It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by weedwhacker
That little graphic just displayed by SPreston shows:
* A turn radius of 2313.7'
* A bank angle of 82.6 Degrees
* A G force of 7.8 G's
This is at the speed supported by the FDR. Don't you think the wings would fold?
Originally posted by rhunter
Now going back to the Pentagon- do you have any witnesses (and/or hopefully photos and/or video) of that lightpole "in" Lloyde's cab for us, so that we can either establish or refute that part of the "story?" Then we could move on to a whether/not discussion of this "fly over" from the OP.
Originally posted by Reheat
Well, I can assure you I'm not going to post the email without permission. And I don't intend to get permission.
While we're at it, I can't seem to find any data this "flight path" is based on.
Originally posted by tezzajw
Originally posted by Reheat
Well, I can assure you I'm not going to post the email without permission. And I don't intend to get permission.
Reheat admits that he can not support his claim that the animation was 'artistic license'. Thanks for the admission, Reheat.
Originally posted by Reheat
While we're at it, I can't seem to find any data this "flight path" is based on.
Originally posted by tezzajw
Keep track of who you're trying to argue with, Reheat. I never claimed any flight path. Get with the program, please.
Originally posted by Reheat
You could easily prove me wrong by finding data to support the animation.
Let's just review this for a minute and most rational people will see how utterly stupid it really is...
Originally posted by rhunter
Originally posted by Reheat
I'm waiting for YOU to post the radar data that you contend supports the animation. You just said it was released, so post it. Your link is broken now, but I looked at it yesterday and it DOES NOT include radar data, it's merely a listing of what was released.
...
There is no correlation between any radar data and the animation, period. Why do you need someone to interpret it for you, anyway? Not capable yourself? I assure you that all of the radar you've mentioned does exist, yet you won't/can't post it to prove your assertions. THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES!
To hopefully shorten an already long (and growing) thread (with all these multiple posts made by some), rather than I guess which post "Mr. Reheat" means, perhaps "Mr. Reheat" can quote where I ever stated "the radar data supports the animation" or even "fly over" specifically. I don't remember doing that. I have noticed that many "Mr. Reheat" posts seem to be based upon implications and assumptions and ...
Critical Thinking mini-lesson 12
false implication
The fallacy of false implication occurs when a statement, which may be clear and even true, implies that something else is true or false when it isn't. For example, if I write in my 30-day evaluation log of an employee that on May 15th she was on time for work, someone reading the log might infer that this was unusual and that usually the employee did not arrive on time. Perhaps she is always on time but by indicating her promptness just once I can give the false impression that she is usually late for work.
False implication fallacy
Mr. Reheat also appears to have a propensity for ALL CAPS, boldface, large text, and sometimes all of the above when he is presumably upset:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I'm not going to do the BIG & BOLD thing here (or say "FAILED")- I don't crave attention like some apparently do- but just to add in context and for clarification:
Originally posted by rhunter
My point was that FAA radar (edit: data) was simultaneously released with that FAA animation as part of the same FOIA package. Perhaps Mr. Reheat should concentrate more on what is stated outright rather than "implications." Guessing games are something of a losing proposition, I have found so far.
There may or may not be a correlation- it remains to be seen/proven, and I haven't seen any documentation either way (but I have been watching since Sept./Oct. 2008 on this FAA release though). I have been waiting for a comprehensive review/write-up of that FAA data, but I haven't seen one anywhere.
"Mr. Reheat" has apparently assumed all kinds of things about what I know or do not. I'm quite confused as to what he bases any of these assumptions upon. I would like to see "Mr. Reheat" present some supporting documentation for his assumptions sometime soon or "cease and desist." His triple posts (or more on multiple threads apparently) are taking a lot of time for the ATS readers, I'm sure. WOW!
Originally posted by Reheat
No, it's not off-topic. People are using the animation in an attempt to prove a flight path supporting a fly-over. You contend that it's supported by something, maybe, and I'll telling you it's not. The animation is simply "artistic license" used by a software engineer to demonstrate software capability. You claim the animation is supported, so the burden of proof is on you and you have FAILED, so far.
...
Funny stuff!!!!! You expect me to read through a thread by a bunch of know nothings with an agenda? Thank again! There is no falsification of any FAA radar data and the 84th Rades data is correct and valid......
Although I do not expect you to do any particular thing (as you appear to already have "all of" the "answers"), here you go, Mr. Reheat- links to those FAA RADAR data files previously distributed by a "John Farmer:"
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I didn't have the original files, but I was able to get someone to upload those to a server (with the very-thin documentation provided IMO, as I understand the communications loop so far).
Now all ATS members- we need to be very careful not to go "off-topic" here- "weedwhacker" and "Mr. Reheat" are very sensitive about this!
Originally posted by weedwhacker
"EVERY little bit of data helps....and, it's important that each bit isn't tainted by nonsense.....
Pure, true data, not 'innuendo' nor 'personal opinion' that has been colored by others' should be considered as "facts"....but, all too often, this happens to be the case."
www.abovetopsecret.com...
This means that (weedwhacker and) I don't want to see any more unsupported opinions on this thread- or some people might get upset, and for Pete's sake- no more nonsense talk about Fred Astaire and Madonna! Since Reheat has already given me warnings/ultimatums on other threads here about "on topic" off topic," and "wrong thread," I think he might actually believe himself to be part of the Moderating staff here at ATS. Shhhh- we don't want to spoil his fun! He has a wonderful imagination, I have noticed so far, BTW.
Originally posted by Reheat
I see, since you can't produce any data the FAA/NORAD might have used for the animation you must logically agree that it is not an FAA endorsed product. Thank-you for participating.
Originally posted by Reheat
Oh, I did not know your were the director of how this thread progresses. When did that happen? I'm sure you're highly qualified for that position.
Originally posted by tezzajw
Originally posted by Reheat
You could easily prove me wrong by finding data to support the animation.
Reheat is using a logical fallacy to avoid supporting his claim that the animation is 'artistic license'.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
I am referring to to math -- shouldn't be too difficult -- angle of bank versus airspeed equals radius of turn. EVERYONE should know this already.
Reference: A small airplane, at about 120 knots airspeed...a 30 degree angle of bank, is close to a 'Standard Rate' turn of about 3 degrees per second.
Modern jets, in normal OPS, limited to 25 degrees of bank, and at higher airspeeds, are generally assumed to complete a "half-standard" rate-of-turn, by ATC. Thus, the radius of the turn is accounted for, by Controllers.
Doesn't matter WHO is flying a B757 or B767....the math is the math.
Credentials are included at the request of the host, however those credentials make no difference in the content of the paper or the numbers calculated. Anyone with the ability to accomplish aerodynamic math could do the same, be they a janitor, a brain surgeon or a nuclear scientist.
Originally posted by Reheat
Therefore, the Burden of Proof rests with the original poster and YOU are committing the Logical Fallacy of shifting the Burden of Proof, not me.
You can ask a thousand times and I will not violate the privacy of the person who sent a private email by posting it on a public forum.
Originally posted by rhunter
Here you go, weedwhacker, courtesy of ATS's own "turbofan"- call it a late Christmas present:
The North Approach, Technical Supplement to "9/11: The North Flight Path"
pilotsfor911truth.org...
NoC Tech Paper
Here is an online bank angle calculator for you too:
www.csgnetwork.com...