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 )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Addressing GL Arguments For North Path, Split from "9/11: The North Flight Path" in Latest News

Janusaur
post Dec 26 2008, 12:46 AM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 21
Joined: 31-January 08
Member No.: 2,696



Ugh... so stupid. Here's Reheat's latest idiocy over at the govt loyalist site:

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

No, best and worst cases of the last leg of the attack jet's flightpath that where within a reasonable margin of error of what the witnesses reported were analyzed. No specific flightpath is correct since we are only sure of the general claim that the plane flew north of the citgo.

QUOTE (Reheat)
Now, when it switches to the proper impact point, the razzle dazzle crap begins. The radius is WRONG. The radius for that flight path is approximately 7025'. That computes to a bank angle of 67.4 degrees, 2.6 G's at 460 knots.

I'm pretty sure this calculation is wrong, but since I'm not qualified to answer, I'll let Rob reply. Whatever imaginary flightpath Reheat is conjuring up, however, is not the correct flightpath- again, we are testing the general claim that the plane flew north of the citgo.

QUOTE (Reheat)
Where those huge turn radii and very shallow bank angles are derived from in the latter portion of the cartoon is anyone's guess. It is never clearly stated how and where those radii were derived nor to what flight path they apply.

As shown in the video, the radii were determined by a simple equation and some input variables.

QUOTE (Reheat)
Note that no vertical pull-up was addressed at all throughout the entire charade.

Marie De La Cerda says that she initially thought the plane impacted on the other side of the Pentagon. Boger also places the plane higher in the air relative to the impact hole. Morin, by virtue of the fact that he saw the vertical stabilizer at the time of the explosion, also points to a high altitude. Thus any G increase due to a pull-up is negligible.

QUOTE (Reheat)
The innuendo of some type of exotic aircraft design was to be expected. It's funny that the witnesses describe a transport category aircraft, but that might be an inconvenient fact.

You idiot! How can you witness vectored thrust, unconventional wing designs, or any other aircraft modificaton if you don't know they exist!

I'd like to thank PFT for exposing the pseudoskepticism used by so-called "aviation professionals" such as the anonymous "Reheat"!

thumbsup.gif

This post has been edited by Janusaur: Dec 26 2008, 01:14 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 26 2008, 01:05 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I posted this in our debate section.. but will cross post it here....

I just had some time to take a gander at their BS replies...

QUOTE
lol... Farmer is so lost he doesnt even realize the formula we used was the same used by Reheat. He probably still thinks his one dimensional formula is the proper way to determine G load of an aircraft pulling out of a dive. By the way, wasnt he supposed to do all types of "calculus" to expose our "fantasy" math? Oh.. .thats right, he deleted his blog.... again... walking contradiction... lol

Its no surprise that Reheat is so lost as well. He doesnt even realize the adjustment to impact point reduced the radius from 12,748 to 11,010 (some of them dont even realize the adjustment as predicted) and kept the bank/ G load well within limits of a 757. As usual, he comes up with some arbitrary number (7025) unsourced. Its also clear he doesnt know how to use a Sagitta formula as we exposed him for over a year ago.

As for the "pull up"? Ask Reheat what happens when an aircraft pulls more than the required G load for a level bank. Since all our banks/speeds are under 2 G, and the GL's admit a 757 can pull 4 G (read: Mackey), what do you suppse will happen with an aircraft pulling 2 more G's than required for a level turn? Personally, i dont think they'll be able to figure it out...

By the way, Reheat can still post here under his "foxy" name. He isnt banned. But im sure he wont. He has been thoroughly exposed with his "aerodynamically impossible" BS. He will only take more of a beating showing up here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 26 2008, 11:23 AM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Reheat shows only level flight calculations and agrees more G's will create a climb... Further, the fact that all G loads are less than 2 G, 2 more G to cause the climb is a non-event depending on aircraft type, weight, config.. .etc etc..... even Detractors agree a 757 can pull 4 G. And finally, its impossible for witnesses to determine exact altitude, therefore its impossible to calculate the actual "pull up" needed. Since the Annex is higher than the pentagon, and perspective/lack of precedent of witnesses seeing an aircraft so low on such a path, the "pull up" is highly unlikely to be as extreme as detractors are trying to claim.

Notice they dont complain about the fact we exposed their Stall speed analysis as intellectually dishonest? Either that, or they just dont have a clue of stall speed factors..... I highly doubt Reheat was ever a pilot and is probably another reason he remains anonymous.


I still see Farmer doesnt realize the formula we used is the same one Reheat offered to check his work (pdf). Its a common formula used by Aeronautical Engineers for aircraft maneuverability. Although, Reheat used online calculators as its clear he cant do anything long hand. Pssst, Farmer, the bank angle will be lower at lower speeds, we used the higher speed. I know this may be hard for you to grasp, but let me spell it out. If we calculated based on acceleration, we would start with a lower speed and lower bank, up to the bank we calculated using the final FDR speed as plotted by the NTSB. Your attempt to confuse your audience isnt working, but it sure appears you are thoroughly confused.. as usual. All calculations are based on level flight, and are two dimensional, just like Reheats calculations in which he claimed the path was "aerodynamically impossible". It is very much aerodynamically possible. GL Myth Busted.

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...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 26 2008, 12:49 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

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



I thought I already [pre-]addressed Reheat's snivelling last night at posts 152-154 very nearby here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10761287

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16635

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16636

Farmer should consult my post #157 in that same thread.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10761294

EDIT: An open challenge to R. Mackey, "Reheat," etc.: quit your anonymous Internet sniping and SHOW ME mathematically where and how our calculations are incorrect, Mr. "Reheat" et alia.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 26 2008, 01:06 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 26 2008, 08:23 AM) *
I still see Farmer doesnt realize the formula we used is the same one Reheat offered to check his work (pdf). Its a common formula used by Aeronautical Engineers for aircraft maneuverability. Although, Reheat used online calculators as its clear he cant do anything long hand. Pssst, Farmer, the bank angle will be lower at lower speeds, we used the higher speed.

Be sure to take a long look at Figure 2 in that .PDF gang, then compare that 2100 foot radius to "Reheat's" ~2000 foot number from his? masterful "debunk."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 26 2008, 01:56 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (dMole @ Dec 26 2008, 11:49 AM) *
EDIT: An open challenge to R. Mackey, "Reheat," etc.: quit your anonymous Internet sniping and SHOW ME mathematically where and how our calculations are incorrect, Mr. "Reheat" et alia.


They already acknowledged our math is correct. Now they are just moving the goal posts to fit their bias, such as the "pull up". Do they realize the tech paper isnt even released yet? I love watching them speculate and offer theory on what we will do. They're so easy to play... Perhaps they should look at Mackeys theories on the "pull up" as its the same segment. Although Mackey derived his calculations for two dimensions and a higher initial altitude, the G loading will be alot less for the "pull up" on the north path than Mackeys numbers. Think perhaps 0.6 G more than shown for level banks in our analysis. wink.gif

Im also not surprised Reheat hasnt corrected Farmer on the formula Reheat initially posted for others to cross check his work. They are throwing Reheat and his formulas under the bus and they arent even aware they are doing it...laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 26 2008, 02:50 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

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



Psst! "Reheat" and associated OGCT True Believer faithful crew:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/completelyknown/401386819/

EDIT:

BTW stick this in your "cartoon":

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index...&id=2704278

beamme.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 26 2008, 03:39 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

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



Pssst! Got MATH Wildcat? [No? I'm shocked, shocked, shocked, shocked I tell you.]

de Nile:

http://www.mbarron.net/Nile/

Contrast at:

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionar...al+(psychology)

"denial /de·ni·al/ (di-niŽil) in psychiatry, a defense mechanism in which the existence of unpleasant internal or external realities is kept out of conscious awareness."

"de·ni·al (d-nl)
n.
An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings."


So is it the algebra, analytic geometry, trigonometry, CAD or what that you seem to have trouble coping with exactly?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 26 2008, 04:04 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



lol... i see their resident circular logic GL jaduheees cant determine the difference between "equal out" and "cancel out".

Where did these people get their education, from a cracker jack box?

Hey jayduh... "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. Duh...

Take some flying lessons will ya? Its taught in basic airmanship. I dont expect Reheat or any other of your resident anonymous "experts" to understand as its clear they didnt even know the factors of stall speed. Certainly nicepants wont understand as its clear he doesnt even realize he's getting ripped off for his training.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 26 2008, 04:24 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



ReTreat calculated level paths and claimed aerodynamic impossibility. We have shown his claims to be bogus and unreasonable.

They now ignore past mistakes and bogus claims made by their cohorts and move the goal post to focus on the "pull up".

Wonder what they're gonna do after the tech paper? lol

Those people just love shooting themselves in the foot.

I can see why many have dubbed their resident "expert", ReTreat.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 26 2008, 04:29 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Turbofan @ Dec 26 2008, 01:19 PM) *
Give us the points and we'll calculate them....or shut the f*ck up.

Until then, have fun eating your humble pie and staring at the mathematically and aerodynamically possible North approach.

Same goes for Reheat, 16.5 and the rest of those fools.

Although I'm not volunteering here to calculate for the benefit of the dogmatic, irrational OGCT True Believer faithful TF, you've got several very valid points. Let's see... how did the GL's put it, nearly ad infinitum?

http://www.zazzle.com/got_math_shirt-235510272832060072

EDIT: Latitude and longitude out to 5 or 6 decimal places would be maaaahvelous my war-crime-apologist daaaahlings!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 26 2008, 04:35 PM
Post #12





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



It's been so funny watching them scramble like mad the very second their forum came back up on Christmas day!!!

laughing1.gif


They are so obsessed they sat on their computers waiting on the biggest holiday of the year.

Spend time with their family?

Hell no!

Farmer was the most pathetic of them all too. He was posting until late in the morning last night putting up images of "math" trying to make himself look like he knows what he is talking about without refuting a damn thing!

Now it's the day after and the floodgates are open as they trip all over themselves looking like a bunch of clowns stuffed in a VW bug!



Classic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 26 2008, 04:53 PM
Post #13



Group Icon

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



What was that saying about rats and a ship again?

[And to clarify Turbofan's post immediately above: I demand latitude and longitude "points," out to at least 5 decimal places, "supported by reason"- then we'll negotiate. I don't want to be bothered with arcminutes and arcseconds, but I could do those too.] Maybe it's a good idea to provide "Pffffft" with both decimal degree coordinates and deg min' sec" coordinates- yeah, do that if you will. We'll wait...

EDIT: To review, from a very nearby thread, post #152:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10761287

QUOTE
Incidentally, I found that "Reheat's" yellow pin was 305.9 feet north of the SW Pentagon corner, where the Wikipedia, CIT, and a couple of other sources place the "impact" location at approximately 331 feet north of the SW corner. Moving this "impact" location will greatly affect the turn radius required.

I have already imported CIT's witness image into my CAD program for similar graphical analysis, but I'd like to wait and see the "debunker" reactions for a while. I'm certain that they will knee-jerk disparage the graphical analysis as a "cartoon" at least a few dozen times, since some of them already were before the presentation was even released. As always, the reader is encouraged to "do his/her own math," and a good ruler with prudent multiplication could be applied to these 2 images for independent verification.


Sow... reap... cope.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 26 2008, 05:31 PM
Post #14





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



QUOTE (Turbofan @ Dec 26 2008, 09:07 PM) *
This moron 16.5 IQ seems to think we endorse a bank angle of 60 degrees as witness compatible? I guess he forgot to wear his 3D glasses
when watching the video...I don't ever recall seeing "witness compatible" for a 60 degree bank angle?

This is however aerodynamically possible.

We will use a bank angle that agrees with witness statements (as we should) to be as accurate as possible.



It is impossible to tell bank angle with any degree of certainty from eyewitnesses.

Only generalized statements like tilted left or tilted right should be considered.

We can't fall into their trap of expecting all the witnesses to be mathematically accurate about ANYTHING.

Witnesses are not computers and they will ALL make mistakes.

The ANC witnesses and Lagasse prove that plane was over the ANC parking lot because they had the best view and opposite perspectives yet they match perfectly.

The flight path in the presentation that considered Roosevelt Roberts is the most accurate.

Boger, Morin, and Middleton are the most accurate data points to determine speed due to their perspectives and they all describe it as relatively slow.

I think the 200 knots estimate is absolutely fair considering this.

So what did you guys figure the bank was for the Roosevelt path at that speed?

35 degree bank right?

There is nothing unreasonable about this and we must never forget that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for any of these guys to accurately recognize, remember, and report the difference between a 22 or 35 degree bank during such a harrowing event or ever for that matter.

It's ok if the witnesses aren't completely accurate about little details like this.

It is unreasonable to expect them to be.

But the GENERAL corroborated claim of a right bank AT ALL is very strong further confirmation that the plane flew on the north side.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 26 2008, 05:37 PM
Post #15





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



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

That is a myth that they made up.

Sure we initially hypothesized that this is what happened but now that we have the ANC witnesses and Roosevelt's account we don't think this is what happened.

The deception would be effective no matter how you slice it since the massive fireball and smoke plume would naturally divert attention regardless of the exact location of the plane in relation to the exact location of the fireball.

Everybody has a different perspective anyway.

But again...WE HAVE NEVER DENIED THAT PEOPLE SAW THE FLYOVER.

That is what the 2nd plane cover story was all about.

The decoy jet was alternately meant to fool some people into thinking it hit the building while fooling most others that it was a 2nd plane that didn't hit the building.

Roosevelt Roberts proves how effective this was since he fully believed the commercial airliner with jet engines that he saw banking away immediately after the explosion at less than 100 feet AGL was a "2nd plane".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 26 2008, 06:34 PM
Post #16





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



Exactly.

You nailed them from all angles.

They will ALWAYS move the goal posts.


So even though ANY of these variations are possible we can never forget that Roosevelt Roberts saw that plane banking over the south parking lot after the explosion.





Now we have the math and video example proving this entirely possible and reconcilable with a north side approach.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 26 2008, 06:47 PM
Post #17





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



Oh and they can cry all they want about this "throwing Morin under the bus" because Morin had THE WORST perspective from between the wings of the Navy Annex!

It would have been a split second.

But of course that perspective is PERFECT to tell whether or not it was directly over the Navy Annex as opposed to SOUTH of Columbia Pike.

Sure enough he confirmed this perfectly and even scoffed at the possibility that it could have been completely south of Columbia Pike.

But the ANC witnesses all SAW IT APPROACH unlike Morin and therefore had a much better judge of it's exact location and heading.

It would be IMPOSSIBLE for Middleton to see the plane at all on the south side but this Roosevelt path works perfectly with his "southgate road" path.

It's not surprising that Middleton and Morin as well as others might have perceived it or remembered it as traveling straight when it wasn't when considering the POV's.

There is so much to consider with every witness but they all have a margin of error and only the general details can be definitively confirmed.

North or south of citgo.

Over Navy Annex or south of Columbia Pike.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Dec 26 2008, 06:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 26 2008, 06:58 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

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



Awww yeaaah! 15:15 "credulity" points for "Wildcat!" Hey, we should turn this into a drinking game! wink.gif

And just for Farmer:

in lieu of mathematical content, and since you appear to have such an obsession with "latex:"

http://www.printfection.com/shop/funny+tsh...w_sideid.278154

http://img.printfection.com/1/584/278154/zJlJd.jpg



Lat/lon... 5 decimal places... still waiting... whistle.gif

EDIT: I believe that "spcengineer" still has a valid account here: dunno.gif

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showuser=717

EDIT2: And yes Mr. Farmer, I learned at University that it is pronounced "lay-tek..." B)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 26 2008, 07:02 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Farmer still doesnt even realize from where the formula came. Looks like he is going to try to "disprove it" with his "Newtonian Physics" when all he has to do is ask Reheat to show him the pdf and that the formula is based off same, but specifically tailored for aircraft maneuverability. Whatever... let him waste his time i suppose... its the same BS we went through when working together. When proven wrong, he claims we didnt know what we're talking about. Seems he did that wth every Expert he comes across, except of course the anoynmous "experts" on J.REF. Give it time, Famer is a creature of habit.


Farmer will never come here to debate, just like he refused debate when asked by Mark Gaffney. He is completely lost.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 26 2008, 07:36 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 26 2008, 04:02 PM) *
Farmer still doesnt even realize from where the formula came. Looks like he is going to try to "disprove it" with his "Newtonian Physics" when all he has to do is ask Reheat to show him the pdf and that the formula is based off same, but specifically tailored for aircraft maneuverability. Whatever... let him waste his time i suppose... its the same BS we went through when working together. When proven wrong, he claims we didnt know what we're talking about.

Ummm.... didn't that v2/(r*11.26) formula (with v in knots and r in feet, and yes I took a "shortcut" but "check my math") come from Newtonian physics?!?!?!

http://www.mill-creek-systems.com/se/SEGravity.htm
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: 24th October 2014 - 04:30 AM