IPB




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

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

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
the govt loyalist site Gls Demand Flight Path And Math

rob balsamo
post Dec 13 2008, 04:33 PM
Post #41



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,659
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



dMole,

He wont be able to reply. But all paths used by the GL's are illustrated in the OP. All variables are speculation when dealing with a "North Path" and the GL argument. They also cherry picked Terry Morins account of "parallel" and disregarded all other witness statements and drawings calling their path "reasonable" with respect to all witness statements. Its far from "reasonable".

Turbofan is working on it with some consultation from me and others. We will run it past you as well prior to publshing.

Since P4T doesnt offer speculation or theory and speculation/theory is required to establish a north path based on witnesses statements (read: no hard aircraft data as required and offered regarding south path), it is easy to speculate to ones bias as been done by the GL's, yet they are far from "reasonable".

With that said, it is being worked on despite the fact e^n has already proven ReTreat wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 13 2008, 10:43 PM
Post #42



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,659
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



You know whats so great about being a pilot and being part of a pilot organization? Ability to register at forums from legit IP's all over the world. One could even pose as a GL i suppose... whistle.gif


Nah.. we dont stoop to their level and lie to get an inside track... whistle.gif

They quote and link us anyway.... good sh*t.

By the way. .where did AMTMAN go? Still unable to produce the AA757 MX page which the J.REFers claimed fakery but AMTMAN claimed as legit?

It was fun to record Pat Curley at SLC after he posted AMTMAN docs, yet couldnt even verify his name, let alone the documents offered. "Critical Thinkers"? i think not...

How are those meds treating "Parky76" by the way? I hear the guy is a stones throw away from eating a bullet. Be sure to give him lots of attention as even i would hate to see that happen. lol

I see Bobert is still obsessed with Aldo and CIT. I suppose for such a head case he would be, considering he got fired from his job for stalking Craig at work and Aldo ended up taking his job. Now thats good sh*t. The guy offers nothing for tech talk but obsession over Aldo and Craig day after day.., Very sad. Think he is on meds too? Hope so, for his sake.

ETA: I also see Bobert feels Turbofans "ban" was due to PM's sent to Bobert in which Bobert cried to the mods like the rat he is... Bobert, you're wrong as usual you idiot. Turbofan was suspended (not banned) due to the PM's to you and expected to come back on Dec 16. Can you not read you dolt? Turbofan was then banned during his suspension after he mentioned on here (quoted there) that he will return with the "math". Can you add? What does 2+2 equal?

I can see why Bobert was fired from his job and Aldo took his place. What a f*cking moron. lol

Although rare in the aviation industry, Bobert reminds me of some of the cocky students i had which thought they knew everything... till i made them puke in the aircraft from real maneuvering, only to have to land the aircraft myself and then tell them to clean it up. Afterwards they walked away with puke still on their face and tears in their eyes when mommy came to pick them up. Unfortunately, they werent teens, they were in their 20's and 30's. Bobert im sure is still a crybaby in his 40's who cant hold a job and has zero credentials of his own. Sad really...

The others i knew that thought they knew everything.. . turned themselves into smoking holes in a side of a mountain or flat land. Good for us Bobert will never fly an airplane, let alone hold a sales job (which Aldo took from him).

This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Dec 14 2008, 12:20 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 14 2008, 12:58 AM
Post #43





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



Thread back open because obviously the GL's are a bit learning disabled. Their obsession is comical though.

16.5 must have gotten a beating from his mom tonight and decided to lash out while of course making himself look like a fool in the process.

He made a thread there called "CIT Refuses Math" based on my earlier statement in this thread.

To be clear: I reject the ARGUMENT that speculating values for a hypothetical north side approach is the least bit necessary to validate the north side witness accounts.

That is done by the scientific method of "corroboration" and it has more than passed the test proving beyond a reasonable doubt that this is where the plane flew.

Of course I have 100% faith and confidence that Turbofan will be able to provide the "math" that they demand especially since their own member, fellow pseudo-skeptic e^n has already done this and CIT obsessoid extraordinaire ReTreat even agreed.

But what I don't want is people thinking that we are specifically stating that ANY flight path created by ANYONE including any single witness is exactly accurate and that all forthcoming evidence must conform to it.

That's not how it works when dealing with subjective evidence like witness accounts.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Dec 14 2008, 01:16 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 14 2008, 01:05 AM
Post #44



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,659
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DwightShrute
post Dec 14 2008, 01:18 AM
Post #45





Group: Banned
Posts: 35
Joined: 13-December 08
Member No.: 4,026



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 13 2008, 11:58 PM) *
But what I don't want is people thinking that we are specifically stating that ANY flight path created by ANYONE including any single witness is exactly accurate and that all forthcoming evidence must conform to it.

That's not how it works when dealing with subjective evidence like witness accounts.


But since there are 13 cooberated witnesses, the average of what they say should be close to what really happened, right Craig? I hope Turbfan, with his math uses a flightpath that is an average of what the witnesses report and not the one e^n was working with otherwise the GLs will cry about it.

This post has been edited by DwightShrute: Dec 14 2008, 02:03 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 14 2008, 01:55 AM
Post #46



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (DwightShrute @ Dec 13 2008, 10:18 PM) *
But since there are 13 cooberated witnesses, the average of what they say should be close to what really happened, right Craig? I hope Turbfan, with his math uses a flightpath that is an average of what the witnesses report and not the one e^n was working with otherwise the GLs will cry about it.

Why does this quote have my username attached to it? I never typed that! It appears to be from Craig's post #45, NOT from my post #42 (from the timestamp).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DwightShrute
post Dec 14 2008, 02:02 AM
Post #47





Group: Banned
Posts: 35
Joined: 13-December 08
Member No.: 4,026



QUOTE (dMole @ Dec 14 2008, 12:55 AM) *
Why does this quote have my username attached to it? I never typed that! It appears to be from Craig's post #42, NOT from my post #42 (from the timestamp).


My bad. I was going to reply to your post #42 about what speed the GLs were using for the aircraft, but then I saw that you already acknowledged my PM there with and edit. I was also going to reply to Craig in the same post. I must have just got some things mixed up.

ETA: I fixed it.

This post has been edited by DwightShrute: Dec 14 2008, 02:03 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Dec 14 2008, 02:03 AM
Post #48


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



So those people over there read this board all the time and quote it? I did not know that.

Do they talk about me over there? I hope so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 14 2008, 02:11 AM
Post #49





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



QUOTE (DwightShrute @ Dec 14 2008, 05:18 AM) *
But since there are 13 cooberated witnesses, the average of what they say should be close to what really happened, right Craig? I hope Turbfan, with his math uses a flightpath that is an average of what the witnesses report and not the one e^n was working with otherwise the GLs will cry about it.


Average?

Each and every witness account is nothing but an estimate. A guess based on perception. A data point.

NONE of them should be considered mathematically accurate.

So as long as you understand you are taking an "average" of a bunch of pretty much guaranteed non-mathematically accurate human estimates go right ahead.

MY point is that this does not prove that it is exactly what the plane did.

The only thing I think we can accurately determine from these eyewitness accounts is a very GENERALIZED convergence of evidence NoC.

It just so happens that this is enough to prove a military deception on 9/11.

Agreed?

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Dec 14 2008, 02:12 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 14 2008, 02:14 AM
Post #50





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



QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Dec 14 2008, 06:03 AM) *
So those people over there read this board all the time and quote it? I did not know that.

Do they talk about me over there? I hope so.



haha.

Probably not.

Just call them some names or something and they will though!

thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 14 2008, 02:18 AM
Post #51





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



I will say that the evidence regarding speed indicates a MUCH slower account than the officially reported speed of 535 mph.

I base this primarily on aviation expert witnesses Terry Morin & Sean Boger who both have the final descent from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon at or over 10 seconds.

This is independently corroborated by ANC witness William Middleton who was just north of the Navy Annex and watched it pass him and bank towards the building directly over the ANC maintenance parking lot.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Dec 14 2008, 02:22 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DwightShrute
post Dec 14 2008, 02:32 AM
Post #52





Group: Banned
Posts: 35
Joined: 13-December 08
Member No.: 4,026



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 14 2008, 01:11 AM) *
Average?

Each and every witness account is nothing but an estimate. A guess based on perception. A data point.

NONE of them should be considered mathematically accurate.

So as long as you understand you are taking an "average" of a bunch of pretty much guaranteed non-mathematically accurate human estimates go right ahead.

MY point is that this does not prove that it is exactly what the plane did.

The only thing I think we can accurately determine from these eyewitness accounts is a very GENERALIZED convergence of evidence NoC.

It just so happens that this is enough to prove a military deception on 9/11.

Agreed?


Sorry, I think that if you want to use the witnesses to say it went NoC, you should also use them to determine a plausible flight path. I agree no single witness can be considered 100% accurate, but if you have 13, it should be enough to come up with something that is close to what happened.

And since you say the only accurate think is the convergence of NoC, how come you don't also use the convergence that they say it flew into the Pentagon?

I have no love for the GLs, but I am just trying to understand this a little better.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 14 2008, 02:58 AM
Post #53





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



QUOTE (DwightShrute @ Dec 14 2008, 06:32 AM) *
Sorry, I think that if you want to use the witnesses to say it went NoC, you should also use them to determine a plausible flight path. I agree no single witness can be considered 100% accurate, but if you have 13, it should be enough to come up with something that is close to what happened.


Math is not "close".

Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

e^n's flight path can fairly be considered "close to what happened" if you agree that witness accounts are subjective.


QUOTE
And since you say the only accurate think is the convergence of NoC, how come you don't also use the convergence that they say it flew into the Pentagon?


That should be obvious.

Because they are much closer to the plane as it passes by them dozens of feet away on the north side compared to hundreds of feet away when it reaches the building.

Duh.

QUOTE
I have no love for the GLs, but I am just trying to understand this a little better.



Good then now you do.

Go forth and spread the word young jedi.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Dec 14 2008, 03:01 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DwightShrute
post Dec 14 2008, 03:08 AM
Post #54





Group: Banned
Posts: 35
Joined: 13-December 08
Member No.: 4,026



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 14 2008, 01:58 AM) *
Math is not "close".

Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

e^n's flight path can fairly be considered "close" if you agree that witness accounts are subjective.


What do you say when the GLs claim that even with that flighpath, the plane would be turning with extreme bank angles? I know some of the witnesses reported a slight bank, maybe 20 degrees, but nobody says they saw it flying practically sideways.


QUOTE
That should be obvious.

Because they are much closer to the plane as it passes by them dozens of feet away on the north side compared to hundreds of feet away when it reaches the building.

Duh.


I don't think I follow. They couldn't see a large plane fly into one of the largest buildings in the world because they were hundreds of feet away?

This post has been edited by DwightShrute: Dec 14 2008, 03:08 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 14 2008, 03:27 AM
Post #55





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



QUOTE (DwightShrute @ Dec 14 2008, 07:08 AM) *
What do you say when the GLs claim that even with that flighpath, the plane would be turning with extreme bank angles? I know some of the witnesses reported a slight bank, maybe 20 degrees, but nobody says they saw it flying practically sideways.


Good question.

They say that based on the officially reported speed of 535 mph or somewhere near.

The required bank angle changes drastically depending on speed and regardless, we know that the witnesses DID report a significant bank angle!

But the fact is as I mentioned earlier, I will say that the evidence regarding speed indicates a MUCH slower account than the officially reported speed of 535 mph.

I base this primarily on aviation expert witnesses Terry Morin & Sean Boger who both have the final descent from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon at or over 10 seconds.

This is independently corroborated by ANC witness William Middleton who was just north of the Navy Annex and watched it pass him and bank towards the building directly over the ANC maintenance parking lot.



QUOTE
I don't think I follow. They couldn't see a large plane fly into one of the largest buildings in the world because they were hundreds of feet away?


They are mutually exclusive claims so everyone is forced to make a choice.

Are the witnesses more accurate in regards to where the plane was as it passed by where they were standing or exactly happened when the plane reached the building?

They can't be correct about both so you MUST choose one.

I think it should be obvious that they would not be able to mistake the simple right or left claim regarding what side of the station as the plane passed by dozens of feet away.


I doubt any of them could mistake that let alone all of them!

But it would be quite simple to mistake what REALLY happened in relation to the plane and the massive distracting fireball hundreds of feet directly forward for all of them particularly since their POV's are more similar in this regard.


Are you starting to fully understand yet?

Any more questions?

Just let me know.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Dec 14 2008, 03:33 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DwightShrute
post Dec 14 2008, 03:41 AM
Post #56





Group: Banned
Posts: 35
Joined: 13-December 08
Member No.: 4,026



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 14 2008, 02:27 AM) *
Good question.

They say that based on the officially reported speed of 535 mph or somewhere near.

The required bank angle changes drastically depending on speed and regardless, we know that the witnesses DID report a significant bank angle!

But the fact is as I mentioned earlier, I will say that the evidence regarding speed indicates a MUCH slower account than the officially reported speed of 535 mph.

I base this primarily on aviation expert witnesses Terry Morin & Sean Boger who both have the final descent from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon at or over 10 seconds.

This is independently corroborated by ANC witness William Middleton who was just north of the Navy Annex and watched it pass him and bank towards the building directly over the ANC maintenance parking lot.


Actually, e^n used 300 knots (about 350 mph) when he was making his calculations. And even if the plane was going slower than that (perhaps 250mph) it would not change the bank angle that much, only a few degrees. What witnesses report a bank angle of, say 60 degrees? I saw the graphic that you provided in the previous page, but that witness only showed an angle of maybe 20 degrees.


QUOTE
They are mutually exclusive claims so everyone is forced to make a choice.

Are the witnesses more accurate in regards to where the plane was as it passed by where they were standing or exactly happened when the plane reached the building?

They can't be correct about both so you MUST choose one.


Did you ever ask the witnesses that they needed to abandon one of their claims because they are mutually exclusive? Did you tell them that the plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon if it was flying NoC?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 14 2008, 04:09 AM
Post #57





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



QUOTE (DwightShrute @ Dec 14 2008, 08:41 AM) *
Actually, e^n used 300 knots (about 350 mph) when he was making his calculations. And even if the plane was going slower than that (perhaps 250mph) it would not change the bank angle that much, only a few degrees. What witnesses report a bank angle of, say 60 degrees? I saw the graphic that you provided in the previous page, but that witness only showed an angle of maybe 20 degrees.


Thanks for illustrating my point.

Eyewitnesses can not be relied upon for mathematical values such as bank angles.

To even consider such a thing demonstrates your confirmation bias.

The fact that the witnesses report a right bank angle AT ALL is an incredible break through and is astronomical support for a relatively slow north side approach.

Because if the plane was on the south side approach it would appear straight and fast and be visible for one or two seconds which would not allow for any discernible bank angle at all let alone a right one.

In fact the physical damage requires a very slight LEFT tilt on a straight flight path.

Of course that would not be visible to the ANC witnesses and it is quite obviously completely irreconcilable with what they describe.



QUOTE
Did you ever ask the witnesses that they needed to abandon one of their claims because they are mutually exclusive? Did you tell them that the plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon if it was flying NoC?


Yep.

I told it to Lagasse and Turcios on camera.

Did you fail to bother viewing the evidence?

Give me a break man.

f*cking at least view the evidence before commenting on it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DwightShrute
post Dec 14 2008, 04:24 AM
Post #58





Group: Banned
Posts: 35
Joined: 13-December 08
Member No.: 4,026



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 14 2008, 03:09 AM) *
Thanks for illustrating my point.

Eyewitnesses can not be relied upon for mathematical values such as bank angles.

To even consider such a thing demonstrates your confirmation bias.

The fact that the witnesses report a right bank angle AT ALL is an incredible break through and is astronomical support for a relatively slow north side approach.

Because if the plane was on the south side approach it would appear straight and fast and be visible for one or two seconds which would not allow for any discernible bank angle at all let alone a right one.

In fact the physical damage requires a very slight LEFT tilt on a straight flight path.

Of course that would not be visible to the ANC witnesses and it is quite obviously completely irreconcilable with what they describe.


You don't think that any witnesses would notice a large plane at low altitude flying practically sideways? They don't have to say, it "it was flying with a bank angle of 66.8 degrees." Just, " I saw a large plane flying almost sideways."

And it was going as slow as Terry Morin and Sean Boger say, they would have much more time to see this all happening.


QUOTE
Yep.

I told it to Lagasse and Turcios on camera.

Did you fail to bother viewing the evidence?

Give me a break man.

f*cking at least view the evidence before commenting on it.


I'm sorry, I'll admit I haven't watched your video. I'll do so later when I have time. Can you summarize what they said? Did they abandon the idea that the plane hit the Pentagon, or that it flew NoC? Do they somehow still hold both beliefs?



I'm sorry if you feel like I am attacking you like the GLs. I hate them just as much as you do. But I feel that my questions are one that a real skeptic would ask.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 14 2008, 04:33 AM
Post #59





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



QUOTE (DwightShrute @ Dec 14 2008, 09:24 AM) *
You don't think that any witnesses would notice a large plane at low altitude flying practically sideways? They don't have to say, it "it was flying with a bank angle of 66.8 degrees." Just, " I saw a large plane flying almost sideways."

And it was going as slow as Terry Morin and Sean Boger say, they would have much more time to see this all happening.


Bank angle like any mathematical value turns subjective when reported by eyewitnesses.

2 facts are corroborated....north side, right bank angle.

These very general claims corroborate each other and prove a deception.

To require mathematical accuracy is nothing but an excuse to dismiss the evidence.

Faulty logic.

Very lame and tiresome.

It demonstrates intellectual dishonesty on your part and an inherent tendency to reject evidence that doesn't support the official story.

You know, a confirmation bias.



QUOTE
I'm sorry, I'll admit I haven't watched your video. I'll do so later when I have time.


laughing1.gif

Please just go away.

You don't have the right to discuss anything if you are too lazy to view the evidence.

Pathetic.

QUOTE
I'm sorry if you feel like I am attacking you like the GLs. I hate them just as much as you do. But I feel that my questions are one that a real skeptic would ask.


You are a liar.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Dec 14 2008, 04:35 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DwightShrute
post Dec 14 2008, 04:41 AM
Post #60





Group: Banned
Posts: 35
Joined: 13-December 08
Member No.: 4,026



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 14 2008, 03:33 AM) *
Bank angle like any mathematical value turns subjective when reported by eyewitnesses.


I agree. Bank angles are subjective when reported by witnesses. That's why they might say something like "it was a large jet flying almost sideways." That is a subjective statement.

QUOTE
Please just go away.

You don't have the right to discuss anything if you are too lazy to view the evidence.

Pathetic.


I just said I will watch your video, so how am I lazy? When I watch it, am I going to see your witnesses abandon the idea that the plane flew into the Pentagon since that would be impossible with a NoC path?


QUOTE
You are a liar.


Is everybody that questions you actually a GL? I guess that would be most of the Truth Movement because from what I see, most of them don't buy your theory.

This post has been edited by DwightShrute: Dec 14 2008, 04:42 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
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: 28th July 2014 - 08:33 PM