Flight path of the plane that approached the pentagon

reply to post by Q24-7


Thanks for that perspective, Q24-7.

If you attempt to present this evidence on the P4T or CIT forums you will be suspended/banned/censored (speaking from experience).

That seems to be the prevailing opinion and experience from many who have visited those places and dared to have a discussion contrary to the "Opinion of the Powers That Be".

That's why I found it most amusing to have been "invited" to go over and post there....reminds me of the wolves inviting in a lamb for supper....

I'm sure they'd all get their clever sick sort of enjoyment from piling on to anyone foolish enough to attempt a rational and sane discussion.

Hypocrites, it seems to me.

reply to weedwhacker's post #41

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Q24-7

 

Thanks for that perspective, Q24-7.

If you attempt to present this evidence on the P4T or CIT forums you will be suspended/banned/censored (speaking from experience).

That seems to be the prevailing opinion and experience from many who have visited those places and dared to have a discussion contrary to the "Opinion of the Powers That Be".

That's why I found it most amusing to have been "invited" to go over and post there....reminds me of the wolves inviting in a lamb for supper....

I'm sure they'd all get their clever sick sort of enjoyment from piling on to anyone foolish enough to attempt a rational and sane discussion.

Hypocrites, it seems to me.

The issue of how Pilots for 9/11 Truth treats those who disagree with them is a sore one for me and Q24. We were both banned from there, although his has been up for some time now. However, when he returned, he wasn't exactly treated with respect and his last post had most of it deleted, whereupon he left without going back it would seem. I mistakenly thought that more than one post of his had been deleted, and Rob Balsamo, in his infinite wisdom, wrongly assumed that I was lying and that I was a "troll", and so banned me until December.

I actually met Q24 over in Unexplained Mysteries, another forum that has a conspiracies section. I made it clear to him that I relied on Pilots for 9/11 truth to help me in my discussions with him concerning the flight path of the plane that approached the pentagon, and shortly thereafter, I found that he had created an account on Pilots for 9/11 truth himself. He then questioned them directly, but he skipped over a lot of what they said, apparently because he didn't feel he had the time to go over it. I think that that, in essence, is what soured things between him and PFT and, indirectly, towards me.

I have a general rule that I try to read and respond to most of the content of posts addressed to me, but I didn't feel under the obligation to read, never mind respond, to posts addressed to someone else, such as Q. So I didn't realize until afterwards how much Q had missed of what they had told him. I find it ironical that it was only after I was banned from PFT that I myself laid down the gauntlet with Q. In that thread I methodically countered all of his arguments. For whatever reasons, he chose not to counter mine, however, instead opting for what I believe was a rather lame final post and so, after I replied to it in a 'believe whatever you want' fashion, the thread ended.

reply to weedwhacker's post #22

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by scott3x
Laugh :-p. I got on Joyce Street; perhaps there's a spot where you can see the pentagon on it, but if so, I didn't find it.

Yeah...put 'Joe' just a bit South of the gas station. I did it, and it gave an address of "834 South"...then turn right to look East.

I found 853 gave a much better view, laugh :-p. By the way, is that gas station where the Citgo gas station used to be? I think there's only one around that area...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Of course, you can also put 'Joe' on the big curve of Columbia Pike, about where Joyce St meets it....where Southgate Rd is coming from your West. And you can see the Pentagon easily from there too.

Maybe that's around 853 ;-).

Originally posted by weedwhacker
BUT...for the CIT fantasy to stay in place, you have to zoom out and take it all into account. CIT agrees (I think) that the airplane came along Columbia Pike --- where they want us to believe some crazy theory is that the airplane turned slightly North to pass over the Annex, THEN turned back to the right...and of course the CIT claim that NO airplane hit, that this maneuver was done by a "decoy" that then climbed above and "overflew" the Pentagon...even though NO ONE saw this happen!!

Not only did no witnesses near the area see this, the Air Traffic Controllers at National Airport didn't see it.

Look how close they are....to find the Control Tower, zoom in and look at the Metro station platform. Just at the North end of the platform, where the covering stops, look right and there's the Tower...OR, notice the two large Northernmost terminals on the airport, the two that are about the same size. Tower is mid-way between them.

NOW, it is true that the actual Pentagon building can't be seen from the Tower, even up as high as they are, because of buildings in Crystal City.
(I used to live in one of those two curved apartment buildings there, along the railroad tracks, when I first moved here...)

CIT only claims there was one play that approached the pentagon, and yes, that it flew over it. There is actually 2 witnesses who saw a plane fly over the pentagon at the time of the pentagon explosion. I could try to ferret them out, but perhaps turbofan has them closer to hand :-p. There were also claims near the time of the event at the pentagon that the plane did indeed fly over it. However, as far as I know, none of the claims were sourced to any particular individual. There are also claims that there was a secretive operation going on at Reagan International Airport at the time, and that people who were involved in it have mysteriously died. However, I can't even remember where I read this at present; I wouldn't be surprised if I read it at PFT, CIT or loose change, but I guess I can't say more on this until I find a source for this again.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
However, any airplane that passed OVER the Pentagon, and continued Eastward would be in plain view...and just think of all the people in DC who would have seen/heard it!!!! Because, nothing flies over the city in that manner...except maybe Marine helicopters. Even CIT haven't claimed that it was a helicopter! (yet)....

Either PFT or CIT (or both) have made it clear that there's an air corridor fairly close to the pentagon, so air traffic wouldn't be unusual there. When we compound this with the fact that officials weren't looking for any flyover witnesses, as well as a 2nd plane myth, it seems clear why so few flyover witnesses have been found.

reply to hooper's post #33

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by scott3x
In the last post, Rob Balsamo from Pilots for 9/11 Truth mentions that the plane that approached the pentagon would have crashed long before it hit the pentagon if it had actually hit the light poles. He explains why in another video from PFT, 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon, starting at 8:52:

Placing the aircraft on the south path, lowered from the FDR altitude of 699 feet above sea level at this point in space to the top of the VDOT antenna, we can examine the pull up needed at pole 1 and measure the radius using a 3 point ark radius tool provided with this 3d animation software program.

Remember, the scale of this presentation is 100 feet= 1 cm box. To get an idea of how we demonstrate this in 3d software, we switch to an orthogonal view. An orthogonal view is different than a perspective view in that it eliminates the effect of distance from a viewpoint. Therefore, we can accurately determine radius of an ark and precisely draw an ark based on the pull up needed in this view.

Here is the ark drawn in the orthogonal view. We will remove the topography and obstacles in order to get a better view of the ark drawn. Again, we we will demonstrate the accuracy of the scale and topography at the end of this presentation.

The radius of this ark is 20.85 centimeters. But remember the scale of this presentation is 1 cm= 100 ft. So we need to multiply 100 to 20.85 and we get a radius of 2,085 feet.

With the radius, we can use a simple formula required for measuring acceleration as "a = v^2 / r". This is the proper formula to use for such a problem.


Using the velocity as provided by the NTSB for both scenarios, 781 f/s, we need to square that, then divide by 2085, to get 292.5 f/s squared. We then divide that by 32 f/s squared to get 9.14 G.

[The math involved]:
781*781 = 609,961
609,961/2085 = 292.5 f/s squared
292.5 f/s squared/32 f/s squared = 9.14G

G force calculation for this pull up equals 9.14 Gs. We also need to add 1 G for earth's gravity, for a total of 10.14 Gs required.

Transport category aircraft are limited to 2.5 positive Gs. Although a 757 could perhaps withstand more G forces then 2.5, it's highly unlikely it could withstand more than 5 or 6.

Remember, this calculation is for the least challenging pull. If we hypothetically lower the aircraft altitude from the NTSB plotted altitude, to the lower height of the VDOT antenna.

As we can see G loads required to pull out of a dive from the top of the VDOT antenna are impossible for a 757. It is off the charts if we account for altitude as plotted and produced by the NTSB.

Placing the aircraft at the FDR altitude, the most challenging pull, we can measure the radius of the ark needed to pull out of such a dive.

Again, we switch to the orthogonal view, for accurate measurements and we get a radius of 576.9 feet. Plugging that radius into the same formula, and adding 1 g for earth's gravity, we get 34 Gs.

781*781 = 609,961
609,961/576.9 = 1057.3
1,057.3/32 = 33G

Impossible.

This is the proper way to determine G loads in a 2 dimensional problem such as aircraft pulling out of a dive.

"Ark"? radius? Really, once is a typo, 6 times is "I don't know what I am talking about". Round file.

Could you explain why you feel that way? And what is this bit about a "round file"?

Originally posted by weedwhackerYes.....+/- the 0.1 NM margin of error that YOU admitted to...correct???

That's right, what's your point?

You did see the analysis using the 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 DME intersects, right?

Or did you not do your homework and feel that you've stumbled upon
something that P4T didn't account for?

Oh please, 'Sky King', explain to all of us the geometry...not only in TWO dimensions, but now you assert in THREE? How can you determine, with only one line, and one arc, "all the co-ordinates we need including a vertical position" (your words).

LMAO!

You don't think out of the box much do you?

There are parameters such as RADAR ALT. and PRESSURE ALT. in the
CSV file. YOu know, ALTITUDE? The parameter that gives the vertical
position?



Wow, this is too easy. Are you sure you've studied , or looked at the data?

You still haven't told me what value is within the cell location in the Excel
spreadsheet.

Do yuo think it's time you downloaded it, and had a look?

reply to post by scott3x

I found 853 gave a much better view, laugh :-p. By the way, is that gas station where the Citgo gas station used to be? I think there's only one around that area...

Yes. I looked there at 853 S. Joyce St. Next to the big tree to the West/Southwest.

As I mentioned, that gas station is the SAME place...it has been re-named to 'NEX'....see the Blue awning, with white and red?

Funny CIT still calls it the 'Citgo'....isn't it??? But, they have their fantasy, I have reality....

reply to post by scott3x

Maybe that's around 853 ;-).

No, I was trying to give the benefit of coubt to CIT.

I was referring to a point ON Columbia Pike, well North of the gas station. Where Joyce Street deadends.

I was trying to show how, if you look at it zoomed out, the airplane would have to have had flown along Columbia Pik from the several miles out to the West/Southwest where it started the attack run, then for some inexplicable reason made a left, then back to the right....when the Naval Annex buildings were there, and an obvious obstacle...makes NO SENSE!!!

reply to post by scott3x

Either PFT or CIT (or both) have made it clear that there's an air corridor fairly close to the pentagon, so air traffic wouldn't be unusual there. When we compound this with the fact that officials weren't looking for any flyover witnesses, as well as a 2nd plane myth, it seems clear why so few flyover witnesses have been found.

Please allow me to dispel this misinformed "factoid".

It has become painfully obvious that certain "spokesmen" for both groups just do NOT know what the heck they're talking about, most of the time.

What I have seen is a guy (Balsamo) who through no fault of his own can no longer fly due to Medical conditions. I also can no longer qualify for a Medical, so I can empathize. However, in Balsamo's case he just doesn't have the amount of experience I have.

On ATS threads we have seen certain "spokesmen" for the PFT and CIT come on and show a complete misunderstanding in many cases, and when called on it change the subject, or become defensively arrogant and attack instead of respond factually.

AND, the 'Aces" up their sleeves have always been the very few big "names" they trot out...I can think of the "Big Three" right now...and ONE of them is the staunch proponent of "holographic airplanes" magically projected and fooling everyone, with weapons from space-based platforms magically doing the destruction. I believe even CIT and PFT are cautiously backing away from those claims....

In fact, the "story" keeps being altered, as conditions seem to warrant...if only to support a basic premise of somehow a "cover-up and flyover"...and they do anything possible to twist back into that beloved scenario of theirs.

It is actually painful to watch, sometimes.

Thing is...these guys (most) actually think they're right! Not all of them are doing it out of malice aforethought. They are mostly genuine, if misguided.
__________________________________________________________

adding...about the "air corridor" mythos....

Of course any Navigation charts you see today are possibly different than eight years ago (actually, there will always be minor differences, as they are updated on a regualr schedule).

However, I am not aware of any what are called "VFR Corridors" that ever existed within the Washington DC Class B Airspace, not now certainly, and not in 2001.

That is the only thing I can think they (PFT) are referring to with the phrase "air corridor".

Here is a website link:

skyvector.com...

On the right side of the page is a place called 'Location Lookup". As the example shows, type in a variety of terms...if you just use 'KDCA' it will center on the National Airport for you.

THEN, along the top, you will see tabs. The ones labled "Enroute" will show the IFR charts..."L" for 'low' and "H" for 'high' altitude depictions, as the airways are different on each. "DC Area" is also a 'low' IFR chart, on a larger scale focused on a smaller area.

"Washington" is the name for the particular "Sectional Chart". Just a name for one of the many that covers, for instance, the Continental USA.

"Baltimore-Washington TAC" means it covers BOTH the Washington and Baltimore Class B Airspace structures...("Class B" in days of old was called the 'TCA', for 'Terminal Control Area'. NOW the term is "Terminal Area Chart". Still both are VFR Charts)

If you zoom in on the TAC Chart, for the Washington area, you can see how the airspace is depicted, and the various restrictions and such.

Class 'B' airspace directly on top of the airport goes all the way to the surface. Class 'B' means it is a positive control airspace, you MUST have a transponder, and contact ATC (or in extreme cases make prior arrangements IF they will let you...very rare).

In addition, and not shown on any of these charts, are the various procedures specific to each airport for arrivals and departures. these are on the IFR charts (sometimes refered to as 'plates') and can be found at the same site where I linked the Airport Diagram some posts back....


Sorry for another lesson...it is a very advanced lesson....and should have many, many prerequisites first, but this is a "crash" course...bad pun.






[edit on 2 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by scott3x


Scott, I'm glad you chose to make this a separate thread; there are enough variables to require it IMHO.

I am not trying to speak for Hooper. I would guess that his problem with the consistent use of "ark" tends one to think that a person isn't really very well versed in trigonometry (and others) if they cannot accurately spell one of its components -- the arc.

Oh, and.......... the "round file, aka circular file.

I wish I had more to offer to this spirited discussion. Pleased as punch to see it mostly civil. I think a lot of that is your influence.

Carry on.

Edit to add: Perhaps part of the difficulty is in describing three-dimensional space with words. Not everyone can envision spacial relationships. Then, various groups create graphics to illustration their points in 3D, which of course allows a possibility of depicting a path that is contrary to data. I wonder if it would be beneficial to graph the data of 77s path, using only the elevation. Not sure at all how that would work out with the big turn it apparently made prior to the Pentagon approach, but seems like that might clarify some things. I'll work on that a bit.

[edit on 3/10/09 by argentus]

Originally posted by scott3x
I was banned from PFT that I myself laid down the gauntlet with Q. In that thread I methodically countered all of his arguments. For whatever reasons, he chose not to counter mine, however, instead opting for what I believe was a rather lame final post and so, after I replied to it in a 'believe whatever you want' fashion, the thread ended.

The discussion ended exactly because you do not have an argument of your own. I very clearly defined (using images and her own words) how Madelyn Zakheim confirms witnessing a flight path South of Citgo. Your response: “Clearly, CIT believes that her testimony is contradictory; I'll go with that.” Well good for you and that’s all I ever got – CIT say this, P4T told me that. Not once an explanation based on her actual account to support your case, just desperate slander against her character, ie she’s a Jew and liar. When you are claiming that black is white ‘because someone told you so’ then it’s time to call it a day.

reply to post by turbofan

LMAO!

You don't think out of the box much do you?

There are parameters such as RADAR ALT. and PRESSURE ALT. in the
CSV file. YOu know, ALTITUDE? The parameter that gives the vertical
position?

like a broken record.....


Look, you misrepresented me again....I am weary of this.

AND you completely lose track (pun) as i try to explain to you...

Firstly, I SPECIFICALLY addressed the fact that the altitude claims along the three-dimensional flight path are still in debate.

You conveniently ignore the fact that I wrote about and addressed the inconcistency in altitude specifics, when you respond in this manner AGAIN!!!! Disingenuous and dishonest to the extreme. I think others are possibly catching on to the tactic, by now.

ALSO....we have already some doubts as to the veracity of the CSV file, compared to RAW data....and the misuse of all of this by PFT to confuse the issue. This was described at great lengths in the JREF link, above.

Still....you josh? Here:

YOu know, ALTITUDE? The parameter that gives the vertical
position?

You completely gloss over the inherent inaccuracy THAT YOU BROUGHT UP in the DME measurements....and completely ignored, again, simple Euclidian geometry when it comes to an arc described across a straight line when it intersects in two places....I thought you were a techhie??

UNLESS you wish to assert that the 1.5 DME arc (+/- 0.1 % which we know is +/- about 607 feet) is a TANGENT of the straight line ground track? THAT WOULD define a two-dimensional point....but given the aforementioned margin of error, of (and I'll be generous) 607 feet....your options become limited BECAUSE we also have the MAGNETIC HEADING informaton of the airplane.

Try to factor in the wind component if you wish...the winds were insignificant.

SO....based on your own assertions, some clever draftsman/computer whiz can further refine the parameters for the lateral ground track....using all of the information that we've both provided....YES?

(within the margin of error you have admitted to, per the DME fro mthe DCA VOR/DME station located on the field at National Airport -- diagram and lat/long position I have provided in this thread already).

SO...the first goal is to define the GROUND TRACK per all of the above...and corelate THEN the estimated altitude....using ALL of the disputed data, to plat various scenarios.

Question is:

Do any of these match the "North of (gas station formerly known as Citgo)" ground track, to include the left, then back to the right turn as alleged by CIT?

Further, IF we discount the "NogsfkaC" ground track, and stick with a straight-line extrapolation that aligns with Columbia Pike, and passes South of the Navy Annex and OVER the interchange of Rte 27 and Rte 244...THEN do any of the altitude profiles fit? AND, do all of the heading data FROM...you pick, the "CSV", the 'raw'---or the NTSB video animation sequence...stop dancing, and come up with answers!!!

reply to weedwhacker post #46

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x

 

I found 853 gave a much better view, laugh :-p. By the way, is that gas station where the Citgo gas station used to be? I think there's only one around that area...

Yes. I looked there at 853 S. Joyce St. Next to the big tree to the West/Southwest.

Yep :-). I've since come to the conclusion that 846 gives a better view though :-p.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
As I mentioned, that gas station is the SAME place...it has been re-named to 'NEX'....see the Blue awning, with white and red?

Funny CIT still calls it the 'Citgo'....isn't it??? But, they have their fantasy, I have reality....

They call it Citgo because that's what it was at the time. They know that it was renamed and I believe they even called it by its new name; I simply wasn't sure what they'd called it though, which is why I asked you whether it used to used to be the Citgo :-p.

reply to weedwhacker's post #47

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Of course, you can also put 'Joe' on the big curve of Columbia Pike, about where Joyce St meets it....where Southgate Rd is coming from your West. And you can see the Pentagon easily from there too.

Maybe that's around 853 ;-).

No, I was trying to give the benefit of coubt to CIT.

I was referring to a point ON Columbia Pike, well North of the gas station. Where Joyce Street deadends.

I was trying to show how, if you look at it zoomed out, the airplane would have to have had flown along Columbia Pike from the several miles out to the West/Southwest where it started the attack run, then for some inexplicable reason made a left, then back to the right....when the Naval Annex buildings were there, and an obvious obstacle...makes NO SENSE!!!

I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with the flight path of the plane before Edward Paik's position, just a little southwest of the Navy Annex itself. Before that, all we have to go on is the NTSB data, right? The NTSB data doesn't even concord with the "low and level" approach to the pentagon, however, so I don't think it's that trustworthy a source of information...

[edit on 3-10-2009 by scott3x]

reply to weedwhacker's post #48, part 1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x

 

Either PFT or CIT (or both) have made it clear that there's an air corridor fairly close to the pentagon, so air traffic wouldn't be unusual there. When we compound this with the fact that officials weren't looking for any flyover witnesses, as well as a 2nd plane myth, it seems clear why so few flyover witnesses have been found.

Please allow me to dispel this misinformed "factoid".

It has become painfully obvious that certain "spokesmen" for both groups just do NOT know what the heck they're talking about, most of the time.

We don't agree here, but I would definitely like to try to understand why you feel that way, so continuing...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
What I have seen is a guy (Balsamo) who through no fault of his own can no longer fly due to Medical conditions. I also can no longer qualify for a Medical, so I can empathize. However, in Balsamo's case he just doesn't have the amount of experience I have.

On ATS threads we have seen certain "spokesmen" for the PFT and CIT come on and show a complete misunderstanding in many cases, and when called on it change the subject, or become defensively arrogant and attack instead of respond factually.

I don't have the amount of knowledge that turbofan has, but there were times that I thought he might have been mistaken on a few things. However, the subject changed and so in my mind, these things were never resolved. Personally, when I realize I've made a mistake, I admit it, but not everyone does this; some simply move on to other subjects. Honestly, however, as long as losing arguments are dropped, I can live with a person not admitting they were mistaken.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
AND, the 'Aces" up their sleeves have always been the very few big "names" they trot out...I can think of the "Big Three" right now...and ONE of them is the staunch proponent of "holographic airplanes" magically projected and fooling everyone, with weapons from space-based platforms magically doing the destruction. I believe even CIT and PFT are cautiously backing away from those claims....

I've never heard of a time when they went for the holographic plane idea. What "big name" believed that, by the way?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
In fact, the "story" keeps being altered, as conditions seem to warrant...if only to support a basic premise of somehow a "cover-up and flyover"...and they do anything possible to twist back into that beloved scenario of theirs.

It is actually painful to watch, sometimes.

I don't see it this way. Hopefully, in time, you might be able to explain to me why you do, though.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Thing is...these guys (most) actually think they're right! Not all of them are doing it out of malice aforethought. They are mostly genuine, if misguided.

This is one thing that we agree on, at any rate. I just don't believe that most of the people that spend countless hours in these online forums are trying to deceive anyone, but actually believe what they claim to believe. This has been a source of contention between me and groups such as PFT and CIT, and may, in fact, have contributed to my being banned. But however much we may disagree on the motives of various individuals, all the evidence I have seen has led me to the conclusion that the plane that approached the pentagon did in fact fly over it.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by scott3x]

reply to weedwhacker's post #48, part 2

Originally posted by weedwhacker
adding...about the "air corridor" mythos....

Of course any Navigation charts you see today are possibly different than eight years ago (actually, there will always be minor differences, as they are updated on a regualr schedule).

However, I am not aware of any what are called "VFR Corridors" that ever existed within the Washington DC Class B Airspace, not now certainly, and not in 2001.

I'm not sure what classification the airspace that is fairly close to the pentagon has, but it's a claim that was made in one of either a CIT or PFT video. Hopefully someone more familiar with their videos will be able to pinpoint it; if not, I may have to slog through them myself, laugh :-p. Let me put it to you this way; Reagan International Airport is -mighty- close to the pentagon; the planes have to get into the nearby airspace in order to land there. And if we look at the flight path as delineated by the 13 witnesses that CIT interviewed, it seems clear that the plane, had it flown over the pentagon, would have been in a good position to land soon afterwards at Reagan International. Which is why discovering what the secretive program was doing there at the time was all about. I wish I could remember where I read about the people in that program dying mysteriously afterwards. One day perhaps.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
That is the only thing I can think they (PFT) are referring to with the phrase "air corridor".

Here is a website link:

skyvector.com...

On the right side of the page is a place called 'Location Lookup". As the example shows, type in a variety of terms...if you just use 'KDCA' it will center on the National Airport for you.

THEN, along the top, you will see tabs. The ones labled "Enroute" will show the IFR charts..."L" for 'low' and "H" for 'high' altitude depictions, as the airways are different on each. "DC Area" is also a 'low' IFR chart, on a larger scale focused on a smaller area.

"Washington" is the name for the particular "Sectional Chart". Just a name for one of the many that covers, for instance, the Continental USA.

"Baltimore-Washington TAC" means it covers BOTH the Washington and Baltimore Class B Airspace structures...("Class B" in days of old was called the 'TCA', for 'Terminal Control Area'. NOW the term is "Terminal Area Chart". Still both are VFR Charts)

If you zoom in on the TAC Chart, for the Washington area, you can see how the airspace is depicted, and the various restrictions and such.

Class 'B' airspace directly on top of the airport goes all the way to the surface. Class 'B' means it is a positive control airspace, you MUST have a transponder, and contact ATC (or in extreme cases make prior arrangements IF they will let you...very rare).

In addition, and not shown on any of these charts, are the various procedures specific to each airport for arrivals and departures. these are on the IFR charts (sometimes refered to as 'plates') and can be found at the same site where I linked the Airport Diagram some posts back....

Perhaps this secretive program that I heard of can be thought of as your "very rare" exemption.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Sorry for another lesson...it is a very advanced lesson....and should have many, many prerequisites first, but this is a "crash" course...bad pun.

No problem. Honestly, I think that turbofan, or others at PFT would probably be much better at responding to the technical aspects of your post here, but in the meantime, I'll do the best I can :-p.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by scott3x]

reply to argentus' post #49

Originally posted by argentus
Scott, I'm glad you chose to make this a separate thread; there are enough variables to require it IMHO.

Thanks :-).

Originally posted by argentus
I am not trying to speak for Hooper. I would guess that his problem with the consistent use of "ark" tends one to think that a person isn't really very well versed in trigonometry (and others) if they cannot accurately spell one of its components -- the arc.

Ah, I see. Well, I transcribed what Rob Balsamo said from the video, so the spelling errors are all mine ;-). I have used trigonometry in the past, but it's been quite a long time, laugh ;-). I've now corrected my transcription on my computer so the next time I use it, it'll have the correct spelling :-p.

Originally posted by argentus
Oh, and.......... the "round file, aka circular file.

Lol, thanks for clearing that up ;-).

Originally posted by argentus
I wish I had more to offer to this spirited discussion.

Me too; unfortunately, sometimes when turbofan and weedwacker go off, I'm just like, "maybe I'll understand that stuff some day", laugh ;-).

Originally posted by argentus
Pleased as punch to see it mostly civil. I think a lot of that is your influence.

;-)

Originally posted by argentusCarry on.

Thanks.

Originally posted by argentus
Edit to add: Perhaps part of the difficulty is in describing three-dimensional space with words. Not everyone can envision spacial relationships. Then, various groups create graphics to illustration their points in 3D, which of course allows a possibility of depicting a path that is contrary to data. I wonder if it would be beneficial to graph the data of 77s path, using only the elevation. Not sure at all how that would work out with the big turn it apparently made prior to the Pentagon approach, but seems like that might clarify some things. I'll work on that a bit.

Thanks a lot :-). Argentus, have you written any books? Just curious :-).

reply to Q24-7's post #50

Originally posted by Q24-7

Originally posted by scott3x
I was banned from PFT that I myself laid down the gauntlet with Q. In that thread I methodically countered all of his arguments. For whatever reasons, he chose not to counter mine, however, instead opting for what I believe was a rather lame final post and so, after I replied to it in a 'believe whatever you want' fashion, the thread ended.

The discussion ended exactly because you do not have an argument of your own.

All the arguments I make are my own. The fact that others came up with the logic of some of them before doesn't change that.

Originally posted by Q24-7
I very clearly defined (using images and her own words) how Madelyn Zakheim confirms witnessing a flight path South of Citgo. Your response: “Clearly, CIT believes that her testimony is contradictory; I'll go with that.” Well good for you and that’s all I ever got – CIT say this, P4T told me that.

I said more than that, even in the post where you got that quote from, which was the last post you responded to.

But the most detailed post I made against Madelyn being used as a south side witness was actually before that, and it's one which you only briefly responded to.

Originally posted by Q24-7
Not once an explanation based on her actual account to support your case, just desperate slander against her character, ie she’s a Jew and liar.

Whoa there Q. Can you please cite where I ever called her a liar or stated that the fact that she was a jew made any difference?

Originally posted by Q24-7
When you are claiming that black is white ‘because someone told you so’ then it’s time to call it a day.

If I'd done that, I'd agree with you. But I didn't. I think the main problem is that you're keen on giving your view, but not so keen on listening to that of others. This has been exemplified with me, but also with PFT and CIT. I still maintain that decision to ban you wasn't the best, but I can understand their frustration, especially when you go to their forum and then say things like you don't have time to respond to all their points.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by scott3x

Whoa there Q. Can you please cite where I ever called her a liar or stated that the fact that she was a jew made any difference?

Quote Scott: -

• “Alright, the facts as I understand them here are as Aldo explained.”
  (One point Aldo picks on is that Madelyn has a Jewish sounding surname)
  
  
• “So it would seem that she would have to be lying”

Originally posted by scott3x

If I'd done that, I'd agree with you. But I didn't. I think the main problem is that you're keen on giving your view, but not so keen on listening to that of others.

When I provide information as clear as in my post here and you still point blank disagree with what Madelyn actually described, with the reason being ‘because CIT say so’ then it is a waste of everyone’s time.

Originally posted by scott3x

I still maintain that decision to ban you wasn't the best, but I can understand their frustration, especially when you go to their forum and then say things like you don't have time to respond to all their points.

I am not banned from the P4T forum. I left voluntarily after Balsamo took it upon himself to delete my post presenting evidence of a further south side witness despite it not breaking any rules.

reply to Q24-7's post #58

Originally posted by Q24-7

Originally posted by scott3x

Whoa there Q. Can you please cite where I ever called her a liar or stated that the fact that she was a jew made any difference?

Quote Scott: -

• “Alright, the facts as I understand them here are as Aldo explained.”
  (One point Aldo picks on is that Madelyn has a Jewish sounding surname)

I made a specific exception regarding Aldo's beliefs on that one, which you would know if you had thoroughly reviewed the post you're quoting. To whit:

I admittedly have always been rather uncomfortable with the notion that she was a Mossad agent; the only highly suspected Mossad agents I know of worked for a moving company, the name of which I forget; some of them "documented" the collapse of the twin towers, seeming to be quite happy with the results. They were briefly held, but then deported back to Israel.

I heard of some others, again working for this moving company (whose owner fled back to Israel as well), who were apparently going to blow up a bridge.. perhaps the Brooklyn Bridge. They were detained and the explosives in their van found before they could do it, but I don't remember much of a story coming out of this; in fact, I think I just heard of it recently in a forum (probably the loose change forum).

Originally posted by Q24-7

“So it would seem that she would have to be lying”

You're right, I did make that statement. However, someone who lies about a particular thing doesn't mean they are a liar, per se. Who hasn't lied atleast once in their lives, after all? As long as they don't do it as a matter of habit, I wouldn't call them a liar. Furthermore, I think you underestimate the qualifier I used: "seem". I even elaborate on the doubts I had in this regard, in the very same post, no less:

She is a witness that different people have interpreted in different ways. Russell Pickering seems to have interpreted what she said as supporting a south of the citgo gas station approach. However, I have certainly never seen Russell Pickering do as detailed an analysis as CIT. CIT, ofcourse, claims that her relatively ambiguous direction would appear to favour a north side approach. What CIT thinks she is lying about is that the plane flew overhead; -here-, however, I am wondering if, perhaps, she may have simply been a bit off; after all, as Aldo points out in his post #23:

Aldo Marquis CIT said:
3. She claims she saw the cockpit and a wing. But in reality she very clearly admitted that:

" I fell to the ground.... I was crying and scared."

This would be an indicator that she wouldn't have and couldn't have seen what she claims she saw in the official story's split second flyover of the VDOT/STC @ 535 MPH.

Personally, I wonder if this might be the truth of the matter; that people have 'helped' her remember various things, but in truth, she saw very little at all.

Originally posted by Q24-7

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by Q24-7
When you are claiming that black is white ‘because someone told you so’ then it’s time to call it a day.

If I'd done that, I'd agree with you. But I didn't. I think the main problem is that you're keen on giving your view, but not so keen on listening to that of others.

When I provide information as clear as in my post here and you still point blank disagree with what Madelyn actually described, with the reason being ‘because CIT say so’ then it is a waste of everyone’s time.

Q, please, read what I write. As in, take a closer look at that post, see how little of the post you were responding to you actually responded to. If you don't do that, you'll never learn.

Originally posted by Q24-7

Originally posted by scott3x
I still maintain that decision to ban you wasn't the best, but I can understand their frustration, especially when you go to their forum and then say things like you don't have time to respond to all their points.

I am not banned from the P4T forum.

Yes, I know; I even mentioned in another post how your temporary ban expired, and you went back there, only to leave because, as you explain...

Originally posted by Q24-7
I left voluntarily after Balsamo took it upon himself to delete my post presenting evidence of a further south side witness despite it not breaking any rules.

Balsamo makes the rules there, and the rule he made was that you had to address all the points they'd already made against your witnesses. As I mentioned to you previously, I wish they'd let you continue with your witness list, as I believe every single one of them would thus have been discredited. But you could certainly continue your list here if you like.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by scott3x

Balsamo makes the rules there, and the rule he made was that you had to address all the points they'd already made against your witnesses. As I mentioned to you previously, I wish they'd let you continue with your witness list, as I believe every single one of them would thus have been discredited. But you could certainly continue your list here if you like.

I could spend forever going in circles without ever addressing all the points to the satisfaction of people like you and those at P4T. That is the reason I spelt out in the opening post of that thread that I would follow a certain format – present witness, note all concerns against the account, move on to the next witness. By the end we would have had all witnesses supporting a south flight path and all arguments against them, ie an informative thread with all of the evidence and arguments for/against. I managed to present only 6 out of approximately 40 witnesses before being censored. Balsamo could not allow such an open exchange of information to take place on his forum because upon viewing by most people it would crush the idea of a Pentagon flyover and discredit many P4T members.

Anyhow, I made Balsamo a promise in my last post and that is in part what I’m here for… just have to reach 20 posts so that I can start a topic. It’s going to be interesting to see how the various forums react.