Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


I refer you to the PDF supplement. It clearly shows the plane at an angle of approach that puts it 100ft above the Pentagon.

There are no witnesses to support this, therefore the PDF is in contradiction to the witnesses.

Please explain this.

posted by cogburn

I refer you to the PDF supplement. It clearly shows the plane at an angle of approach that puts it 100ft above the Pentagon.

There are no witnesses to support this, therefore the PDF is in contradiction to the witnesses.

Please explain this.

How many times do we need to tell you? Watch the video AND read the tech paper. That is explained for you. Better yet, quit sniping and acting like a troll and a fool and displaying your lack of knowledge, and go to P4T with an open mind free of JREF disinformation and they can help you overcome your ignorance.

Originally posted by SPreston
How many times do we need to tell you? Watch the video AND read the tech paper. That is explained for you. Better yet, quit sniping and acting like a troll and a fool and displaying your lack of knowledge, and go to P4T with an open mind free of JREF disinformation and they can help you overcome your ignorance.

Don't bother with the P4T forum...they ban anyone who disagrees with them. At least here you're on neutral ground where all forum members must obey the same rules.

reply to post by cogburn


You have no idea what the eyewitnesses support because you haven't talked to any of them let alone all of them.

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

Furthermore it is unreasonable to expect eyewitnesses to be mathematically accurate about specific details anyway.

But the presentation has nothing to do with theory nor is it claiming to have proven an exact flight path at the Pentagon.

It merely proves with math and physics that a gang of pseudo-skeptics lied about any north side approach being impossible for any aircraft at any speed.

It proves with many different hypothetical examples that it is quite possible.

If you wish to debunk this you are forced to prove the math presented incorrect or demonstrate how all possible north side approach flight paths are impossible for any aircraft at any speed.

If not I suggest you concede that P4T was correct and that your vitriolic off-topic rhetoric has been out of line.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Absence of evidence is not evidence.

You don't seem understand what that phrase means:

Absence of evidence of a flyover is not evidence that a flyover occurred and is being covered up.

Absence of ANY witnesses to AA77 missing the Pentagon is evidence that this flyover did not take place, especially considering the fact that it would have been visible to so many people. How interesting that hundreds of people saw the plane on one side of the pentagon, and not a single one saw it on the other.

reply to post by adam_zapple


You are off topic and that is not how I was using the phrase.

The premise of this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a flyover occurred.

It has to do with a presentation proving with math and physics that a band of pseudo-skeptics lied by furiously pushing the false notion that it is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft to fly over the Navy Annex and bank north of the citgo at any speed.

Now if you suggest P4T is wrong about this I recommend you point out the errors in their math and prove how it is impossible after all.

Otherwise to demonstrate intellectual honesty you should concede the presentation is accurate and that a north side approach is entirely possible.



[edit on 9-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


You continue to attempt to dodge the issue. The only access to the witnesses we have are P4T/CIT released videos. Specifically, Turcios says that he absolutely did not see an aircraft fly over the Pentagon in direct contradiction to the PDF.

The P4T PDF supplement shows the plane not impacting the Pentagon and flying above it at nearly 100ft.

There are no P4T/CIT witness statements that have been released that support this visualization and in fact one witness contradicts the PDF findings completely.

Ergo, either the PDF supplement is in error or the witnesses are in error.

Which is it?

[edit on 9-1-2009 by cogburn]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by adam_zapple

 

You are off topic and that is not how I was using the phrase.

The premise of this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a flyover occurred.

It has to do with a presentation proving with math and physics that a band of pseudo-skeptics lied by furiously pushing the false notion that it is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft to fly over the Navy Annex and bank north of the citgo at any speed.
[edit on 9-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Who claimed that it would be impossible to fly over the navy annex and go north of the citgo at any speed?

What are the G-loads required for the pull-up maneuver which would have been required to fly over the Pentagon?

reply to post by cogburn


Your inability to even understand the stated purpose of the presentation and tech supplement does not make it in error.

Let me try this again and perhaps one of these times it will sink in.

The presentation has nothing to do with a flyover or any theory nor is it claiming to have proven an exact flight path at the Pentagon or is it stated that it was meant to exactly replicate every single word from any or all witnesses.

The purpose of the presentation is to answer to critics who erroneously and furiously tried spreading a propaganda campaign to push the false claim that it is not physically possible for any fixed-wing aircraft to come from south of Columbia Pike, cross directly over the Navy Annex, and bank north of the citgo towards the Pentagon at any speed.

If you wish to debunk this you are forced to prove the math presented incorrect or demonstrate how all possible north side approach flight paths are impossible for any aircraft at any speed.

If not and you wish to regain a shred of intellectual credibility I suggest you concede that P4T was correct.

reply to post by adam_zapple


All of that information is provided in the presentation and tech supplement.

If you haven't viewed the data I am not inclined to discuss it with you.

If you have you wouldn't need to ask me these questions.

Now if you can provide proof that the calculations are in error please feel free to do so otherwise I suggest you concede that the information provided is accurate.

posted by adam_zapple
How interesting that hundreds of people saw the plane on one side of the pentagon, and not a single one saw it on the other.

Where do you get these hundreds? Many of your hundreds could not possibly have seen the official aircraft from their location nor the light poles. Many of your hundreds do not even have real names. Many of your hundreds place the aircraft Over the Naval Annex. Many of your hundreds are proven liars and owned body and soul by Gannet News Services and other corporate propaganda organs. I have never seen even one verified eyewitness to the Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY Flight 77 flight path south of Columbia Pike and south of the VDOT antenna. We have 20+ eyewitnesses, most of them verified and videotaped, placing the aircraft far north of there and Over the Naval Annex. That destroys the official fantasy tale at the Pentagon.



Here are your hundreds of Pentagon Crash Witness Accounts. But they are ripped to pieces over here.




[edit on 1/9/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


You want me to concede that P4T created an aerodynamically possible flight path that is in contradiction to witness testimony?

Sure. They absolutely did.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by cogburn]

reply to post by jthomas


Done? Please provide a source showing the errors in the tech paper.

Please don't direct me to your buddies at JokeREF who are still avoiding
my request to provide their North data points.

There is nothing wrong with the math. It has been endorsed and checked
by professors and pilots.

Don't think for a second a bunch of kids (like you) behind a monitor are going to
spin the facts.

Provide the math to show the errors, or just go....home.

reply to post by cogburn


You just revealed the flaw in your reasoning and your desire to use a logical fallacy (circular logic and straw man argument) to avoid the entire point of the presentation.

Liars said that ANY north side approach flight path is impossible.

P4T proved them wrong.

That is the only point in this presentation.

It has nothing to do with the flyover.

Honest reasonable people understand how a plane on the north side of the citgo at all does in fact scientifically prove a flyover due to the official reports, data, and physical damage requiring a south side approach. No flyover witness required.

You abandoned your silly argument suggesting otherwise so if you wish to resurrect it I suggest you do it in another thread because that would be entirely off topic from this one and you risk having your posts removed for breaking the forum rules.

You know what else is funny?

Now that the Morin interview is released, the GL's are still in denial
and claim Terry was on the outside of the Annex's wings.

Further to their contradictory ways, the GL's want P4T to stick to Terry's
testimony (parallel to the Annex) ...which could mean the aircraft
was 20, 40, or 80 feet from the edge and still PARALLEL...but they
forget that even Terry said the aircraft wasn't going very fast.

So why do the GL Spinners think that 460 knots is still a valid speed?

No north flight data, and witnesses claim the speed was slower.

Imagine that.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Honestly, I've no idea why anyone would say that a north side approach is aerodynamically impossible. Sure, my earlier statements were based on the assumption that the flight path portrayed in the PDF and video was based on witness testimony, otherwise I could not fathom why you would release it since it does little to prove your argument... beyond attempting to annoy the folks at randi.org.

What would seem to be impossible, however, is a north side approach that both matches P4T/CIT eye witness testimony and is aerodynamically feasible.

Would proof of that not be the final nail in the coffin for nay-sayers? Why not provide that instead of this fairy tale?

Providing a flight path without corroboration from witnesses is a colossal waste of time.

What would seem to be impossible, however, is a north side approach that both matches P4T/CIT eye witness testimony and is aerodynamically feasible.

We did, and I was part of that calculation and path structure directly.

Watch the video again, it shows several possible paths, speeds, angles
that are witness compatible.

If you don't agree, point out the errors AND/OR provide us with the
data points so we can once again prove it's aero-possible.

If you feel that Terry was not inside the wings watching the belly of the
plane, knock on his damn door and record a statement as such.

*Snip*

MOD Note: Review Link : Courtesy Is Mandatory



[edit on 1/11/2009 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by turbofan

What would seem to be impossible, however, is a north side approach that both matches P4T/CIT eye witness testimony and is aerodynamically feasible.

We did, and I was part of that calculation and path structure directly.

Watch the video again, it shows several possible paths, speeds, angles
that are witness compatible.

If you don't agree, point out the errors AND/OR provide us with the
data points so we can once again prove it's aero-possible.

If you feel that Terry was not inside the wings watching the belly of the
plane, knock on his damn door and record a statement as such.

*Snip*

MOD Note: Review Link : Courtesy Is Mandatory

[edit on 1/11/2009 by semperfortis]

Terry already gave his statement:

"I then realized that I was wearing sunglasses and needed to go back to Lot 3 to retrieve my clear lenses. Since it was by no means a short walk to my car, I was upset with myself for being so distracted. Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5, I was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4 when I became aware of something unusual. I can’t remember exactly what I was thinking about at that moment, but I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left. As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening. I instantly had a very bad feeling about this but things were happening very quickly. The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB). Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities. Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled.

www.geocities.com...

It's a measure of CIT's desperation that you guys have to continue to pretend otherwise.

reply to post by cogburn


May I offer a honest, hopefully helpful suggestion? At this point in the thread it's very obvious (at least to me) that CIT/PFT are not trying to be intellectually honest and engage you openly.

Don't waste your time. As we have seen for years now, these guys hang themselves - repeatedly.

reply to post by turbofan

Really? You worked on this? You aggregated witness testimony to make those flight paths? We'll skip the fact that you didn't show your work.

All I want is someone involved to address this one, simple issue.

Why is the plane shown nearly 100ft above the Pentagon in the PDF supplement in direct contradiction to the testimony of Robert Turcios?

[edit on 11-1-2009 by cogburn]