IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
What Was The Speed Of The Decoy Aircraft, which flew SE of WH and north of Citgo?

SPreston
post Apr 6 2008, 08:22 AM
Post #1


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



C-130 flight path (Yellow line) - Faked RADES C-130 flight path (blue) - Faked Flight 77 (red) - Decoy aircraft spotted by O'Brien to the west after C-130 passed the Mall - Never forget the RADES data with the fake C-130 straight flight path to the southwest and the fake Flight 77 loop to match the FDR loop, was invented 4+ years later because the fake Flight 77 FDR was under a lot of suspicion and investigation, and there were no live witnesses to the FDR loop southwest of the Pentagon.

Are we to believe that nobody down there in Alexandria or Springfield or Washington Forest or Crystal City saw the awesome sight of a 757 aircraft descending in a 45+ degree bank at 500+ mph over their homes? That would be an unforgetable sight and sound and the newswires should have been humming and surely a few awesome videos and award winning photos would have popped up. But NOTHING. Not a word. No witnesses at all of the official Flight 77 FDR flight path, because it was FAKED.



Let us try to determine the actual speed of the decoy aircraft banking around Reagan National which Steve Chaconas witnessed and which the NORAD tapes verified and numerous witnesses placed over Washington DC. We will attempt three models; a very fast entry into the area, a relatively slow entry into the area, and a very slow entry into the area which is the more likely. Remember, the decoy aircraft is NOT Flight 77. Flight 77 is MIA and perhaps landed in Ohio or it never took off from Boston Logan. These are my guesstimates and not from CIT.

At the final end of the bank around Reagan National and pulling up over Hwy 27 near the Pentagon wall would be somewhere between 9:37 and the original 9:43 official time of the alleged 757 impact with the wall. At the other end or beginning of the decoy aircraft spiral would be when O'Brien first spotted the decoy aircraft from the C-130. O'Brien took off (wheels off) from Andrews AFB at 9:32:26 for about 4.5 miles north and then was vectored west by Morningside One to fly south of the Washington Mall. This distance was about 8 more miles to where he spotted the decoy aircraft 4 miles to the west. The C-130 takeoff speed is about 115 knots (132 mph) and the cruising speed of a C-130H is 292 knots (336 mph) but slower at lower altitudes. The C-130 climb speed is 180 knots (207 mph or 3.45 miles per minute) and the rate of climb about 2000 fpm. That gives us about 2 minutes time to 3500 ft altitude using up 7 miles of the 12.5 mile total distance. Assuming a speed of 300 mph for the remaining 5.5 mile distance to where O'Brien spotted the decoy aircraft about 4 miles away would equate to about 3.1 total minutes flying time. Adding 3 min 4 sec to 9:32:26 would equal 9:35:30 as the time the decoy aircraft reaches the beginning of our yellow spiral.

The entire decoy aircraft flight loop as drawn on our map below is about 17 miles in length. The NORAD tapes gave a last known speed for the assumed Flight 77 as 290 knots (333 mph) The NORAD tapes also position the aircraft 6 miles southeast of the White House (about the tail of the red aircraft marker on the map below (about 8 miles along the loop)) at 9:35:41. Of course the NORAD report was likely delayed through the actions of sending and receiving the message and the aircraft was flying faster at the beginning of the spiral.

Short version of the Steve Chaconas interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5D2K19Y-aI

The alleged 757 (what we have determined is the north of Citgo decoy aircraft) would be descending from its cruising altitude into Virginia and slowing from its cruising speed of 530 mph, from wherever it originally departed. The aircraft would be slowing along its entire bank around Reagan National and should arrive between 9:37 and 9:43.

Actual Decoy Aircraft flight path over DC and southeast of White House and banking around airport and north of Citgo as witnessed by Steve Chaconas and others




1. The decoy aircraft coming into the north Arlington area very fast

Let's assume an average speed of 490 mph (between 530 - 450) between the beginning of the loop and the tail of the aircraft symbol (8 miles). At 8.167 miles per minute, the aircraft would take .979 minutes (59 seconds) from the beginning time of 9:35:30 to reach that position or 9:36:29. An average speed of 400 mph (450 - 333) between the tail of the aircraft symbol and the Hwy 27 pull up (9 miles) or at 6.67 miles per minute, the aircraft would take 1.35 minutes (1 min 21 sec) from the last time of 9:36:29 (490 mph average speed for 8 miles) or an arrival time at the pull up of 9:37:50.

Beginning of spiral: (about) 9:35:30
Ending of spiral: Between 9:37 and 9:43 (9:37:50)


Or

2. The decoy aircraft coming into the north Arlington area relatively slow

Let's assume an average speed of 390 mph (between 420 - 360) between the beginning of the loop and the tail of the aircraft symbol (8 miles). At 6.5 miles per minute, the aircraft would take 1.23 minutes (1 min 14 sec) from the beginning time of 9:35:30 to reach that position or 9:36:44. An average speed of 346 mph (360 - 333) between the tail of the aircraft symbol and the Hwy 27 pull up (9 miles) or at 5.77 miles per minute, the aircraft would take 1.56 minutes (1 min 34 sec) from the last time of 9:36:44 (390 mph average speed for 8 miles) or an arrival time at the pull up of 9:38:18.

Beginning of spiral: (about) 9:35:30
Ending of spiral: Between 9:37 and 9:43 (9:38:18)


Or

3. The decoy aircraft coming into the north Arlington area very slow

Let's assume an average speed of 350 mph (between 360 - 340) between the beginning of the loop and the tail of the aircraft symbol (8 miles). At 5.8 miles per minute, the aircraft would take 1.38 minutes (1 min 23 sec) from the beginning time of 9:35:30 to reach that position or 9:36:53. An average speed of 336 mph (340 - 333) between the tail of the aircraft symbol and the Hwy 27 pull up (9 miles) or at 5.6 miles per minute, the aircraft would take 1.61 minutes (1 min 37 sec) from the last time of 9:36:53 (350 mph average speed for 8 miles) or an arrival time at the pull up of 9:38:30.

Beginning of spiral: (about) 9:35:30
Ending of spiral: Between 9:37 and 9:43 (9:38:30)


As you can see, the final arrival times vary very little between a fast initial descent into Arlington and a slow initial descent into Arlington. But the 9-11 planners and disinformation manipulators jockeyed the impact times around to add confusion and camoflage the actual impact time. These are my guesstimates and the aircraft positions and the actual placement of of the spiral decoy aircraft flight path approximate with the information CIT and others have managed to collect to date.

What we do know is that the official FDR flight path with the tight loop down over Alexandria and Springfield has not one single real live witness that saw it and the alleged Flight 77 FDR and 84 RADES data are obvious fakes.

Actual Decoy Aircraft flight path over DC and southeast of White House and banking around airport and north of Citgo


Fake Flight 77 FDR flight path with the alleged very tight and very difficult 530 mph loop southwest of the Pentagon over Alexandria
and Springfield and never over or east of the Potomac as shown by the NORAD tapes and numerous witnesses, and a 530 mph
flight path
which nobody living actually witnessed with never to be found real live witnesses which the FBI forgot to invent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Apr 6 2008, 08:34 AM
Post #2


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



I know my thread and post above is a bit off the wall and filled with assumptions and speculation. But to you pilots who have flown commercial aircraft, could a 757 or similar aircraft without special modification fly the banked S-curve flight path mapped out by Craig and Aldo below at 290 knots (333 mph), and the pull up over Hwy 27? If not, could a modified similar aircraft do so? Thanks.

There is absolutely no reason to believe the decoy aircraft was traveling at 532 mph as the JREFers assert. The NORAD tapes gave the speed of 290 knots (333 mph) before they lost track of the aircraft. Steve Chaconas thought the aircraft he saw looked like an ordinary commercial aircraft, except it was crossing at right angle to the normal Potomac approach path and banking around Reagan National. Chaconas never testified that the aircraft was flying at full speed. Absolutely nobody southwest of the airport reported an aircraft flying low overhead at 530 mph top speed. The sound of the max revved turbofans would be unmistakeable and people would be running out into their yards and climbing out of their cars. A commercial aircraft flying at 333 mph low overhead (500 to 2000 ft) would sound very similar to the aircraft normally experienced near the airport. Absolutely nobody reported a 530 mph commercial aircraft low over Alexandria and Springfield on the fake FDR flight path and absolutely nobody reported a 530 mph commercial aircraft at low altitude north of those two cities and south and southwest of Crystal City on the decoy aircraft flight path. A commercial aircraft flying 1.5 miles away at 2000-4000 ft altitude might look like an ordinary commercial aircraft at 333 mph speedwise to Chaconas. Most people only see commercial aircraft flying at low altitudes near airports and landing or taking off. Those ordinary speeds they would see would be 120 knots (138 mph) to 170 knots (195.6 mph). A speed of 290 knots (333 mph) at low altitude would seem very fast to most people including the north of Citgo witnesses, as it flew by just over their heads at 488 fps.

Since the official speed of 530 mph has been taken from the Flight 77 FDR which has been proven a fake along with the fake 84 RADES data, the bogus official Flight 77 speed of 530 mph cannot be used. It is useless. The official flight path could probably have been flown at 333 mph (except for 5 light poles smashing the wings and a taxi windshield) by remote pilot, except they totally screwed the simulation up with their lies and impossible manuevers and staged scenes and manufactured evidence.

The aircraft speed of 333 mph is a reasonable speed with which the decoy aircraft could have easily handled the entire spiral loop around Reagan National and every bank in the examples below and the pull up over Hwy 27. The bogus official flight path has been proven a lie and now we know the flight path that really happened.

Over the driving range


Over the Navy Annex


The decoy aircraft flight path after Steve Chaconas lost sight of the commercial aircraft


This post has been edited by SPreston: Apr 6 2008, 11:26 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Apr 6 2008, 10:44 AM
Post #3





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Frankly I think it's impossible to determine accurately rendering their inadequate and simplistic calculations speculation but I think you're 100% right that there is no evidence suggesting it was going nearly as fast as the 535 mph reported in the FDR.

In fact Sean Boger said he watched it approach for as much as 15 seconds!

Due to the topography there is no way he saw it as far back as the driving range and probably couldn't see it until it reached the Sheraton.


But we can't rely on an eyewitness for speed of an aircraft particularly when it's at tree top level for goodness sake.

So as it stands the notion that the proposed flight path is sheer lunacy based on pure speculation and FALSE values that are tweaked by individuals with a clear confirmation bias.

We know that it's possible because this is where ALL the witnesses saw the plane.


So whatever speed and exact bank angle, descent, etc make it possible is what happened.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Apr 6 2008, 10:49 AM
Post #4





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Here is an estimate at 250 knots which is reasonable:

250 knots = 1.7 G's = 45-55 deg of bank

Of course it's possible.

To be honest we'll reveal more details about this and hypothetical scenaios after Rob releases the update on his article.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Apr 6 2008, 12:46 PM
Post #5


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT)
Here is an estimate at 250 knots which is reasonable:

250 knots = 1.7 G's = 45-55 deg of bank

Of course it's possible.

To be honest we'll reveal more details about this and hypothetical scenaios after Rob releases the update on his article.

Thanks Craig. Yes I agree that the decoy aircraft flight path happened as witnessed and the actual speed would be what in reality would be needed to fit it all together and estimating speeds is mostly guesswork. My purpose was to show that multiple approach speeds could manage to fit it all together in a relatively short space of time using a NORAD tapes speed (290 knots (333 mph (488 fps))) which Woody Box posted, as a given final flight speed at the pull up for the decoy aircraft. We actually have far more real data and reliable witnesses to use than does the official straight line flight path of 535 mph which was relying on a bogus FDR and bogus 84 RADES data and planted witnesses and evidence and censored evidence which would have shown the reality of the event.

Of course Sean Boger was back further from the road in the helipad control tower and more than 12 feet higher off the ground, and could have seen the decoy aircraft a bit better than your photo shows. I measured along your flight path on Google Earth from next to the Sheraton to north of the Citgo and then to the HWY 27 pull up where Sean Boger might have lost sight of the aircraft. The distance was 3910 feet. Divide that by 488 fps and it would be 8 seconds that the aircraft would be in Boger's vision. Watching a large aircraft come directly at him from where a large aircraft should never be might make 8 seconds seem like 15 seconds. But the aircraft might have been visible from the driving range or beyond looking at the descent angle from beyond the top of the VDOT tower on the left. Measuring from the driving range adds 4550 feet to the distance or 8460 feet (1.6 mile) and divided by 488 fps (290 knots( 333 mph)) would give a time span of 17.3 seconds in which Boger could have watched the decoy aircraft if he was looking right away and if he could have seen the decoy aircraft descending above the driving range 1.6 miles away.

At 777 fps (535 mph) from the Sheraton, the decoy aircraft would have been visible for 5 seconds, and from the driving range 10.9 seconds.


QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT)
Frankly I think it's impossible to determine accurately rendering their inadequate and simplistic calculations speculation but I think you're 100% right that there is no evidence suggesting it was going nearly as fast as the 535 mph reported in the FDR.

In fact Sean Boger said he watched it approach for as much as 15 seconds!

Due to the topography there is no way he saw it as far back as the driving range and probably couldn't see it until it reached the Sheraton.

8460 feet from the driving range to the Hwy 27 pull up
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elmersglue
post Apr 11 2008, 11:58 AM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 19
Joined: 12-March 08
Member No.: 2,917



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Apr 6 2008, 09:49 AM) *
Here is an estimate at 250 knots which is reasonable:

250 knots = 1.7 G's = 45-55 deg of bank
Of course it's possible.


Based on those numbers, where do you have the plane entering/exiting the bank.

Also...45-55 degrees is quite steep.

This post has been edited by elmersglue: Apr 11 2008, 11:59 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Apr 11 2008, 12:04 PM
Post #7


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



SP,

Please don't use that image any longer. It just gives them more for their strawman argument. It was never meant to be used publically per se.

Celestrin over at CultREF stole it out of my photobucket when I had made it as a quick preliminary for another researcher who lives in Arlington, that is why that address is noted.

That's what you should expect from those type of people. Deceit and treachery.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elmersglue
post Apr 11 2008, 01:02 PM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 19
Joined: 12-March 08
Member No.: 2,917



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Apr 11 2008, 11:04 AM) *
SP,

Please don't use that image any longer. It just gives them more for their strawman argument. It was never meant to be used publically per se.

Celestrin over at CultREF stole it out of my photobucket when I had made it as a quick preliminary for another researcher who lives in Arlington, that is why that address is noted.

That's what you should expect from those type of people. Deceit and treachery.


Deceit & Treachery?
You created the image (which means it's not a strawman) , you posted it to a public website (so it wasn't stolen) , and now you're upset that they've proven that it's wrong?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Apr 11 2008, 01:24 PM
Post #9


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (elmersglue @ Apr 11 2008, 06:02 PM) *
Deceit & Treachery?
You created the image (which means it's not a strawman) , you posted it to a public website (so it wasn't stolen) , and now you're upset that they've proven that it's wrong?



No, what is a strawman is attributing a flight path drawn for the purposes of quickly communicating the rough position of the plane to what witnesses actually saw.

Why that flight path? We drew others.

How can they state the flight path is impossible, when they don't have the pertinent values or dimensions of the plane, don't account for a descent or altitude, and witnesses are adamant that it was on the north side? Because they can't.

It was stolen. I didn't know my photobucket was able to be seen to the public. If he would have shown that he had the image and asked permission if he could post it, then it wouldn't. He didn't. He went in my photobucket and bragged about it later. That is stealing.

Again it's not been proven wrong. A drawing has been mischaracterized for the purpose of a strawman argument.

And FYI, I am not upset.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Apr 11 2008, 01:25 PM
Post #10


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



Elmer,

You can't move the plane. You, like many of your associates, are here because you are obsessed, intrigued and scared.

I understand. But nothing will change the location of that plane.

I am sorry you feel this way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elmersglue
post Apr 11 2008, 03:08 PM
Post #11





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 19
Joined: 12-March 08
Member No.: 2,917



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Apr 11 2008, 12:24 PM) *
No, what is a strawman is attributing a flight path drawn for the purposes of quickly communicating the rough position of the plane to what witnesses actually saw.

Why that flight path? We drew others.


None that conform to physical and aerodynamic constraints.

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Apr 11 2008, 12:24 PM) *
Again it's not been proven wrong. A drawing has been mischaracterized for the purpose of a strawman argument.


Your drawing purported to show the approximate path of the plane, therefore the argument was not a strawman. (You're starting to sound like Alex Jones)

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT)
Elmer,

You can't move the plane. You, like many of your associates, are here because you are obsessed, intrigued and scared.


I am not obsessed or scared. I am somewhat intrigued at the fact that you believe that this plane did something it couldn't have. The math proves your flight path wrong. When can we expect a corrected one?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Apr 11 2008, 03:40 PM
Post #12


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (elmersglue @ Apr 11 2008, 08:08 PM) *
None that conform to physical and aerodynamic constraints.


Perhaps you are misunderstanding. The plane flew completely within "physical and aerodynamic constraints." A strawman argument does not change that.

QUOTE
Your drawing purported to show the approximate path of the plane, therefore the argument was not a strawman. (You're starting to sound like Alex Jones)


Again, you are misunderstanding. The strawman resides in his calculations themselves. I've noted why. The drawing is part of that strawman argument.


QUOTE
I am not obsessed or scared. I am somewhat intrigued at the fact that you believe that this plane did something it couldn't have. The math proves your flight path wrong. When can we expect a corrected one?


I think you are. It would only make sense why you and your associates spend an exorbitant amount of time trying to make this not true, especially using faulty logic, goal post moving, and strawman arguments.

You are intrigued with the FACT that the plane was on the north side, but you don't want it to be true.

The math does not prove our flight path wrong. It proves a plane doing what Reheat claims it did can't do what Reheat claims it did. That had no bearing on what the plane actually did. Do you understand? It focuses on a quick rendition of the flight path and applies strawman impossible figures without knowing or detailing the pertinent values involved in the actual maneuvers.

You may never find a flight path that suits you. That is your own shortcoming. I can't help that.

Please have Reheat come here and discuss with Rob Balsamo his figures and perhaps we can help understand what he is doing wrong.

Other than than that, I can't help what you choose to believe out of faith.

I would be interested in knowing why Mike Walter changed his flight path to this...



Or what about Sean Boger...

QUOTE

"As he was coming towards me it just seemed like he was tilting the aircraft to his right. It was almost like....not really going in nose first...it's just like almost like at an angle."


You guys have to know you are wrong. You're just painting yourselves into a corner. But please by all means, continue...

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Apr 11 2008, 03:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Apr 11 2008, 03:50 PM
Post #13


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



Elmer,

Are you seriously suggesting that Reheat's interpretation of a drawing by a couple of non-aviation experts negates what 7 eyewitnesses saw and report?

Are his calculations based on the eyewitnesses or on a drawing by a couple of non-aviation experts who were simply trying to determine which side of the gas station the plane was on?

If they are based on exact details from the witnesses...

Well please, by all means, please post all the details he was able to hash out between all the witnesses. I would be very interested in hearing how he was able to determine the exact speed, size, descent rate, altitude based on the his very detailed interviews with the witnesses. After all, that wasn't entirely covered in our questions was it? Then can he tell me how he verified all that and accounted for any miscalculations on the witness's part?

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Apr 11 2008, 06:41 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 11 2008, 06:22 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Aldo,

post your picture here of the 3 colored paths.


I did some rough calculations based on those paths/radius, They all were entirely possible. The least amount of radius being just over 1 G. We will help CIT cover this more thoroughly when we get done with our topography revision and presentation.

The "opposition" should really use radius of turn drawn and not their arbitrary/speculative numbers. Then again, their extreme bias to make excuses for the govt story gets in the way im sure.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Apr 11 2008, 06:57 PM
Post #15


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



Here ya go Rob:



We can adjust it as we go of course, as long as it still fits with the witness descriptions for the most part.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nicepants
post Apr 12 2008, 12:09 AM
Post #16





Group: Banned
Posts: 136
Joined: 11-April 08
Member No.: 3,139



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Apr 11 2008, 02:50 PM) *
Are his calculations based on the eyewitnesses or on a drawing by a couple of non-aviation experts who were simply trying to determine which side of the gas station the plane was on?

If they are based on exact details from the witnesses...

Well please, by all means, please post all the details he was able to hash out between all the witnesses. I would be very interested in hearing how he was able to determine the exact speed, size, descent rate, altitude based on the his very detailed interviews with the witnesses. After all, that wasn't entirely covered in our questions was it? Then can he tell me how he verified all that and accounted for any miscalculations on the witness's part?


QUOTE (Rob Balsamo)
I did some rough calculations based on those paths/radius, They all were entirely possible. The least amount of radius being just over 1 G. We will help CIT cover this more thoroughly when we get done with our topography revision and presentation.

The "opposition" should really use radius of turn drawn and not their arbitrary/speculative numbers. Then again, their extreme bias to make excuses for the govt story gets in the way im sure.


Rob,

Are your calculations based on the eyewitnesses or on a drawing by a couple of non-aviation experts who were simply trying to determine which side of the gas station the plane was on?

If they are based on exact details from the witnesses...

Well please, by all means, please post all the details you were able to hash out between all the witnesses. I would be very interested in hearing how you were able to determine the exact speed, size, descent rate, altitude based on the his very detailed interviews with the witnesses. After all, that wasn't entirely covered in CIT's questions was it? Then can you tell us how he verified all that and accounted for any miscalculations on the witness's part?

Thanks!

This post has been edited by nicepants: Apr 12 2008, 12:10 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Apr 12 2008, 01:39 AM
Post #17


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



silly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 12 2008, 03:14 AM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (nicepants @ Apr 12 2008, 12:09 AM) *
I would be very interested in hearing how you were able to determine the exact speed, size, descent rate, altitude ...



I did it the same way your cohorts did, i speculated. However, unlike your cohorts, i did not speculate on the radius. I used the radius drawn by people who used their own resources to travel to Arlington interviewing witnesses on location and i do not have a strong bias to make excuses for the govt story.

Welcome to the forum. Please take a moment to read the forums rules linked at the top.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Apr 12 2008, 09:35 AM
Post #19


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT)
I think you are. It would only make sense why you and your associates spend an exorbitant amount of time trying to make this not true, especially using faulty logic, goal post moving, and strawman arguments.

You are intrigued with the FACT that the plane was on the north side, but you don't want it to be true.

The math does not prove our flight path wrong. It proves a plane doing what Reheat claims it did can't do what Reheat claims it did. That had no bearing on what the plane actually did. Do you understand? It focuses on a quick rendition of the flight path and applies strawman impossible figures without knowing or detailing the pertinent values involved in the actual maneuvers.

You may never find a flight path that suits you. That is your own shortcoming. I can't help that.

Please have Reheat come here and discuss with Rob Balsamo his figures and perhaps we can help understand what he is doing wrong.

That Reheat character is extremely dishonest and made up a 7 step strawman argument from the Avery/Russell 1st interview video with Edward Paik. Of course the top mathematician and aircraft expert at the govt loyalist site for defending 9-11 perps also failed to convert mph to fps for his calculation. But that is likely normal at the govt loyalist site mutual admiration society.

QUOTE (Reheat at the govt loyalist site for defending 9-11 perps)
CIT witness Edward Paik testified as an " Irrefutable, Independently Verified, Scientifically Corroborated Witness" that he took 7 steps toward Columbia Pike after the aircraft passed over his head when he heard the explosion at the Pentagon. The time for 7 steps varies with leg length and speed of gait, but I've done an experiment today with several people from kids to teenagers to adults of varying height. The time for 7 steps varied from ~ 3 - 5 seconds timed with a stop watch. No one took more than 5 seconds and that was an older person.

From Edward Paik's business directly to the pentagon is ~3874'/780 fps = 4.9 seconds to impact.

The speed of sound is 770 MPH on a standard day.

~3874'/770 fps = 5.03 seconds

From Edward Paik's business to NoC and then to the Pentagon (not considering turn radius, which is longer) is ~ 3922.76'

3922.76/780 = 5.02 seconds

I posted this in response at LC.
QUOTE (SPreston Post #37)
A direct line flight path from Edward Paik's business to the Pentagon alleged impact area is actually 3932.9 feet using Google Earth. The speed of sound is 770 mph or 1129.59 fps on a normal day. I cannot explain why our paper airplane expert Mister Reheat the Muse failed to convert to fps.
QUOTE (SPreston Post #76)
Mister Reheat the Muse got his 7 steps from here, the first very unprofessional interview with Edward Paik filmed by Dylan Avery and Russell Pickering in front of a 6 story apartment building and not at the site of the A-One Auto sales lot where Edward Paik saw the decoy aircraft flying directly over his shop. At 3:50 minutes in the video, Paik informs us he ran out into the auto sales parking lot and after 6 steps BOOOOOM. Not 7 steps. Not 7 steps toward Columbia Pike. Just running out into parking lot and 6 steps and BOOOOOM. After recalculating using the formula of Mister Reheat the Muse and this time subtracting the 3.48 seconds for sound to travel back to Edward Paik, it appears this was a very fast commercial aircraft indeed.

At .7 seconds per step times the 6 steps would be 4.2 seconds for Edward's 6 steps minus the 3.48 seconds would equal .72 seconds for the decoy aircraft to reach the Pentagon wall. I believe that equates to 3760.09 mph. Quite fast indeed. Maybe the 7 step strawman argument flight model of Mister Reheat the Muse was a Star Wars Star Destroyer after all.

~ 3970.76 ft / .72 = 5514.94 fps if aircraft traveled along witnessed banked flight path north of Citgo

An aircraft flying this distance in .72 seconds would equal 5514.94 fps or 3760.09 mph

That is quite a strawman argument Mister Reheat the Muse, but then you J R E F ers are very good at strawman arguments and you J R E F ers have lots and lots of strawman arguments don't you? It must be pure desperation which causes such unscientific responses to TRUTH, don't you think?
QUOTE (celestrin at the govt loyalist site for defending 9-11 perps)
Not so fast, guys. 7269.2' is about 2350m that I got on my blue turn a few posts back. It is possible, but I do wonder whether they'll ditch parts of Mr. Paik's or Sgt. Lagasse's accounts... With those parameters, they're thinking of ditching both of them. Mr. Paik must've had been pretty slow making those 7 or so steps and Sgt. Lagasse might not had been that far under the Citgo's canopy after all. This is gonna be cherrypicking at its finest, I tell you.

They are still quoting and relying on that 7 step falsehood of Mister Reheat over at the govt loyalist site fertilizer factory for their disinformation needs.



QUOTE (rob balsamo)
I did some rough calculations based on those paths/radius, They all were entirely possible. The least amount of radius being just over 1 G. We will help CIT cover this more thoroughly when we get done with our topography revision and presentation.

The "opposition" should really use radius of turn drawn and not their arbitrary/speculative numbers. Then again, their extreme bias to make excuses for the govt story gets in the way im sure
.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nicepants
post Apr 12 2008, 12:45 PM
Post #20





Group: Banned
Posts: 136
Joined: 11-April 08
Member No.: 3,139



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Apr 12 2008, 12:39 AM) *
silly.


If your questions are relevant for someone at J.R.E.F. doing the calculations, they're every bit as relevant for someone here doing the calculations. (Unless you've got some sort of double-standard)

QUOTE (Rob Balsamo)
I did it the same way your cohorts did, i speculated. However, unlike your cohorts, i did not speculate on the radius. I used the radius drawn by people who used their own resources to travel to Arlington interviewing witnesses on location and i do not have a strong bias to make excuses for the govt story.


Showing that CIT's theory is impossible is not "making excuses for the govt story". The accepted (OT) flight path must conform to the same physical and aerodynamic limitations as CIT's flight path.

Edit: Why when I type J.R.E.F. (without punctuation) does your board replace it with "the government loyalist site"?

This post has been edited by nicepants: Apr 12 2008, 12:49 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 11th November 2019 - 07:10 PM