Pilots For 9/11 Truth Present Their Math

[jhunter1163]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Of course she lied! She's military, she worked IN THE PENTAGON!

Actually, she's retired and moved on to a civilian career of suing people to try and get money.

[Bell]

Originally Posted by SPreston

No. Not necessarily a mistake. The FBI was on-site primed to grab all videos and cameras.

You have evidence for this?

Quote:

The light poles were scripted with the taxi and driver.

You have evidence for this?

Quote:

Scripted media witnesses were ready to go.

You have evidence for this?

Quote:

Explosives were ready in the construction trailers at the wall and inside.

You have evidence for this?

Quote:

Perhaps the NOC decoy aircraft flew exactly where planned. Perhaps not.

A real aircraft impact into the Pentagon would be too risky. It might have crashed and burned before it got there. Worse, it might have accidentally crashed into the roof and killed thousands; maybe even poor Rummy snoozing at his desk.

So, if it was so risky (even a NoC flightpad) then why was Rumsfeld even in the building? Also, why would the government be bothered by a few thousands death more? It didn't bother them in New York.

Quote:

Actually hitting the five 337 pound light poles likely would have sheared off the wings, dropping the aircraft on the lawn short of the wall.

Those lightpoles break even when a car hits them. A CAR!

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/04/large_krash.jpg

Quote:

Of course Hani Hanjour could not have flown a 757 like a fighter jet.

Who says he did?

Quote:

Too risky; the aircraft likely would not have penetrated the wall and destroyed the targeted personnel and records. If it totally missed the first time, would the public buy a go-around without fighter intervention? Not too bloody likely.

Please provide the math that shows a 757 at +500 mph can not penetrate the wall.

Quote:

Planted explosives were much more reliable. Easily brought in and hidden in a long-term construction site. Their damage radius and kill-zones are well known through years of experience. Military personnel who might witness something are easy to gag and transfer. Order them to lie; except April Gallop refused to lie, didn't she?

What about ATC, NORAD, AA, FBI, CIA, PD, FD and many more agencies that where part of the conspiracy, or must have witnessed that things were not as they were told they were. Where are those wisthle blowers?

Quote:

Simulate the aircraft and safely do the deed with explosives, and BS the American public with Mainstream News Media disinfo agents. It had always worked just fine before.

So in the end this is your theory: the Pentagon was attacked so some records could be destroyed.

[dtugg]

Didn't Gallop settle with American Airlines? Why, in your expert opinion, SPreston, would she do this their jet didn't hit the Pentagon?

[jhunter1163]

Wisdom from the Goddess of Legaltainment™ regarding Ms. Gallop:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...70#post4281470

Anyway, back OT, can someone sum up the attempted "rebuttals" of 911files' work? I have a low tolerance for crazy this morning.

As an aside, it seems to me that PfffT and Ranquisamo would have been better served keeping Farmer on their side. The guy does fantastic work.

[Mr.Herbert]

Quote:

Too risky; the aircraft likely would not have penetrated the wall and destroyed the targeted personnel and records. If it totally missed the first time, would the public buy a go-around without fighter intervention? Not too bloody likely.

Quote:

Planted explosives were much more reliable. Easily brought in and hidden in a long-term construction site. Their damage radius and kill-zones are well known through years of experience. Military personnel who might witness something are easy to gag and transfer. Order them to lie; except April Gallop refused to lie, didn't she?

SPreston... really? You are saying this specific area was targeted to kill certain officials and destroy specific documentation?

So, in the middle of a major renovation where CIVILIAN contractors are working...massive bombs were planted inside the walls and construction trailers covertly?

You think this is easier than using, say,.... a paper shredder?

Go ask Craig when he is interviewing the civilian contractors that were there that day. DARE him to accuse them of being involved in this massive military deception.


in addition to the ridiculousness of your posts, I would like to add that you seem to repeat yourself and posting the same pictures over and over. This could be a sign of Tardive dyskinesia. This is a common side affect from using anti-psychotic medication.

Perhaps TAM here can assist you in a new medication?

[chillzero]

If you don't keep it civil, it will be closed.

Posted By:chillzero

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by SPreston

They screwed up didn't they, and after the eyewitnesses were revealed to the world; it was much much too late to silence them because they were on videotape and residing on hard drives all over the nation. Big booboo, huh?

Revealed to the world?! Are you kidding me? You guys absolutely REFUSE to present your information to the outside world. Again, go to the Washington Post, the Bush-hating New York Times or any law enforcement agency in the world.

Make free CDs and hand them out on the street. Take out ads in newspapers. Drop flyers from overpasses. Isn't the Pulitizer Prize waiting for you? Why continue to delay President Obama presenting you guys with Presidential Medal of Freedom? What are you waiting for? Why the delay?

[Mangoose]

This is what I don't get.

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

So how does that square with the graphic they and their lackeys use?



The lines converge onto the same point that the "official south path" converges on, don't they?

[Senenmut]

911 files-
did you go and talk with the hotel employees where the employees were watching the video of the plane hitting the pentagon. i remember reading about that somewhere, maybe in your lawsuit you posted somwhere. I was just wondering what they said to ya? are the employees under orders not to talk?

[SPreston]

Originally Posted by 911files

Now SPreston, you obviously were not paying attention. I just derived the same equation your P4T buddies used with simple Newtonian physics. If you prefer to use cheat sheets, then be my guest, but I prefer to derive the equation myself so that I have a grasp of what the equation means. So if without using the cheat sheet, I get the same result as the cheat sheet, then you might want to pay closer attention.

Farmer, perhaps you should be using cheat sheets, because your math is very wrong.

Your G loads are wrong. Google "Load Factor chart" under google images. Its the same for all types.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by SPreston

Farmer, perhaps you should be using cheat sheets, because your math is very wrong.Your G loads are wrong. Google "Load Factor chart" under google images. Its the same for all types.

Care to expand on this? So far his work looks right to me (I will admit that it's been years since I studied this).
please explain and make your case.

[dtugg]

SPreston, please, please show me the math for this one:



I mean, it must be possible, otherwise, why would Ranquisamo (I assume that is where it came from) pimp it out?

[jaydeehess]

Quote:

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. Get it? Probably not...

Quote:

"equal out" means to the same level altitude. Since the Annex is higher than the pentagon, the G loads required to pull out of the dive will be equal to (but opposite) the G loads reduced due to the descent from the Annex.

Cappy Bobby is stating that the difference of the lesser g force encountered due to desent will be equal and opposite to the increase in g force during a climb out. Too bad he is so challenged in getting his point accross.(explains why he refuses to produce a consise technical paper outlining how the FDR data illustrates a grossly different flight path than the downed lamp posts do)

The g forces they calculated for their level flight (which incidentally would put the aircraft twice as high as the Pentagon roof as it flew over with its wings banked to 45 degrees or so) were strictly in the horizontal. Desent/ascent g forces would be in the vertical plane, total g forces would be the vector sum of both.

Standing still we experience a 1 g acelleration straight down(90 below horizontal)
Note: below I use numbers picked simply to illustrate the point.

In level flight a lateral force of 1 g combined with a vertical(due to gravity alone) g force of 1 g will result in the airframe experiencing a 1.41g force in a direction 45 degrees below the horizontal.{ inv_sine(1/1.141)=45 deg} pulling down and to the center of the turn

A desent would cause a reduction in the normal 1 g experienced due to gravity. A desent of half the acelleration of gravity would result in the airframe experiencing that 1 g lateral force due to the same turn with only 0.5 g vertical and the vector sum would be 1.11 g, 27 degrees below the horizontal.{ inv_sine(0.5/1.11)=27 degrees}pulling down and to the center of the turn

In an ascent of 0.5 g vertical force we now have 1 g lateral and 1.5 g vertical (adding in gravity) we get an total force of 1.8 get an angle of {in_sine(1.5/1.8)=56 degrees above the horizontal. This would be felt as pulling up and to the center of the turn

So the plane would go from 1.141 g to 1.11 g then to 1.8 g and if the desent and ascent lasted equal time then the plane would end up at the same altitude where it began.
That is what Cappy Bobby is trying to say.

BTW, I see that I have a title at PfT. I am the "resident circular logic GL ".

[chillzero]

*sigh* Off topic postys also remove. Chillzero had other things to attend to. Chillzero is not the only mod. You don't help an off topic drift by waffling on about it being off topic. Not sure how often I'll need to keep repeating this. Now, keep it civil, and on topic.

Posted By:CHILLZERO

[jhunter1163]

I wonder how Morin is liking it there under the bus. The guy is obviously a trained observer, and gave a detailed report of what he saw. For a while there Ranquisamo were hailing him as "the smoking gun". But now, since his observations are extremely inconvenient to their *snicker* "math", they've forgotten all about him.

Such is the life of a Twoofy icon.

[jaydeehess]

This thread is supposed to be about the math presented by PfT. However PfT first presented a web page with math for a flight path that they dragged up putting the aircraft flying over the VDOT tower. That math was shown to be in gross error by Reheat and Mackey. PfT then complained that this was bogus because the flight path does not line up with the FDR data. A clear case of setting a goal post then moving it when it is inconvienient.

In the latest case they were tasked with showing the math for a flight path that would satify the eyewitness accounts. This they have accomplished by ignoring some eyewitness accounts completely, to the point of denying some of them even exist(nothing exists unless the CiT 'confirmed' it) and grossly rewriting details given by others, most notably Morin's but also Boger, Paik, Brooks, Lagasse and Turcois.

The plane was described as being over Morin and parallel to Columbia Pike whereas the range of flight paths shown never has the plane in a position by which Morin would be describing it that way.

Boger states clearly that he saw it hit the Pentagon and he was a mere several dozen feet from the port wing of the aircraft.

Paik points to the direction the plane went which corressponds to where morin says he saw it coming from and not along the path he drew of the Navy Annex which he(Paik) could not see from his location. Paik also states he thought it had clipped the VDOT tower.

Brooks, Lagasse, and Turcois all describe a very low, very fast passage of the aircraft and many describe the sound as having the engines at high throttle.

So whereas the math they present does seem to be accurate for the path they used, the path does not corresspond to the path described by their witnesses. Turcois states that the plane was no longer visible to him because it was below his line of sight beyond the embankment/roadway, many many others describe 'tree top' level or only a few dozen feet agl as it passed them.

PfT then needs to show that the aircraft can not only perform the turn but while doing so also perform a pull up and over from an altitude of say 45 feet agl as it passes over the highway
AND most importantly,
the CiT must show how such a manouver can be hidden from the view of every single solitary onlooker to the degree that some actually believed that the aircraft not only hit the Pentagon but that it hit the lower floors.

[Mr.Herbert]

It really doesn't matter what Capt. Bob posts on his site or on Youtube. He is nothing. His fantasy is a joke. I took a couple screen shots on Youtube. One was of his most watched video:




been posted for two years...

Now, we look at Lola... she has been up for the same amount of time.




Yeah Captain... you are making a huge difference in the world.

[jaydeehess]

I'd like to know how a 45 degree bank angle does not appear to be illustrated in any of the animations of the aircraft in the new video. Too inconvenient perhaps.

Also inconvenient was Morin's statements. Odd thing is that their reasoning for throwing out Morin's statements are that one cannot expect all eyewitnesses to be accurate. Morin has more experience than many other of their own eyewitnesses and was much closer to the aircraft than were the ANC witnesses who's description of the flight path as being over the annex Craig accepts over Morin who states otherwise.

Even more inconvenient was Boger's description of the plane actually hitting the Pentagon, of Lagasse's statement that the plane hit the Pentagon, Brooks' statement that the plane hit the Pentagon, none of whom were surprised that it hit a lower floor rather than an upper floor, none of whom noticed that it was 150% - 200% higher than the roof of the Pentagon(as PfT now asserts) It does have to be at least 145% higher than the roof height as it is at a bank of 45 degrees, supposedly, and one does not want that starboard wing dragging along the roof.

Why don't we move discussions about lamp posts to a separate thread if SPreston cannot comment on the math?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by SPreston

SPreston, when will your heroes at CIT and PfffT create an animation showing their new flight path, the one where the plane maintains level flight high over the Pentagon and banking sharply?

You keep ignoring this question for some reasson, is it because they realize how their new flight path (the old one had a descent and a pull up) has absolutely no chance of fooling anyone from any angle? Or is it because they are frauds and are deliberately trying to deceive?

[BCR]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

911 files-
did you go and talk with the hotel employees where the employees were watching the video of the plane hitting the pentagon. i remember reading about that somewhere, maybe in your lawsuit you posted somwhere. I was just wondering what they said to ya? are the employees under orders not to talk?

I visited a number of hotels, but I did not find anyone who mentioned watching the video. The Doubletree refused to comment on their video and the Sheraton folks were informed not to talk by their management. None-the-less, some Sheraton staffers did indicate that the FBI visited and took their video. Ft Myer (behind the Sheraton) also reported (officially) that the FBI made a stop by their location but did not take theirs since they had no sky coverage (unfortunately they did not save their videos). I did challenge the FBI with the Sheraton employee testimony and on appeal they did another search for it, but concluded recently that they can't find it. So, your guess is as good as mine on this one.

Originally Posted by SPreston

Farmer, perhaps you should be using cheat sheets, because your math is very wrong.

Your G loads are wrong. Google "Load Factor chart" under google images. Its the same for all types.

Oh my, I simply used the same formula that Rob used to prove the "official path" impossible. Are you saying Rob used the wrong equation

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

Quote:

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.

I thought the point of the plane flying over the impact point was so that it would be concealed by the rising fireball. If the plane didn't actually fly over the impact point, then... umm... wouldn't it have been more obvious (as if that's possible) to anyone looking toward the Pentagon?

[16.5]

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

I thought the point of the plane flying over the impact point was so that it would be concealed by the rising fireball. If the plane didn't actually fly over the impact point, then... umm... wouldn't it have been more obvious (as if that's possible) to anyone looking toward the Pentagon?

Of course! That is why I had my doubts that they would actually ever try the math. Of course, I discounted what an egomaniac Cp'n Rob is, and we goaded him into doing it.

The fools didn't realize that for any path that is remotely workable, they have to throw a bunch of their witnesses under the bus. They seem content to do that, so now we crawl back through their old posts, their old articles, and count the times they changed their stories.

Cripes, you can play Cap'n Bob, CIT and sheep like a freaking piano... dance dunces, DANCE!!

/I do note that they lie we never asked for the pull up calculation. Dear god, how sad. I would bet that I posted the "official" CIT path (i.e. 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.) at least 100 times.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

Anyway, back OT, can someone sum up the attempted "rebuttals" of 911files' work? I have a low tolerance for crazy this morning.

No problem!

Originally Posted by Rob Balsamo et al

Waaaahhh! Waaaahhhhh! Waaaaaahhhh! John Farmer sucks! He's a traitor! Waaaaah! Waaaaaaah!

Etc etc....

[bje]

Originally Posted by SPreston

What pull-up? Why does the aircraft need to pull-up.

Did your conveniently forget Cap'n Bob's "cockpit view" animation that jthomas educated you on at ATS, dear one?

Surely you remember this:

[BCR]

Originally Posted by WildCat

No problem!

Etc etc....

I don't go to their website, but I would think that they would appreciate my posts verifying the equations they are using and showing them the vector components that go into them. So far, all I have done is back up their math assuming the perfect circle, zero-change acceleration and altitude. Of course, I'm getting ready to take their "eyewitness" flight path to the next level using the same vector components and that should get real interesting.

I think SPreston also fails to understand that all I have done is verify Reheat's special case curved path. Unfortunately, they seem to lack the math background to understand that Reheat and I are saying the same thing. Oh well, keep me posted if they come up with any interesting math.

[16.5]

"Please provide the data points for the above quote based on witness statements. Show your references and reasons for your points."

Why ya asking me? Ask CIT it's their stupid path.

Oh OK: all "data points" are taken directly from the Pentacon dot com. tell me which ones you can't find.

Ta ta pfffttt

[Bell]

Originally Posted by bje

Did your conveniently forget Cap'n Bob's "cockpit view" animation that jthomas educated you on at ATS, dear one?

Surely you remember this:

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t...LargeExp-1.jpg

You should have posted that picture in post #2. Then the rest of this thread wasn't needed.

Did PfT/CIT respond to that picture? (Asuming you posted it to them before.)

[jhunter1163]

Terry Morin says:

Quote:

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

Do you see that, SPreston? Morin was not in between the wings where your heroes Ranquisamo place him. They only place him in there because that's the only way they can have even a remotely plausible flightpath.

If they include Morin, the plane would have had to make almost a 90-degree left turn beyond the Navy Annex to get north of the Citgo and over the ANC parking lot. There aren't many planes that can make 90-degree turns at 500+ mph.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by SPreston

No. Not necessarily a mistake. The FBI was on-site primed to grab all videos and cameras. The light poles were scripted with the taxi and driver. Scripted media witnesses were ready to go. Explosives were ready in the construction trailers at the wall and inside. Perhaps the NOC decoy aircraft flew exactly where planned. Perhaps not.

Then if it was not a mistake it was sheer idiocy to have it fly along a flight path grossly differing from the one you wished to show it flew. If there was a good reason (though Gawd knows what it would be) for the specific path of damage to be what it was then it would be olligical in the extreme to arrange a supposed 'decoy' to fly a completely different path.

Quote:

A real aircraft impact into the Pentagon would be too risky. It might have crashed and burned before it got there. Worse, it might have accidentally crashed into the roof and killed thousands; maybe even poor Rummy snoozing at his desk.

Yeah but dropping a bomb from an aircraft always hits the exact mark right SP? Nope! If Rummy knew in advance that the Pentagon would be hit he would have to have a martyrdom complex to remain anywhere near the hit.

As mentioned above just what would the supposed perpetrators care for more casualties? They already killed thousands at in Manhattan. This line of thoughtt reminds me of the excuse for it taking 7 hours to down WTC 7, that the perps did not want to kill too many people.

Quote:

Actually hitting the five 337 pound light poles likely would have sheared off the wings, dropping the aircraft on the lawn short of the wall.

Unadulterated horse-puck. Those lamp posts would rob the aircraft of little in the way of momentum and in that they are designed to break off even when hit close to the ground, would basically only dent the wing. Perhaps if the very wing tip area impacted the post 10 feet from the top it might cut through the wing but any impact closer to the wing root certainly would not.

Quote:

Of course Hani Hanjour could not have flown a 757 like a fighter jet.

A two minute 270 degree turn? What nation's fighter pilots are you using as comaprison? Zimbabwe?

Quote:

Too risky; the aircraft likely would not have penetrated the wall and destroyed the targeted personnel and records.

Oh please!!!!!!! Yeah it shopuld have folded up on itself and crumpled to the lawn like a cartoon villian. Please as requested above, supply some physics to bolster this ridiculous claim.

I

Quote:

f it totally missed the first time, would the public buy a go-around without fighter intervention? Not too bloody likely.

Actually had Hanjour crashed and burned, tumbling down columbia Pike it would still count as a success for the terrorists. Had the USAF shot him out of the sky it would still count as a success for the terrorists and even flight 93 which dug a hole in an uninhabited feild in Penn. was a partial success as far as the terrorists were concerned.

Quote:

Planted explosives were much more reliable. Easily brought in and hidden in a long-term construction site.

Right ! I am sure its very easy to get explosives to a construction trailer at the Pentagon without anyone not in-on-it noticing.

Quote:

Military personnel who might witness something are easy to gag and transfer.

Right , so Sargent X sees this and notifies a security officer who then investigates and calls in others to check it out. Now I would think the discovery of a bomb at the Pentagon would be quite a security event. No need to get permission from higher ups to dispose of it. So you now have a whole contingent of lower ranks who know about this. But according to you all that one needs to do is transfer them out.

Quote:

Their damage radius and kill-zones are well known through years of experience.

Obviously these bombs were not inside the Pentagon since that 90-100 feet of missing ground floor wall did not get thrown out onto the lawn. Bombs typically throw debris outward yet the gen-set moved towards the building. That would indicate that the bombs were outside the walls but there is no indication of a crater in front of the Pentagon. If the bombs were in the construction trailers themselves then it quite strange that the trailers survived. Also strange is the reels that did not move.
however if a fast moving object clipped the gen-set and missed the reels it would satisfy the observations of those objects and explain why the missing front wall did not blow outward to the lawn.

Quote:

Order them to lie;

That would constitute an illegal order and would not have to be followed

Quote:

except April Gallop refused to lie, didn't she? Simulate the aircraft and safely do the deed with explosives, and BS the American public with Mainstream News Media disinfo agents. It had always worked just fine before.

Odd then that she originally sued saying that she should have been warned about a terrorist plot to target the building she was in. If April can decide on just one story then it would go a long way to establishing that she does not simply lie when it is convenient.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by bje

Did your conveniently forget Cap'n Bob's "cockpit view" animation that jthomas educated you on at ATS, dear one?

Surely you remember this:

Actually that's a good set of illustrations. Cappy Bobby now has the plane also being in a 30-50 degree bank while flying over the Pentagon so let's imaging the center and lower photos with the wings banked 45 degrees. Now let's imagine what this would look like to Boger. The plane is flying wings banked 45 degrees and the height of the aircraft is 145% the height of the Pentagon behind Boger. Would he really believe that the plane is heading right at him? just when does the CiT believe he ducked? Obviously not when Boger says he did(after impact).

[Bobert]

Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin

All of the criticisms of the video have been addressed here.
If anyone wishes to debate these issues you are welcome to join the discussion.

Sorry bud but Captain Retardo has already threatened that he was going to release pictures, addresses, phone numbers so why would anyone want to engage in a discussion with the PFT psychos?

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Bobert

Sorry bud but Captain Retardo has already threatened that he was going to release pictures, addresses, phone numbers so why would anyone want to engage in a discussion with the PFT psychos?

Somehow I don't believe LB means that we are all invited to join the discussion. Those of us who were banned might not be 'welcomed'.

You also make a good point. I do not need Cappy Bobby telling all his 'associates' where I live or my full name.

,,,,,, and PfT wonders why they get no respect from the media and the organizations with the recognized expertise to comment on their FDR conclusions.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by SPreston

... Order them to lie;...

Ordered to lie? That is pure junk, pure stupid, a big fat lie. How dumb do your ideas have to be to fool people who have no clue? That is classic dumb stuff. Good job!

This is your support of Balsamo's failed flight path? Balsamo has to shave the path to right over the CITGO station and has to abandon all witness paths so he can make an impossible path still based on bank angle alone.

When you to back to the pit of ignorance known as p4tf, remind them of the following:

Paik puts Fight 77 right next to the VDOT pole. But then Balsamo has the flight path straighten out to do the 55 degrees of bank never seen by anyone on 9/11. Tell Balsamo his path has to go over the VDOT pole, or he is a liar.

Wait, Balsamo has to slow down 77 to make he lie work. Wait, he has no theory, so it is an implied lie, he is too challenged to make a stand on anything, he lets other people buy his lies and repeat the things he can’t say. How stupid is he? Balsamo makes up the non-path, but says he has no clue what it really was? So his non-path, non-theory lie does not match the shallow bank all the witnesses saw. Oops.

Tell the truther world the bank in the last seconds was under 10 degree proven with the FDR and verified by witness statements unless you are CIT (citizen idiot team). Verified. CIT uses that, but they fail to use evidence. They have to make up junk ideas.

The whole non-path p4t terrorist apologist efforts are doomed by Boger, who saw 77 impact the Pentagon in a shallow bank. As all witnesses saw. So there are only bank angles less than 10 degrees in the last seconds before impact. Darn, there goes Balsamo’s attempt at a possible flight path. Darn, defeated by stupid (I mean lack of logic stupid).

757 can go over 350 KCAS, I have flown Boeing heavy jets with a speed limit of 350 KCAS, but I exceeded the limit, as other pilots have in Boeing jets to live to fly another day, we must of been better than the terrorist who crashed their jets when they were over speeding them, and clearly all pilots in the world including the terrorist are better than a group who can't hit the side of building in the safety of a simulator; p4t, failed pilots to the end of 9/11 truth, fantasy, bad math, and now pure stupid due to incompetence at connecting the dots.

Witnesses, FDR, and physical evidence refute the math presented; but Balsamo has no clue to go with his no theory mentality of pure stupid ideas on 9/11. The NoC was never a viable path, but Balsamo glommed on to it like a dolt when the NTSB working copy of aircraft FDR parameter animation showed a NoC, and your other great truthers use the "FAA" flight path animation as support for the failed non-path, and no theories of p4t failed movements. Without figuring out why, p4t use nothing to make up NoC based on real bad investigation techniques. CIT and 4t should go to school for aircraft investigation to learn why they failed.


What a dumb video. Balsamo has no clue why his NoC ideas are failed.

[Bobert]

Ok can someone explain to me why the PFT cartoon shows the plane appearing to run into 2 trees?
What happened to those trees?
Did they NWO remove them when they faked the downed light poles?
Man those NWO peopel are PURE GENIUS!

[bje]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Actually that's a good set of illustrations. Cappy Bobby now has the plane also being in a 30-50 degree bank while flying over the Pentagon so let's imaging the center and lower photos with the wings banked 45 degrees. Now let's imagine what this would look like to Boger. The plane is flying wings banked 45 degrees and the height of the aircraft is 145% the height of the Pentagon behind Boger. Would he really believe that the plane is heading right at him? just when does the CiT believe he ducked? Obviously not when Boger says he did(after impact).

Cap'n Bob's animation of the "flyover" begins at 42:53 in his animation here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...29125037&hl=en

[Dog Town]

Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert

Now, we look at Lola... she has been up for the same amount of time.

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o...onFox/lola.jpg


Yeah Captain... you are making a huge difference in the world.

Well to be fair, a talking pig makes infinitely more sense, than anything Capt'n Booby and the lost guides have ever said, or typed, etc...

[beachnut]

The big nail in the coffin for p4t math attempt to fake a flight path, is Paik. He has Flight 77 entirely south of the CITGO station. And the anti-intellectual non-p4t-no-theory-flight-path fails to get close to reality. But what do you expect from 11.2 G failed physics still posted for all to see how dumb they are when trying to lie, then how stupid they are (34Gs worth) when they think the correct math justifies the dumbest ideas they can come up with. The old hockey stick-pull up scam.

See the tower behind Paik? Paik says Flight 77 was right next to the tower. Put that in the p4t big lie video.

The only way to come up with a fake flight path as Balsamo presents, is to ignore Paik, Boger, and Morin.
Why do they bother with the math when their ideas are pure nut case non-path, no theory implications of lies?

Why do they bother with the math when their ideas are pure nut case non-path, no theory implications of lies?


Who saw over 50 degrees of bank from Flight 77? Nobody

Who heard 77 push of the throttles and throttles going full blast? Witnesses

Who saw 77 hit the Pentagon? Lots of people.

Who sells implications of lies? …p4t

Who does math to cover up their failed ideas and try to fool others into believing real dumb ideas on 9/11? … p4t

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Unadulterated horse-puck. Those lamp posts would rob the aircraft of little in the way of momentum and in that they are designed to break off even when hit close to the ground, would basically only dent the wing. Perhaps if the very wing tip area impacted the post 10 feet from the top it might cut through the wing but any impact closer to the wing root certainly would not.

Regardless... the total weight of the lamp post is completely irrelevant. The plane's wing only had to contend with the post's... rigidity (not sure if that's proper term in this context).

For instance, regardless of the total weight of a sheet of steel, you can still cut through it with a pencil-thin jet of water (water, which is nearly 8 times less dense than low-grade steel). It's all about velocity.

SPreston bringing up the weight of the lamp posts is just a red herring; extraneous information. It's the same sort of thing they do on the SATs in high school, although I doubt SPreston can see that.

[BCR]

This post is the third in a series examining the recently released witness flight path math effort by P4T. The previous two linked below lay the groundwork for this post.

Centripetal Acceleration
Banking Equation

In their latest endeavor, P4T presented a number of flight path options summarized in this chart.



Path #2 best fits the NoC eyewitness accounts, but P4T opted to inject the other three when the ideal path fit came close to violating aerodynamic principles. Further, others examining the radius value for #2 question the value used by P4T. So before continuing the math discussion, it is important to define the path being examined.

Regardless of the attempts by P4T to confuse the issue by injecting the additional 3 paths, there is only one which was the subject of this thread. That is the flight path as described by CIT and P4T for several years now based on the eyewitness accounts of individuals located at the Citgo station. This was covered in great detail by CIT in their video release, "The Pentacon". A video released by the FAA (although created by NORAD), closely matches this eyewitness path and has been heavily touted by P4T as "proof" of that path.

SGT William Lagasse is the eyewitness who started the NoC speculation with his very early accounts that he saw the starboard side of the plane from his location at the Citgo station. His account weighed heavily in The Pentacon video and as observed on the Citgo video his location under the canopy limited his view. So any NoC path has to also weigh heavily on his and SGT Brooks account. In the image below, I have marked the Lagasse/Brooks observed position and fitted a circle beginning with Paik and ending with the impact area. The resulting curved path is the best fit circular curve that minimizes g-forces and assumes constant speed and bank (the scenario presented by P4T). It must be emphasized that it is this NoC path that has been so heavily promoted by both CIT and P4T that is under discussion here, NOT the alternative paths now promoted by P4T to get out of a mathematical quandary.



There is a Chord represented by the distance from Edward Paik's shop to the impact point at the Pentagon, which is ~3960 feet long. The line representing the greatest perpendicular path from the Chord to the curve is the sagitta, which is ~510 feet. P4T presented an equation briefly for solving for the sagitta of the circle represented by the curve, but it is the radius being sought and I prefer deriving the value using common methods and showing my work.

The radius, of the circle is simply the hypotenuse of a right triangle created with one side represented by and the other equal to . Using the Pythagorean theorem from basic trigonometry, the value of can be found.

,

,

,

.

Plugging in the values gives which by using already derived formulas for centripetal acceleration and bank angle gives the following:

Bank angle = 78 degrees
g-force = 4.6 g's

The equation I derived can be verified using the P4T equation with a handy web calculator found here. The P4T/CIT NoC eyewitness fight path fails even the simple mathematical model presented by P4T. I can take the path to the next level, but is it really worth the effort?

Prediction: P4T will now throw Lagasse and Brooks under the bus with Morin and Boger.

[BCR]

Previously, I verified the P4T arithmetic and given the values they provided for radius, everything looked good. Now I have gone back and derived values for various sagitta values and it is apparent that someone was fudging their values for R.



Using the same baseline (chord) used by P4T, a value of 200 feet would put the plane passing over Lagasse's head. That is clearly the minimum value for any tweaking of the curve, and even that is inconsistent with his account. I have marked the banking angles and g's with the red dotted line in the graph above for 200 feet.

Here are the bare minimum values:

Banking angle = 62 degrees
g-force = 1.9

Someone ain't playing fair

Yep, Lagasse gotta go under the bus