Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible

Originally posted by cogburn
I addressed the two extreme examples illustrated on pages 5 and 7 exactly because they were the extremes. There is nothing in the text that disputes any of my claims, period.

you dispute your own claims on page 3 and 4 as pointed out above.

When I say "some planes" I refer to planes that could satisfy the wingspan requirements to meet the needs of the illustration on page 7. Being the lower extreme of the situation presented, the aircraft must satisfy this requirement as well as the upper extreme. That would be how scientific research is judged. Nothing more, nothing less. They simply did not take into account the wingspan of the plane when they created their lower extreme.

cogburn, you are fitting the "aircraft" to your bias. Which in turn can be applied to the the opposite as described above with setting the extremes of the aircraft to the top (or bottom) portions of the aircraft. You sure you're a "Scientific Researcher"?

It happens all the time in the scientific peer review process, and to the best of scientists. I'll grant you that most people may not understand what it means when you provide extremes within research intended for peer review.

Such as these people?

The rest of your post i didnt bother to read as its clear you are fitting an arc to your bias, you have made numerous false claims, and refuse to email and/or ask P4T directly regarding their work due to your paranoia of being "labeled" and listed, when P4T puts their names to their claims and are listed, libeled and slandered daily by people like you. (and people like you claim P4T are the paranoid ones?)

edit: fixed link

[edit on 12-1-2009 by RockHound757]

Originally posted by RockHound757

It happens all the time in the scientific peer review process, and to the best of scientists. I'll grant you that most people may not understand what it means when you provide extremes within research intended for peer review.

Such as these people?

Those people seem to be a list of pilots and there's no credentials given for any of them having any experience submitting a paper for scientific peer review. Can you provide a link to that list?

Paranoid? Perhaps justly so. I happen to be aware of just how dangerous a place the internet can be. You may chose to minimize this if you wish, however I can't help but ask myself what kind organization would harbor such a thing as an enemies list. For all the wide variety of organizations whose focus is 9/11 research, I've yet to hear of any other organization doing such a thing. There are some states to which the proprietors of those forums could be held legally responsible if it can be proven that such personal information contributed in the commission of a crime. It's childish, irresponsible and dangerous. I have no idea how you can defend such behavior.

I guess you've given up trying to actually defend P4T/CIT since your rebuttals consist of my posts, not P4T/CIT information. I'm not putting myself out there as a bastion of truth and justice. The standard to which I may be held is not quite the same as P4T/CIT who are attempting to cash in on tragedy with incomplete research and misinformation.

If folks like P4T/CIT didn't exist I swear someone would have to invent them. Truth is far crazier than fiction.

Originally posted by cogburn
Those people seem to be a list of pilots and there's no credentials given for any of them having any experience submitting a paper for scientific peer review. Can you provide a link to that list?

Did you miss the Aeronautical Engineers and Aircraft Accident Investigators? It seems so... including the fact that the list continues to grow with courageous individuals willing to put their name on the "internets" only to be libeled, slandered and listed by people like you? Keep in mind, all those certificated by the FAA can be cross referenced at faa.gov.

Paranoid? Perhaps justly so. I happen to be aware of just how dangerous a place the internet can be.

See above reply.

P4T has been listed by detractors "Nixon style" numerous times. The difference? P4T uses their real names when publishing a list of their "opposition" and appears to still have faith in the law... while detractors publish their lists anonymously and make excuses to avoid direct confrontation/debate with P4T. These same P4T members are certificated by the FAA, fly you, your family and others, around the world daily, on almost every major airline. I have even seen P4T members being labelled "terrorist apologists" by those who are unaware of the fact the FAA could no longer certify those who support terrorism. Hilarous...

however I can't help but ask myself what kind organization would harbor such a thing as an enemies list.

Perhaps you should ask the same of "ref", "TAM", Screw Loose Change, and Adam Larson.

For all the wide variety of organizations whose focus is 9/11 research, I've yet to hear of any other organization doing such a thing.

It appears P4T likes to take initiative. And.. are fed up.. and justifiably so...

There are some states to which the proprietors of those forums could be held legally responsible if it can be proven that such personal information contributed in the commission of a crime. It's childish, irresponsible and dangerous. I have no idea how you can defend such behavior.

Feel free to rat out P4T as 911Files did regarding the uneventful phone call Craig recorded of him, exposing his contradictory behavior, in which 911Files attempted to get Craig arrested.

But i warn you, you will only look as silly as 911Files does now. I look forward to your claim.

I'm not putting myself out there as a bastion of truth and justice.

You claim to be employed as a scientific researcher for a MSM "Conglomerate". Would you ever consider debating any P4T member? How about Aeronautical Engineer, current jetBlue Capt and retired Lt Col Jeff Latas? Or do you lack the confidence in your "Scientific Research" and are too paranoid in fear of being"listed" based on your lack of confidence in your knowledge??? Yes, we know.

The standard to which I may be held is not quite the same as P4T/CIT who are attempting to cash in on tragedy with incomplete research and misinformation.

Yeah.. because pilots make more money selling DVD's on such a controversial topic than flying jets? Really? lol

I suppose the MSM corporation you work for is very honest and broadcasts for free?

Its clear you know nothing about P4T, its foundation, its analysis, or the people involved. Perhaps such a MSM employee such as yourself would find "fanatics" easier to expose face to face rather than spending every day on ATS (which you already said on page 4 you quit)... yawn.

cogburn, anytime you are feeling brave, feel free to email P4T to expose them face to face. I have a feeling we will never see such an encounter.


typos fixed


[edit on 12-1-2009 by RockHound757]

posted by cogburn
I addressed the two extreme examples illustrated on pages 5 and 7 exactly because they were the extremes. There is nothing in the text that disputes any of my claims, period.

posted by RockHound757
you dispute your own claims on page 3 and 4 as pointed out above.

The rest of your post i didnt bother to read as its clear you are fitting an arc to your bias, you have made numerous false claims, and refuse to email and/or ask P4T directly regarding their work due to your paranoia of being "labeled" and listed, when P4T puts their names to their claims and are listed, libeled and slandered daily by people like you. (and people like you claim P4T are the paranoid ones?)

Trying to figure out the dishonesty and false accusations of Mr cogburn is a complete waste of time. I think cogburn is a 'couch potato' scientific researcher and would not have a clue on how to go about it. He likes to make things up out of the blue; and then appear intellectual disassembling them. A lot of the government loyalists and pseudoskeptics and pseudo-intellectuals waste a lot of time doing so.

cogburn has made it clear that he doesn't even understand the premise of the presentation since he has already fully admitted that he agrees the math is accurate and he agrees that a north side approach is entirely possible yet he is STILL trying to argue what he agrees with!


Please cogburn.

You are clearly out of our league again as you continuously contradict yourself and demonstrate your personal bias against P4T and CIT.

The premise of the presentation is not about any specific witness account.

If you agree that NoC is possible that means you 100% categorically agree with the presentation.

Now if you think that any specific witness presented by CIT doesn't support a general NoC or ONA flight path for whatever reason that is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PREMISE and belongs in another thread.

Witness accounts are subjective, and this thread is about one thing.....

Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible

Not subjective.

So since you admit that you agree with the title of the thread which IS the entire premise of the OP and the presentation I suggest you move on or you will be breaking the forum rules.

Well, judging by Craig, RockHound757 and SPreston’s responses, I’m guessing Craig really does not want math anyways. I’m finally learning that about all they have are insults and character attacks, but assuming that Craig seriously wants the math, I’ll post it and leave it for posters to play with. Aside from RockHound757 already demonstrating he does not have a clue about math from his discussion of g-load, this won’t be easy.




The underlying assumption in the P4T analysis is a simple path which represents a segment of a circle. The math used is valid ONLY for such a segment. The circular segment is cut along a chord length draw in this case from Ed Paik's location (Columbia Pike and Ode) and extended to the impact point at the Pentagon. The deviation from this curve at the half-way point is the sagitta. The illustration above simply plots this path with a deviation sufficient to encompass SGT Lagasse's observations (only fair, because he is the originals NoC witness). For this path, the sagitta is ~510 feet and gives the following solution for banking angle, g's due to centripetal acceleration and N (g-load).

Bank angle = 78 degrees
g-force = 4.6 g's
N = 4.7

Obviously this is an extreme solution which I'll leave to the aeronautical guys to ponder. A more reasonable solution would be a sagitta of 200 which would give the following.

Bank angle = 62 degrees
g-force = 1.9 g's
N = 2.1



This would allow Morin to see the plane, but we have to throw Lagasse under the proverbial bus. However, even this does not fit with Morin's observation of only being able to see the underside of the plane. Keep in mind that these values apply across the entire path and to work, the banking angle is the same for the position over Paik, Morin, Lagasse and the ANC witnesses. So for Morin, at the minimal 62 degrees of bank he would have been looking at the side of the plane, not the bottom.

This is assuming a constant speed of 460 knots, which was the last RO2 speed, and at that time the plane was accelerating. P4T does not like that speed, but based on radar data from 4 different ASR's, the final approach speed was even higher than 460 knots, taking only 5-6 seconds to travel from the Sheraton to the Pentagon.

Is the path aerodynamicly possible? I'll leave that to the fly-boys. Is it eyewitness compatible. No way. Also, I'm going to attribute P4T's errors in radius values (over-estimated) as simple human error, since they did not use math and real-world to derive them. In any event, they are incorrect.

I am not going to do a tit-for-tat "he is a liar, coward, etc" or "he don't know what he is talking about" exchange with you guys. I have presented the math and it just ain't that hard.

reply to post by 911files


So you also agree that it is physically possible for an aircraft to fly North of Citgo? Also, you are being misleading by saying Morin would have seen the side of the plane, if it is directly overhead as he described, a bank of 62 degrees is still going to expose only the belly. You are also relying on 460 knots as provided by the controlled gov't data, which doesn't seem to be supported by the general witness statements of a slow banking air craft.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
You are also relying on 460 knots as provided by the controlled gov't data, which doesn't seem to be supported by the general witness statements of a slow banking air craft.

Precisely.

911files is trying to remove the scenario from the true context of the situation to make his argument easier but the inherent faulty logic behind this argument is obvious.

The undeniable fact here is that a plane on the north side at all at the time of the attack proves a deception and cover-up.

It proves that all officially released radar data and of course the NTSB data has been doctored/manipulated/altered as 911files has publicly admitted he believes in the past.

So to actually refer to the official data for the speed of a plane that had to have been altered out of the same data is glaringly contradictory and deceptive logic.




[edit on 12-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by RockHound757


This is delicious. Thank you for such a revealing post!

Which member of P4T are you?

It's obvious that my points raise uncomfortable issues for the P4T/CIT team in that they aren't addressed. If one follows this board for the limited time that I have, one can almost predict the point in the discussion when the personal attacks will start.

My work is sloppy? My arguments contradictory? Why not? This isn't my job and I troll here at my leisure. I accepted the invitation to comment, which is what you do when you post here. Should I say I'm done, then comment some more, perhaps my boredom was greater than my moral turpitude for that day. You may also take that as evidence of how little I care about anyone's opinion on the matter.

Some day CIT might save up enough gas money to debate me in person, on video, as I offered nearly two months ago. I'd love the chance to talk FOIA and light poles over some beers.

If you don't want people you don't like posting things you don't like about your information, the internet is going to be a very unhappy place.

reply to post by 911files



1. Its clear you didnt watch the video presentation as Lagasse himself says - "The only thing that is debatable is that maybe it was closer, maybe it was further away [from the north side of citgo], but what is not debatable is that it was on this side.". P4T demontrates that perfectly in the presentation.

2. Your sagitta calculations are wrong. dMole cross checked them with a CAD program. Please check the links on page 8.

3. You still dont grasp the fact that G-Force and G-Load are interchangeable.

4. Its an italic lower case "n".

5. Your "missing seconds" claim and speed claims are bogus and not represented by the NTSB Flight Path Study, Jim Ritter - Chief of Vehicle Performance, or the 9/11 Commission Report.

Originally posted by RockHound757

1. Its clear you didnt watch the video presentation as Lagasse himself says - "The only thing that is debatable is that maybe it was closer, maybe it was further away [from the north side of citgo], but what is not debatable is that it was on this side.". P4T demontrates that perfectly in the presentation.

Exactly.



Even the witnesses know that their accounts are subjective and have room for error.

But not enough room to have the plane on the south side.

What's also contradictory here is fact that 911files has publicly admitted many times that he believes Lagasse and that here is no way he could be mistaken about the north side.


He said:

I never denied the possibility of a plane to the north of the Citgo. Quite the contrary, I have always maintained that after my critical review of their accounts, there were things that only made sense if they did see something to the north (such as Lagasse’s yaw change).

And this when specifically asked if he believes Lagasse saw the plane on the north side:

Oh he had to. He had to. If he saw the plane, which I believe he did, he had to see it on the north side because from where he was at there was no way he could see it on the southern path.

Again....a plane on the north side at the time of the attack at all proves all officially released radar data as well as the NTSB data fraudulent.

It is circular logic to suggest that the witnesses are all wrong simply because of the data that they contradict!


This really boils down to whether you trust the confirmed/corroborated independent honest witnesses who were really there or the government data released many years after the event soon AFTER these critical witnesses were revealed.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It is circular logic to suggest that the witnesses are all wrong simply because of the data that they contradict!

This really boils down to whether you trust the confirmed/corroborated independent honest witnesses who were really there or the government data released many years after the event soon AFTER these critical witnesses were revealed.

And yet every one of these "confirmed/corroborated independent honest" witnesses also said that the plane hit the pentagon. That is the only single point that every single one of your witnesses agrees on.

reply to post by adam_zapple


You are wrong, most of the witnesses stated that they believed the plane hit the Pentagon. Which ones specifically state that they saw the plane impact?? Since you are moving on to off-topic posts, can we assume that you are okay with the title of this thread being correct, "Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible"?

[edit on 12-1-2009 by PplVSNWO]

Originally posted by RockHound757
reply to post by 911files

 

1. Its clear you didnt watch the video presentation as Lagasse himself says - "The only thing that is debatable is that maybe it was closer, maybe it was further away [from the north side of citgo], but what is not debatable is that it was on this side.". P4T demontrates that perfectly in the presentation.

You are refering to the extreme case with a sagitta of 500+, but I gave you a span down to 200 which is actually more south of the Citgo.

Originally posted by RockHound757
reply to post by 911files

 

2. Your sagitta calculations are wrong. dMole cross checked them with a CAD program. Please check the links on page 8.

I actually have the same software as Rob does, but we are not talking about software, we are talking math. Please show me some math, not some pretty picture drawn with software.

Originally posted by RockHound757
reply to post by 911files

 

3. You still dont grasp the fact that G-Force and G-Load are interchangeable.

4. Its an italic lower case "n".

And you still don't grasp that you don't know what you are talking about. And "N" or "n" is whatever the person who did the equation defines it to be, or by the applicable standard authority. Since I am NOT using it as an aeronautical term, it is whatever I define it as and although you don't understand mathematical definitions, that was done in great detail.

Originally posted by RockHound757
reply to post by 911files

 

5. Your "missing seconds" claim and speed claims are bogus and not represented by the NTSB Flight Path Study, Jim Ritter - Chief of Vehicle Performance, or the 9/11 Commission Report.

Well, sorry as I can be about that, because it is not a claim, but fact verified many times over.

This is my last response to your "rebuttals" unless you wish to point out and discuss math, which is what the topic is. By the way Craig, at 60 degrees plus, 2/3 of the of the exposed area would be the side and only 1/3 of the bottom to someone directly underneath.

Originally posted by 911files
You are refering to the extreme case with a sagitta of 500+, but I gave you a span down to 200 which is actually more south of the Citgo.

You also used only one speed which is not a very scientific approach and some may even go so far to say intellectually dishonest. Even Reheat used variations in speed.

I actually have the same software as Rob does, but we are not talking about software, we are talking math. Please show me some math, not some pretty picture drawn with software.

Rob didnt cross check your radii work. I guess he didnt feel the need considering he revealed many of your inaccuracies in the past. Please re-read the quote. dMole checked your work with a CAD program. Are you familiar with CAD? It designs everything from aircraft to buildings. Its foundation is math and complex calculations. Your sag calculations are wrong. Click the link.

And you still don't grasp that you don't know what you are talking about. And "N" or "n" is whatever the person who did the equation defines it to be, or by the applicable standard authority. Since I am NOT using it as an aeronautical term, it is whatever I define it as and although you don't understand mathematical definitions, that was done in great detail.

Thank you for admitting you make up stuff to suit your needs.

Now try learning a little something about "G-Force" and "G-Load".

Try this clicking the link in the P4T tech paper as well.

Well, sorry as I can be about that, because it is not a claim, but fact verified many times over.

Its only fact in your mind. All these people disagree with you which also include the NTSB, L3 Communications and independent FDR Experts. Not to mention you even said yourself that your plots were subject to ample human error. I would quote it, but you deleted your blog.

This is my last response to your "rebuttals" unless you wish to point out and discuss math

I already have, its posted on page 8. You ignored it. Your calculations are wrong.

Originally posted by RockHound757

You also used only one speed which is not a very scientific approach and some may even go so far to say intellectually dishonest. Even Reheat used variations in speed.

Oh it sure is intellectually dishonest!

He knows it too.

There is ZERO logic in using official data for speed when you know for a fact that the same plane had to have been altered out of the data!

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by adam_zapple

 

You are wrong, most of the witnesses stated that they believed the plane hit the Pentagon.

ALL of them said the plane hit the pentagon.

Originally posted by PplVSNWOWhich ones specifically state that they saw the plane impact??

All that had a clear view of the Pentagon.

Originally posted by PplVSNWOSince you are moving on to off-topic posts, can we assume that you are okay with the title of this thread being correct, "Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible"

[edit on 12-1-2009 by PplVSNWO]

I have yet to see CIT present a flight path (with accompanying math) that agrees with all of their eyewitnesses. The main requirements would be Over the Navy annex,
banked North of Citgo,
descended below the tree line,
pulled up into an ascent right before the wall and over the impact site at the Pentagon, and then flew into the south parking lot after the explosion.

If the only requirement was north of citgo, I'd agree...but unfortunately for CIT they have quite a long laundry list of requirements for this amazing mystery plane.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by adam_zapple]

Originally posted by adam_zapple

I have yet to see CIT present a flight path (with accompanying math) that agrees with all of their eyewitnesses. The main requirements would be Over the Navy annex,
banked North of Citgo,
descended below the tree line,
pulled up into an ascent right before the wall and over the impact site at the Pentagon, and then flew into the south parking lot after the explosion.

Then you haven't watched the presentation or read the tech supplement because this is EXACTLY what was addressed.

If the only requirement was north of citgo, I'd agree...but unfortunately for CIT they have quite a long laundry list of requirements for this amazing mystery plane.

You just put all the laundry out on the line to dry but P4T already put it through the dryer!

Plus it is unreasonable to expect each witness to be exactly accurate regarding every claim.

Intellectually honest people understand how witness accounts are fallible.

This is why we only rely on them for general claims that can be scientifically validated via corroboration.

The general claims of ONA and NoC 100% prove a complex deception regardless of the exact flight path of the plane.

There is no way around this fact.

Originally posted by 911files
I gave you a span down to 200 which is actually more south of the Citgo.

Wrong again. I just double checked your work. 200 sag brings it to the north edge of the citgo with a radius of 9900 feet.

Lets set aside your incorrect sag calculations for a moment and assume your sag is correct.

Using a more intellectually honest speed of 300 knots

39 Deg bank
1.3 G

Aerodynamically possible - Witness Compatible

If we lower speed to 250 knots

29 deg bank
1.2 G

Aerodynamically possible - Witness Compatible

All using 911Files sag calculations (of which we already know are incorrect).

Edit: Added diagram link above.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by RockHound757]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple

I have yet to see CIT present a flight path (with accompanying math) that agrees with all of their eyewitnesses. The main requirements would be Over the Navy annex,
banked North of Citgo,
descended below the tree line,
pulled up into an ascent right before the wall and over the impact site at the Pentagon, and then flew into the south parking lot after the explosion.

Then you haven't watched the presentation or read the tech supplement because this is EXACTLY what was addressed.

"over the impact site" doesn't mean 100 feet away from it.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITPlus it is unreasonable to expect each witness to be exactly accurate regarding every claim.

Intellectually honest people understand how witness accounts are fallible.

I agree. None of their statements are infallible. Unfortunately, you don't apply this principle to all of their statements in the same manner.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITThis is why we only rely on them for general claims that can be scientifically validated via corroboration.

The general claims of ONA and NoC 100% prove a complex deception regardless of the exact flight path of the plane.

There is no way around this fact.

Who decides which claims are "general" and which ones are not?