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft. The engine was at full throttle.
First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon and crashed on the lawn near the west side the Pentagon. A huge fireball exploded with thick black smoke."


Crashed on the lawn? thats some pretty special hollywood pull up effects SPreston.


Mary Lyman

"I was driving northbound to work in the District on I-395 when the Pentagon was hit. I actually saw the plane in front of me, coming in at a very steep angle toward the ground and going fast -- I think I actually heard it accelerate -- and then it disappeared and a cloud of smoke started billowing."


another steep angle toward the ground pull up??


David Marra

he saw an American Airlines jet swooping in, its wings wobbly, looking like it was going to slam right into the Pentagon: "It was 50 ft. off the deck when he came in. It sounded like the pilot had the throttle completely floored. The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground." There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building.



It touched and cartwheeled right over the building to continue on and land at Reagan, isn't that correct SPreston?


Stephen McGraw

"The traffic was very slow moving, and at one point just about at a standstill." "I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. I saw it crash into the building," he said. "My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression," he said. "I hadn't heard about the World Trade Center at that point, and so I was thinking this was an accident. I figured it was just an accident. There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows."


At 20 foot over his car. then it pulled up?


Mitch Mitchell
Ret. Army Col

Just as we got even with the Pentagon, I looked out to the front and saw, coming straight down the road at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American Airlines written on it, and it looked like it was coming in to hit us. I told my wife, 'It's going to hit the Pentagon.' It crossed about 100 feet in front of us and at about 20 feet altitude and we watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon, and there was no indication whatever that it was doing anything other than performing a direct attack on that building. The landing gear was up. There were no flaps down and it looked like a deadly missile on the final phase of its mission into the building."
"We saw what I estimate to be about the last seven seconds of the flight. It was a straight-in flight, angled slightly down, and there was--there was no intent to turn or to maneuver in any way. It was headed straight for its target and we were helpless to do anything about it but watch."


How does the plane avoid crashing directly into the pentagon when none of the witness statements above describe any evasive maneuver?

I can keep going but I think we have blown CIT and PFT out of the water and exposed them and their fans for the lying frauds and fools they are.

[TjW]

A minor point I'd like some clarification on.. when I explained the proposed flyover to my ex-father-in-law, who was a B-52 navigator in Vietnam with 55 missions to his credit, he kinda furrowed his brow and said "flying through an explosion like that would take big, round, hairy (rule10)s."

So, to you aeronautical types, what do you think? Could a plane fly through such a blast at maybe 100 feet without taking fatal damage?

Assuming for the sake of argument it could survive, there would be a difficulty in disguising the wingtip vortices, which would swirl the smoke from the explosion.

This is a link to a picture on NASA of an ag-plane flying over a smoke cannister. (http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/larc90_gallery/hi-resjpgs/1.jpg)
An airliner pulling high gee would generate enormous vortices, because it's generating a lot of lift.


ETA: And it wouldn't really matter if the airplane had already gone by at the time the smoke was emitted. The vortices don't dissipate for several minutes. This is the main reason for the minimum time separation of heavy jets from lighter aircraft when taking off or landing.

No vortices in the smoke? No airplane went through there.

[Reheat]

No vortices in the smoke? No airplane went through there.

Outstanding point. I don't recall that being mentioned previously, but it is very, very valid. As if there is not enough already!:rolleyes:

[Dog Town]

Outstanding point. I don't recall that being mentioned previously...

IIRC, R.Pickering, or another less crazy twoofer, posed this to Alldough,and Lyte of Brains, moons ago. Hand waving, followed by names like shill etc...
It was all they could muster, while doing the Forrest Gump, per usual!

[WildCat]

Well, as we all know, NWO planes don't leave wake vortices.

[16.5]

All of the criticisms of the video have been addressed here (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=15861).
If anyone wishes to debate these issues you are welcome to join the discussion.

By the way, having wandered over to Pfft today, I can say that I really feel welcome there. Nice pinned threads threatening to out anyone who points out the outrageous flaws in their reasoning.

Could Cap'n Rob be any more of an incompetent thug?

Now get busy on the real math for the CIT flight path, boyos!

[BCR]

I thought I would go over the P4T arithmetic to verify their unit conversions and use of the equations.

http://aal77.com/jref/p4tarith.jpg

I came up with the same values for bank angle, but slightly lower g-force values. I suspect it is in the conversion factors used. I used 6076.1 feet per nautical mile and 32.2 ft/s2 for g.

You are welcome Rob :)

[16.5]

Craig says:

"We no longer believe the plane was exactly over the impact point due to the ANC witnesses and Roosevelt Roberts' account."

Translation: we know that we can't calculate the path we claim, so now we change the path again.

Uh, and all that stuff about the Hollywood special effect? Yeah, forget about that.

And Boger? Yeah, forget about him too.

He's under the bus with Morin.

Giggle!

[UNLoVedRebel]

If he doesn't believe the plane flew over the impact spot, then he might want to change the graphic on his website.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_274944955d02dd6832.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14699)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/274944955d02dd6832.gif