Pilots For 9/11 Truth Present Their Math

[jhunter1163]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...77650819981509

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, !!

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

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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

This ought'a be good!

[UNLoVedRebel]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...77650819981509

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 post

[UNLoVedRebel]

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

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by WildCat

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

Originally Posted by Reheat

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

I called that one too.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...5&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....

Quote:

....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? See, nothing happened. The pfffft cartoon still sucks.

[BCR]

I see they begin with "facts"

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.



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.




YOU get an F


Tinos "ride" unpimped

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[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]

Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin

Here's the link to the presentation 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").

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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:



At the heart of the equation is the following:



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.



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.



is a vector which is three dimensional. To solve for g-forces, each component, , and 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

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by Bobert

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

Quote:

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?

Originally Posted by Dog Town

From Capt'n Booby and the lost guides:

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by dtugg

Thanks Ranquisamo (did I invent that one?)!

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

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

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]

Originally Posted by 911files

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?

[nicepants]

Rob doesn't seem to understand the difference between instantaneous values and average values.

Originally Posted by Rob

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]

Originally Posted by nicepants

Rob doesn't seem to understand the difference between instantaneous values and average values.

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'.

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

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'.

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]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

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'.

Isn't The Truth^TM 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]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

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'.

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]

Originally Posted by Reheat

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?



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.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by SPreston

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]

Originally Posted by SPreston

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

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




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

[SPreston]

Originally Posted by 911files

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.

[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.