William Middleton Sr - north side approach witness, the ultimate validation

Craig has also responded, but I don't think I will dignify his post with a significant response. Craig you are simply equivocating and complaining that I require more than eyewitness verification to accuse many hundreds of people of complicity in mass murder.

Strawman.

you claim that eyewitness accounts are corroborated, but make no effort to find if these accounts do conflict. For example your argument for Mr Middleton is that he could not see the plane if it were on the southerly flight path, but you do not apply this same logic to Mr Paik. Mr Paik was surrounded by buildings limiting his field of view to the north in much the same way as Mr Middleton was limited to the south. Despite the fact these two people describe flight paths which are at odds you simply claim they corroborate each other.

So now we have to find conflicts? Ah, because you are the authority and the goal posts weren't moved enough huh? We have to capitulate to your demands huh?

We've always said Paik could not see the plane after it passed over him, but he puts it heading right to the north side flight path in his directional deduction, which would corroborate Middleton. In fact, he drew on an overhead satellite shot. We've pointed out that Middleton deduced the plane coming down southgate road, but saw it fly and bank on the north side of the Citgo.

Ex, you're flounderin'.

I am not trying to claim you are afraid of my calculations, I simply find it amusing that despite your theory being "proven" it does not seem to hold up to even amateur physics based analysis.

What theory? There is no theory. Witnesses all place the plane on the north side of the Citgo.

"Amateur physics based analysis"? Really? An amateur physicist looked at this? Why not a professional aeronautical engineer? Or a professional pilot?

What speed did this amateur physicist use? Did he obtain the black box data to the NoC attack jet and we just don't know about it or did he use "unreliable witness memory" to determine those types of values?

Ex, people read what you are writing, then they watch the interviews, then they realize how wrong and desperate you are. Seriously, you can't be serious can you?


The plane was on the north side. You can't move a plane.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Strawman.

I apologise if it was, but I don't think it is.

So now we have to find conflicts? Ah, because you are the authority and the goal posts weren't moved enough huh? We have to capitulate to your demands huh?

You are not required to capitulate to my demands, and I am not any authority on this matter. You have so far failed to bring this to any actual authorities so I am simply pointing out problems I have with your theory. If you don't want to convince me then that's fine, convince someone who actually matters.

We've always said Paik could not see the plane after it passed over him, but he puts it heading right to the north side flight path in his directional deduction, which would corroborate Middleton. In fact, he drew on an overhead satellite shot.

Could you post that please?

Ex, you're flounderin'.

I'm a small flatfish? Only joking!

What theory? There is no theory. Witnesses all place the plane on the north side of the Citgo.

I'm not going to go into the fact that all of these witnesses also claim that the plane impacted The Pentagon, my previous posts speak on this matter.

"Amateur physics based analysis"? Really? An amateur physicist looked at this? Why not a professional aeronautical engineer? Or a professional pilot?

I am only an amateur physicist, Beachnut is a professional pilot, and I believe that R Mackey is a professional engineer. Your requirements have been met.

What speed did this amateur physicist use? Did he obtain the black box data to the NoC attack jet and we just don't know about it or did he use "unreliable witness memory" to determine those types of values?

I used a variety of speeds if you remember, and requested them from you to try and make my analysis more reliable. You and JDX have both refused.

Ex, people read what you are writing, then they watch the interviews, then they realize how wrong and desperate you are. Seriously, you can't be serious can you?

I am as serious as can be. I guess this is just an attempt to rattle my confidence.

The plane was on the north side.

I doubt it.

Originally posted by exponent
This was not an argument, this was a response to your question. Please don't straw man my position.

It was not in response to my question. It was a direct assertion based on your "belief" that the North path witnesses are not accurate in their statements. Considering you claimed it was based on your "belief", that is textbook argument from incredulity. Also known as an argument from ignorance.

Reminder, people can read what you write. It doesnt disappear after you write it (unless you're Beachnut who deletes posts to "save space")

Ok, please answer my question while ignoring anywhere I say 'AA77' and replacing it with 'the plane'.

Please provide positive ID for "the plane" and perhaps the black box data of "the plane", and we can give you the exact speed of "the plane" seen by multiple independent witnesses on the north path.

No it's the path I generated to comply with only 2 of your witnesses, both of whom I do not disagree with, and which agrees with the North of Citgo theory.

Im glad you agree at least two of the wintesses saw "the plane" on the North path. When will you figure out the others?

Not at all, a red herring is an item intended to distract from the original debate. My requirement for exact speeds is the original debate.

See reply above for obtaining exact speeds of what is now "the plane", (formerly "AA77" based on your previous red herring).

Forensic accuracy is not required,

Numerous Aircraft Accident Investigators and aviation professionals who can be verified at Pilots For 9/11 Truth disagree.

as for the rest of this quote, your attempt to slight me based on "belief" is ludicrous. The type of aircraft is irrelevant.

You're the one who claimed your argument was based on your "belief" that the witnesses "did not see the aircraft on the north side", when in fact, the north path is exactly what they describe, independently...

I guess we agree to disagree here....

Is this even a real question? I'm here because this is where many false claims are made and it is my intention to confront these false claims, including yours when you see fit to post here.

Again, these arent "my claims". These are claims made by people who were there on 9/11. Why havent you confronted them?

Again you refer to "belief". This is a CIT tactic of simply claiming one theory is proven and the other is unverified. I could make the same claims but I feel it is a rather shallow tactic that adds nothing to the debate.

Again. you're the one who said you "...believe the witnesses did not see the aircraft on the north side." Do you deny you said this? I can quote it if you like.. again.

Remember, your posts do not disappear no matter how much you wish it to be so... again, unless of course you want to "save space".

...I am also familiar with the history of debates on 911 and I am not an idiot.

I never said you were...

I apologise if you do not endorse CITs theory, I was referring to the theory being put forward by CIT as addressed in this thread.

There is no "theory" in this thread. An interview is presented in the OP filmed on location with a witness to the events on 9/11 who was actually there. You "believe" Middleton didnt see, what Middleton says he saw, and corroborated by numerous other witnesses, who were there. You are certainly entitled to your "belief".

Their claims are based on their analyses, these analyses are not strawmen. Your nomenclature is entirely incorrect.

Reheat and Beachnut have said time and time again that the NoC is impossible. You say it is possible based on your calculations (not belief). Who is lying?

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is required in any criminal case. Do you feel this is a civil case?

No indeed, it would be a criminal case.

"Preponderance of evidence" is civil. Do you know the difference? Make up your mind.

The plane which impacted The Pentagon was AA77.

Really? got any part numbers matched with N644AA mx logs? Unfortunately, the FBI and NTSB doesnt have such data for our Aircraft Accident Investigators. So we appreciate the fact you claim you have such informaton since it appears you are so sure "beyond a reasonable doubt"... or is it "Preponderance of evidence"? lol

This has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Prepodenrance... beyond reasonable doubt... hmm... which is it Exponent?

TomAto or TomatO!? lol

You may notice that the word reasonable is not objective. This is why there is a jury in these cases.

Yeah, jury, hmm, this is what Lt Col Jeff Latas has to say about our latest presentation...

Very good!



This is very factual and deserves much attention. You did a good job on presenting your case. While watching, I put myself in a court room and listened as if this were a court case and your argument was very compelling.



Jeff

Jeff Latas qualifications/experience
-Over 20 years in the USAF
--USAF Accident investigation Board President
--Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E
--Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch
--Weapons Requirements Officer, USAF HQ, Pentagon
--Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level
-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways


This was posted before, but it appears you missed it (or ignored it).

Need more reviews of our film from those who can be verified?

For example your argument for Mr Middleton is that he could not see the plane if it were on the southerly flight path, but you do not apply this same logic to Mr Paik.

Paik point of view is covered in our new film. We'll release that scene eventually.

Mr Paik was surrounded by buildings limiting his field of view to the north in much the same way as Mr Middleton was limited to the south. Despite the fact these two people describe flight paths which are at odds you simply claim they corroborate each other.

They do. Watch the OP video carefully. If not, wait for full film release on google. Or, pay the 19.95 if you cant wait.

Rgds,
Rob



[edit on 25-9-2008 by johndoex]

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Strawman.

I apologise if it was, but I don't think it is.

I think it was and your apology is accepted.

So now we have to find conflicts? Ah, because you are the authority and the goal posts weren't moved enough huh? We have to capitulate to your demands huh?

You are not required to capitulate to my demands, and I am not any authority on this matter. You have so far failed to bring this to any actual authorities so I am simply pointing out problems I have with your theory. If you don't want to convince me then that's fine, convince someone who actually matters.

There is no theory, Exponent. I am not sure how many times you have to be corrected on this. So now it is shifted from finding conflicts to taking it to the authorities. Ok Gotcha.

We've always said Paik could not see the plane after it passed over him, but he puts it heading right to the north side flight path in his directional deduction, which would corroborate Middleton. In fact, he drew on an overhead satellite shot.

Could you post that please?

Post what? It's been posted plenty. It is visibly obvious. Why would we need to prove we've said that? We've been there. We know what he could see and what he couldn't see.

What theory? There is no theory. Witnesses all place the plane on the north side of the Citgo.

I'm not going to go into the fact that all of these witnesses also claim that the plane impacted The Pentagon, my previous posts speak on this matter.

Ah back to the old circle again huh? Ok I'll play along AGAIN.

So they saw it impact but didn't see it on the north side. Is that what you are implying? How did it impact approaching from the north side?

"Amateur physics based analysis"? Really? An amateur physicist looked at this? Why not a professional aeronautical engineer? Or a professional pilot?

I am only an amateur physicist, Beachnut is a professional pilot, and I believe that R Mackey is a professional engineer. Your requirements have been met.

Beachnut is a professional pilot? Is he registered in the FAA database under Beachnut? Have you even read the incoherent, rabidly and purposefully deceptive posts of Beachnuts? He is no "professional pilot". There is no proof of such. RMackey is a "NASA Scientist" who was proven wrong on the official flight path. He never even commented on whether commented on the NoC flight path being impossible.

I doubt it.

You have no reason to.

Have you even watched the interviews Ex?

[edit on 25-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by johndoex

All the paths drawn, 6 years after based on 6 year old memories are not physically possible.

The 1.5 DME stored in the INS, does not trump the INS. The INS is 1500 feet off near the Pentagon, down from 2000 feet off at takeoff.

The DME must be stored by FARs at 1 mile resolution. 77 FDR stored DME at 0.25 NM resolution. This means 1.5 DME is not 1.5 NM from DCA.

Do a study on the DME on 77, you will find on 9/11 it was averaging about 0.35 NM accuracy. Do your own analysis or pay an engineer to do it for you. As you know the DME accuracy can be as high, close in, just under 1/2 mile and 3 percent of the distance far from the station. The best accuracy close in, 0.0 DME to 8 DME is 0.23 NM. An actual distance of Flight 77 of 1.85 NM from DCA can be stored as 1.5 DME.

A 1.85 NM actual position for 77 can be stored in the FDR as 1.5 DME. Over 2000 feet off.

DME is 0.355 NM accurate when stored in the FDR. This vaporizes using 1.5 DME as an exact position, it is not accurate but to 2100 feet. 77 real position on your image is between the yellow dot and the last blue dot on the image; over 6 seconds to impact with the last INS position. This is found by using RADAR and FDR information, an engineer can correlate this too for a fee.

My flying license is good for life. I was flying aerobatics in supersonic jets at the age of 23, a left seat Aircraft Commander/Aircrew Commander/(Equal to a Captain on an airliner) at the age of 26, flying missions and passengers in a 300,000 pound class jet aircraft all over the world. How old are you? 38?

The interviews were great, but the paths they drew are not possible to fly. That means 77 was not where they said it was.

So CIT says all the paths are wrong too? Which one is it? Which path is the right one?

Originally posted by beachnut

All the paths drawn, 6 years after based on 6 year old memories are not physically possible.

George Aman and Darrell Stafford described the same banking north side flight path to the Center for Miltiary History within the first weeks of the attack.

Lagasse described being on the "starboard" side of the craft in 2003.

So you are wrong.

Besides, if this was a nothing but a case of faded 6 year old memories......their accounts would not match!

Corroboration is the scientific process used to validate eyewitness claims.

This simple right or left claim has been unanimously corroborated which scientifically proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true.

Your unreasonable doubt and blanket dismissal based on your clear confirmation bias is irrelevant.

Originally posted by beachnut
All the paths drawn, 6 years after based on 6 year old memories are not physically possible.

The statements were not made 6 year after 9/11. Why are you unable to understand the CMH interviews told to you time and time again? Why do you ignore such information? The statements were verified 6 years after the initial interviews conducted by the CMH. Do you understand the difference?

The 1.5 DME stored in the INS,

INS is based on IR sensors. There is no such thing as an "INS" storing DME. Are you confusing FMS with INS?

does not trump the INS.

DME trumps INS/IRS everytime in accuracy. Do you disagree? And if so, care to put your name on such claims? When was the last time you flew INS/IR? We have several A320 jetBlue pilots who laugh at you everytime you make such absurd claims. It is also the reason you refuse to debate us on such claims, other than from behind your screen. Keep up the comic relief. We know for a fact you'll never be in an airplane again as PIC.

The INS is 1500 feet off near the Pentagon, down from 2000 feet off at takeoff.

INS cannot realign itself in flight. Are you sure you're a real pilot? When was the last time you flew? Not to mention the fact you are lying regarding 1500-2000. It was more than 3000 off, first flight of day, out of IAD. Stop moving the goal posts. Even Reheat doesnt claim your BS. (he at least tries to spin it to make sense... 2000-4000). Beachnut, you and Reheat conflict. You both conflct with real world application. We can see why you no longer fly, and havent in many years, refuse to debate P4T who have many current and qualified Airline pilots, and why Reheat refuses to put his name to his claims.

The DME must be stored by FARs at 1 mile resolution.

The FAR's also says Private Pilot Practical can be taken at 40 hours total time to fly passengers. When was the last time you seen such occur? Beachnut, are you familiar with FAR minimum requirements? The 1 mile resolution is a minimum requirement. How many times does it need to be repeated to you?

77 FDR stored DME at 0.25 NM resolution. This means 1.5 DME is not 1.5 NM from DCA.

Source? If you reply with RO2. Did you decode it? If not, why are you relying on our (P4T) decode? Im telling you, you're wrong if you rely on RO2. If you do not rely on RO2 for your above claim, please provide your personal decode and narrative of the decode as we have. Your strawmans are getting stale. Beachnut, why are you unable to decode the raw file and P4T can? (we all know why...)

Your AIM reference is BS. You never quote the full reference and real pilots who actually shoot approaches qauled on Cat III aircraft know why you will never quote full reference.

Do a study on the DME on 77, you will find on 9/11 it was averaging about 0.35 NM accuracy.

On a Cat III certified Crew and Aircraft? What are you smoking? Where is your source? RO2? Who decoded RO2? What cant you decode RO2? What is the diclaimer from the people who decoded RO2? Can you answer any one of these questions or will you dodge?

Do your own analysis or pay an engineer to do it for you.

We have several, including calls into L3. Why havent you called them? Ohhh. .thats right, a salesman who sells their product to fleets worldwide knows less about L3 products than "Beachnut" on ATS. (rolleyes)

As you know the DME accuracy can be as high, close in, just under 1/2 mile and 3 percent of the distance far from the station. The best accuracy close in, 0.0 DME to 8 DME is 0.23 NM. An actual distance of Flight 77 of 1.85 NM from DCA can be stored as 1.5 DME.

You're becoming incoherent again Beachnut. Try sourcing your claims next time.

My flying license is good for life. I was flying aerobatics in supersonic jets at the age of 23, a left seat Aircraft Commander/Aircrew Commander/(Equal to a Captain on an airliner) at the age of 26, flying missions and passengers in a 300,000 pound class jet aircraft all over the world. How old are you? 38?

P4T core members can be verified at faa.gov. "Beachnut" cannot.

Beachnut, according to you, you are an FDR Expert, a pilot, a heavy transport commander, a TERPS engineer in Desert Storm, a Steel expert (when debating WTC), an Electrical engineer (yet unfamiliar with EPPROM, getting schooled by an auto tech familair with data storage). Beachnut, according to you, you are an expert on every argument you have ever argued on the net! Wow. Why do you spend so much time on the net then? You can claim "expertise" on message boards, but it doesnt mean its true. The fact you refuse to debate real experts who can be verified, and constantly move your goal posts when exposed (not to mention delete posts), speaks volumes. The only "expertise" i see from you based on post count across the net, is perhaps a expert forum poster. And even then, many of your posts are incoherent. lol

The interviews were great, but the paths they drew are not possible to fly. That means 77 was not where they said it was.

And you have interviewed with them confront such claims? I look forward to your interviews on location.

So CIT says all the paths are wrong too? Which one is it? Which path is the right one?

Beachnut, you didnt even know which path was Middletons when the path was drawn in the OP! You didnt even need to watch the video (as its clear you still havent).

Beachnut, you have been wrong so many times, i guess that is why you spend every hour of the day and night online with people you think have "nothing"? So you can eventually get something right?

Have a great night...

Rob

Originally posted by exponent
The identity of the craft is irrelevant

How very wrong this statement is.

Exponent, I expected better of you than to state this.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So you are wrong.

Boger saw 77 impact the Pentagon. And all your witnesses agree, 77 impacted the Pentagon.

Originally posted by beachnut

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So you are wrong.

Boger saw 77 impact the Pentagon. And all your witnesses agree, 77 impacted the Pentagon.

How can you trust that? It's based on a six year old memory?

But, yes, if you are going to accept that he saw a northside flight path, then realistically you should accept that he saw something impact with the Pentagon.

As I understand it though, the crux is that the damage pattern, external to the pentagon, and internal, does fit the pattern of the official flight path.

However, there is independently collected and verified tesimony from impartial eyewitnesses to a flight path markedly different from that stated by the official story. Until a greater degree of equivalent proof is presented, I have to accept this as a very real possibility, and that a massive deception occured on that day.

Not that I agree with all of the CIT conclusions, but the unrefuted testimony presented for the NoC flightpath does make for a very damning scenario as far as the official story goes.

Originally posted by almighty bob

Originally posted by beachnut

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So you are wrong.

Boger saw 77 impact the Pentagon. And all your witnesses agree, 77 impacted the Pentagon.

How can you trust that? It's based on a six year old memory?

But, yes, if you are going to accept that he saw a northside flight path, then realistically you should accept that he saw something impact with the Pentagon.

As I understand it though, the crux is that the damage pattern, external to the pentagon, and internal, does fit the pattern of the official flight path.

However, there is independently collected and verified tesimony from impartial eyewitnesses to a flight path markedly different from that stated by the official story. Until a greater degree of equivalent proof is presented, I have to accept this as a very real possibility, and that a massive deception occured on that day.

Not that I agree with all of the CIT conclusions, but the unrefuted testimony presented for the NoC flightpath does make for a very damning scenario as far as the official story goes.

I agree, with you. I don't accept right now the conclusions CIT has come to regarding this, but the eyewitness testimony they have uncovered seems very credible and contradicts the official flight path in a very critical way. What this means is anyone's guess at this point. I think CIT has went through a process of elimination to arrive at the theory they have, but perhaps if the conclusion was left for a later date more people could have filled in their own blanks as to what happened.

It seems that there was a plane flying North of the CITGO gas station, and obviously the damage does not fit that flight path, so what else could have happened?

I think they have begun to unravel something and everyone needs to step back and take a deep breath and just think it all through, for myself I am mystified at this point.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by talisman]

Originally posted by johndoex
INS cannot realign itself in flight.

Oh, it can't huh?

Why is it that VOR/DME was used to UPDATE the INS in these applications in 2001? If that isn't a realignment, what is? It torques the gyros and it's done to improve accuracy. Note that it is VOR/DME, not just DME. Most aircraft now have GPS and that is now used for updating INS' in flight simply because it's more accurate.

It's pretty obvious you have never flown with an INS system. Ask your buddy Jeff Latas as he's flown with them.

If you used the term INITIALIZE in flight you would be correct. At least in these applications. I have flown with an INS that could be INITIALIZED in flight. It took a long time and was rarely accurate, but it could be done.

Your feeble attempt to indicate there is conflict between beachnut and I is truly entertaining. My dog even laughs!

Beachnut is correct and you are wrong, again.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by Reheat]

Originally posted by talisman
I think they have begun to unravel something and everyone needs to step back and take a deep breath and just think it all through, for myself I am mystified at this point.

No one would be mystified at all if you could do the aerodynamic physics to confirm or deny what the witnesses say.

If you can't do the math get an Engineer or a Pilot who can do the math to show you how what the witnesses say is impossible. My analysis is linked in my signature. I invite you or anyone else to point out where it is incorrect.

Exponents' example posted earlier is just an example. He only used two of the witnesses to show the ONLY possible flight path that could be flown North of the Citgo Station. Even it shows high bank angles and high G that NO ONE DESCRIBED. However, when all of the witnesses are put together and multiple flight paths at varying speeds are attempted they ALL FAIL.

reply to post by johndoex

It has been proven 77 impacted the Pentagon. You can't refute with facts any of the evidence. Where is your evidence. All the parts are from 77 and you have not even one piece of evidence to refute it; you will say for me to prove to you. No, you make the fantasy claim back it up with facts and evidence.

DME; DME is stored at resolution of 0.25 NM, you can't show one value of DME from the FDR as X.1, X.3, X.4, X.6, X.7, X.9. save your time the X.8 values will not be in the pilot for truth decode, but you will have an X.7 value. Thus proving the DME resolution does not let you say 1.5DME is 1.5 NM.

The DME accuracy is 0.23 NM for 77. This still means the 1.5 DME just stored in the FDR at 09:37:43 could be over 2100 feet off. I can go through this again, or get someone else to explain resolution and accuracy. DME accuracy is one reason airways are 8 miles wide and non precision approaches make you level off until you can land safely.

INS systems can be updated with VOR/DME, are you sure Jet Blue pilots are still laughing at me, or you? Was that one Jet Blue pilot? Ask them about the Camps One departure, which was used on 9/11, and was designed to fly over the approach and departure area, it is all TERPs out. I designed approaches, this is cool.

You have not refuted the DNA, the parts, the RADAR data, the FDR, witnesses, who all saw 77 impact the Pentagon.

Call us when you can explain the DNA with a plausible story.

Mr. Middleton say 77 impacted the Pentagon.

Why do all the witnesses point to the south path? Great interviews, showing confirmation as all the new interview guys point to the south path and agree 77 impacted the Pentagon.

Starred and flagged. Keep fighting the good fight Craig, and CIT, as well as PFT

Any evidence provided by the government cannot be trusted. Beachnut(excuse me, I had said Reheat, edit, my mistake) did you examine this DNA yourself? No, you just believe what you are told.

At least Craig is out there talking to people who were actually there, all you do is sit here and run your mouth, and repeat the "official story", that is called hear-say.

I am in agreance due to the damage I saw with my own eyes to the pentagon that a Boeing of that size is incosistant. I think people believe the plane hit the building because they had already heard about it on the radio, or saw on TV, the second plane hitting the WTC. I would imagine Mr. Boger seeing the plane basically coming right at him, ducked and covered, just like anyone else within a half mile of the pentagon probably did, before the actually impact (ie flyover, and missile strike).

The damage I saw before the roof collapsed was much more consistent with that of a missile, than an enourmous passenger jet, with two what 9 foot? titanium engines on either side. Nah, a plane of that size would do more damage and leave more debris than the neat hole we saw before the roof collapsed, and the neat punchout hole.

Why doesn't the government just release any footage from ANY of the 86 cameras that could have shown this plane, and validate thier tale???? Why because they can't, the plane isn't where they claim it was.

They give us 4 images showing an explosion (no plane), then a couple years later a 5th showing a white plume of smoke crossing the pentagon lawn(still no plane). It's laughable at best to trust that type of information. It's an insult to anyones intelligence.

Ask yourself with the Nation under attack, why was the Secretary of defense video taped, being the 6th man getting in the way, of carrying a guy off the Pentagon lawn? Don't you think he might have had something "else" to attend to?? Like the USA being under attack?

Let's not forget Mr, Rumsfeld also told us flight 93 was shot down, so the government has already proven to lie about the circumstances around one of the hijacked planes, it's not a stretch that they would also lie about another.

Thanks again Craig for putting in some actual footwork. I hope one day you find your answers.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by Nola213]

[edit on 26-9-2008 by Nola213]

[edit on 26-9-2008 by Nola213]

reply to post by johndoex

I know the DME stored in the FDR, not in the INS; did I make a typo? The INS uses VOR/DME to update the INS. Thank you very much. The DME is stored at 0.35 resolution was my point, and that makes using 1.5 DME as accurate off.

The DME also has up to 1/2 mile accuracy close in like 1.5 DME. The accuracy for 77 is 0.23. You can check the FDR DME and you will get higher values, which should we use? And this is supported in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM).

Finally some one looked at the data. Yes the INS was off 3000 feet at takeoff. I have tried to get you and I on the same sheet for what, years? Good for you, you finally corrected my error, thank you again. And I never said Reheat was with 4000 feet, just like DME there are accuracy issues, DME is off up to a half mile near the station to 3 miles at 100 miles. Gee, looks like INS beats DME at 100 miles and can tie the rest of the time. Try not to forget 3 percent of the distance or less than ½ mile, whichever is greater. With 8 mile wide airways the accuracy of DME is not important. I flew a lot of time without DME over water using just the stars, with an accuracy of 25 miles or less.

But why is the DME verified by radar later at 1800 feet, 2500, 2400, 800, 650, 500, 200 feet. How accurate is RADAR data? I flew with some of the first INS developed, my navigator could care and feed it to keep it at ¼ mile. 1500 feet. I think he could update it with his own fixes. How did he do that? Only have 28 years experience with INS.

Even at 1.5 nm from DCA the terrorist can hit the Pentagon. 77 is only at 398 MSL.

Middleton saw 77 low. What does that mean? And the others agree 77 was low enough to hit the lampposts, and the Pentagon. Even Middleton believes 77 hit. But the DNA evidence proves 77 impacted as seen by many people on 9/11, verified by RADAR, and the parts from 77.

I like the video best when Middleton pointed right to the south path.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Beachnut is a professional pilot? Is he registered in the FAA database under Beachnut? Have you even read the incoherent, rabidly and purposefully deceptive posts of Beachnuts? He is no "professional pilot". There is no proof of such. RMackey is a "NASA Scientist" who was proven wrong on the official flight path. He never even commented on whether commented on the NoC flight path being impossible.
[edit on 25-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Great evidence. You know I have an ATP, instrument rated pilot at 23, flying heavy jets at 23, the left seat (equal to captain in the airlines) heavy jets at 26. I am sure johndoex has an ATP and flies left seat heavy jets. Great evidence.

Did you tell Middleton he points to the south path and what that means to you?

Did you tell all those guys who drew the paths that physics makes it impossible for those to be flown?

Was seeing a plane up close the reason they moved it in their heads to closer? Those on Columbia Pike had it easier, 77 was over them.

If you forgot to tell them the flight paths were impossible, are you going back to correct them?
What illusion made them move the flight path closer to them, and make physically impossible paths?
Are you under the impression the witness statements are wrong due to time, and you just use what fits your agenda?

On of the interviews has one guy point each time asked to the south flight path, but someone keeps saying north side, he points to the south path, then a north side comes out. Is this good practice when taking witness statements? Is that common to lead a witness like that when investigating things like this?

[edit on 26-9-2008 by beachnut]

Originally posted by beachnut
e]
Great evidence. You know I have an ATP, instrument rated pilot at 23, flying heavy jets at 23, the left seat (equal to captain in the airlines) heavy jets at 26.

Really?

Prove it.

Did you tell Middleton he points to the south path and what that means to you?

Except that he didn't do that or say that and anyone who watches his interview will see this quite obviously.

He specifically says that it came:

"On the NORTH side of the Navy Annex"

And that it flew:

"Right over the top of the parking lot" of the ANC maintenance buildings which is EXACTLY what all the other witnesses including Lagasse said.

Did you tell all those guys who drew the paths that physics makes it impossible for those to be flown?

Of course not since even Reheat agrees that it IS possible!

"Exponents' example posted earlier is just an example. He only used two of the witnesses to show the ONLY possible flight path that could be flown North of the Citgo Station."
-Reheat admits NoC flight path is possible. 9/25/2008

On of the interviews has one guy point each time asked to the south flight path, but someone keeps saying north side, he points to the south path, then a north side comes out. Is this good practice when taking witness statements? Is that common to lead a witness like that when investigating things like this?

Now you are straight up lying which is why you don't quote me, cite where in the presentation, or even bother to state the witness name!

Prove yourself.

Stop making up nonsense like you did about Joseph Royster.

You have no clue what his exact location was let alone what street he was on!

That's the difference between you and me.

I make the effort to contact the witnesses and report exactly what they say while you have no problem making things up and lying about them when you have made no effort whatsoever to confirm a single thing.

Originally posted by beachnut
It has been proven 77 impacted the Pentagon. You can't refute with facts any of the evidence. Where is your evidence. All the parts are from 77 and you have not even one piece of evidence to refute it

Show me where all of the parts have been proven to come from Flight AA77?

Reheat showed me one unsourced picture of something unidentifiable and expected me to 'believe' that it was from AA77!

I don't want to believe something, beachnut, so show me your evidence that proves those alleged parts are from the alleged Flight AA77.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Prove what? My ATP, jdx has this stuff.


I am trained to do professionally what you attempt to do. Your take parts that support your pre-conceived ideas and ignore anything that counters your ideas. You could use some formal training in this area.

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "… I just watched it hit the building."

refutes your conclusion, as do all your witnesses who will say 77 hit the Pentagon