• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Physics Response to Flight 77 Trajectory Speculation

Terral said:
Hi Jay:




The DoD Ops running this joint trash about half of what I say on these related 911Truth topics to their AAH garbage can, because that is what Loyal Bushie LIARS do. The FBI-produced Flight Data Recorder evidence is all FAKE, so deliberating about FAKE FDR evidence adds nothing to the debate on what 'did not' hit the Pentagon at 9:32 AM (my trashed Pentagon thread and Flight 93 thread). Therefore, all of these 'one-sided' JREF discussions are between skeptics, debunkers (heh) and Official Cover Story dimwits without enough knowledge on these topics to fill a thimble for a woman's pinky finger.

If you want more participation from real 911Truthers, then do something about getting rid of all the DoD inside-job bad guys running this Board. Anyone really interested in seeing 'the' 911Truth should run as far away from this place as humanly possible, because packing this many Loyal Bushie LIARS into one place can put out an eye or two . . .

GL,

Terral
Click to expand...

Sooooo....Randi forum moderators and administrators are "Loyal Bushie inside-job DoD bad guys"?

I can't help it!!
:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

(bolding mine)
 
I once worked for Rockwell International and had a Secret Security Clearance. The DOD did a background investigation on me. Does that mean I am a "Loyal Bushie inside-job DoD bad guy" ?
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm back...

I was off in Vancouver for the last few days, helping spawn a better New World Order^W^W^W^W^W^W^W on vacation...

I keep seeing references to all these "lies" I've supposedly told and been caught in -- does anybody have any idea what that's all about?

Also, for Gregory, in case you didn't get an answer, the accelerometer data is in no way inconsistent with my model or my calculations. The accelerometer data is from before the terminal seconds under consideration here. And as before, the acceleration I calculate should be thought of as an average -- you can oscillate around it a bit, as they probably did, and you get pretty much the same trajectory.

As others have noted, this is really not big-league stuff. No complex calculations are needed here, as if the "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" would have a chance of carrying them out if they were. Take a look at the calculations in their original article (which, if done correctly, would lead you to a similar conclusion) if you don't want to take the word of an evil JREF'er for it.
 
R.Mackey said:
I keep seeing references to all these "lies" I've supposedly told and been caught in -- does anybody have any idea what that's all about?
Click to expand...

The same lies the rest of us are also accused of....

It's blubber and bluster so as not to lose too many DVD and BBQ Apron sales!
 
R.Mackey said:
I keep seeing references to all these "lies" I've supposedly told and been caught in -- does anybody have any idea what that's all about?
Click to expand...


My impression was, since the PfTers' conclusions could not possibly be in error, and since your "calculations" showed them to be in error, and since there's no way someone who works at NASA could possibly make a math error (Mars Climate Orbiter notwithstanding), you must obviously know that your "calculations" are nothing but a fraud, and therefore a lie.


Which of course completely ignores the "Don't take my word for it, do the math yourself" factor. Not that that will surprise you any.
 
Last edited:
As always, Mackey is using NWO math for his calculations. Those aren't real numbers, they're government numbers.
 
R.Mackey said:
I was off in Vancouver for the last few days, helping spawn a better New World Order^W^W^W^W^W^W^W on vacation...

I keep seeing references to all these "lies" I've supposedly told and been caught in -- does anybody have any idea what that's all about?

Also, for Gregory, in case you didn't get an answer, the accelerometer data is in no way inconsistent with my model or my calculations. The accelerometer data is from before the terminal seconds under consideration here. And as before, the acceleration I calculate should be thought of as an average -- you can oscillate around it a bit, as they probably did, and you get pretty much the same trajectory.

As others have noted, this is really not big-league stuff. No complex calculations are needed here, as if the "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" would have a chance of carrying them out if they were. Take a look at the calculations in their original article (which, if done correctly, would lead you to a similar conclusion) if you don't want to take the word of an evil JREF'er for it.
Click to expand...

I don't think you fall under the category of "evil JREFer" by any means. When I suggested that someone check the numbers, it was not really an issue of trust other than that anyone can make mistakes. Actually, I think a website such as P4T should have higher standards for accuracy than a discussion forum where mistakes are more acceptable. I did a quick check using my own worst case and it seems to validate your conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Terral, I will address your post in the AAH thread, where it belongs.
ETA: Too late, I see that thread is now closed.



Would I be out of line in stating that it is now settled, the calculations done by P4T were grossly in error? This has been pointed out many times in this thread and has also been publically acknowledged by P4T now.


Furthermore it has been established that there is no way to precisely put the flight path over the VDOT tower but that if it did that there is an ample range of trajectories that would take it into the Pentagon that corresspond with the physical evidence of its flight path, and which would not cause physical damage to the aircraft due to overstressing the airframe.

I propose shutting down this thread, its point being moot.

A moot point is one that need not be decided, due to a change of circumstances.

an issue previously clarified
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Terral, I will address your post in the AAH thread, where it belongs.



Would I be out of line in stating that it is now settled, the calculations done by P4T were grossly in error? This has been pointed out many times in this thread and has also been publically acknowledged by P4T now.


Furthermore it has been established that there is no way to precisely put the flight path over the VDOT tower but that if it did that there is an ample range of trajectories that would take it into the Pentagon that corresspond with the physical evidence of its flight path, and which would not cause physical damage to the aircraft due to overstressing the airframe.

I propose shutting down this thread, its point being moot.

A moot point is one that need not be decided, due to a change of circumstances.

an issue previously clarified
Click to expand...

Asking a troofer to be mute on a moot point is as pointless as informing them of the difference between "mute" and "moot"...
 
GregoryUrich said:
I don't think you fall under the category of "evil JREFer" by any means.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that. That wasn't aimed at you, by the way -- that was alluding to some of the other respondents, i.e. at AboveTopSecret, claiming that my approach was "far too simple" to be useful. For those people, my approach is indeed quite similar to that of the "Pilots for 9/11 Truth," the only difference being that I did mine much more carefully.

GregoryUrich said:
When I suggested that someone check the numbers, it was not really an issue of trust other than that anyone can make mistakes. Actually, I think a website such as P4T should have higher standards for accuracy than a discussion forum where mistakes are more acceptable. I did a quick check using my own worst case and it seems to validate your conclusions.
Click to expand...

No umbrage taken here. Science demands nothing less than confirmation, even of the most uncontroversial results. Part of the reason I set up the problem so carefully was to encourage others to verify it.

So far, looks like my calculations are spot on. Mr. Balsamo is still posting about my "lies," and occasionally "twisting numbers," but I have no idea what that means.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
I appreciate that. That wasn't aimed at you, by the way -- that was alluding to some of the other respondents, i.e. at AboveTopSecret, claiming that my approach was "far too simple" to be useful. For those people, my approach is indeed quite similar to that of the "Pilots for 9/11 Truth," the only difference being that I did mine much more carefully.



No umbrage taken here. Science demands nothing less than confirmation, even of the most uncontroversial results. Part of the reason I set up the problem so carefully was to encourage others to verify it.

So far, looks like my calculations are spot on. Mr. Balsamo is still posting about my "lies," and occasionally "twisting numbers," but I have no idea what that means.
Click to expand...


I do so like the irony of the truth movers claiming that your calculations are "far too simple" when they are more detailed than what P4T attempted and failed at.
I believe it is also somewhat ironic that you would have that accusation leveled at you and have Balsamo be so imprecise as to your "lies" or "twisting numbers". Surely if someone is adept enough to claim that you are being too simple then they would also be adept enough to illustrate what your "lies" are and how, exactly, you twisted the numbers.

For the truth movers out there lurking one suggestion would be to research the equation for a parabola and then going back to the OP of this thread.


rwguinn
writes:Asking a troofer to be mute on a moot point is as pointless as informing them of the difference between "mute" and "moot"...
Click to expand...

You caught one of my pet peeves, and here I was thinking I was being coy.:blush:

Now look at that I done and gone extended this thread.:jaw-dropp

BTW my use of the term "truth movers" refers to the shoving and twisting they do to the word "truth"
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
So far, looks like my calculations are spot on. Mr. Balsamo is still posting about my "lies," and occasionally "twisting numbers," but I have no idea what that means.
Click to expand...

Maybe by "twisting numbers" he means infinity (i.e. Moebius strip)?
 
No response except to say "Mackey is lying, neener neener neener." That's all they can do. They can't refute his math (they don't know how, and even if they did know how, you can't refute something that's correct) so they resort to the old "liar" canard.

There must be a lot of liars in PfffffffT's world.
 
jhunter1163 said:
No response except to say "Mackey is lying, neener neener neener." That's all they can do. They can't refute his math (they don't know how, and even if they did know how, you can't refute something that's correct) so they resort to the old "liar" canard.

There must be a lot of liars in PfffffffT's world.
Click to expand...

By golly, there's a lot of scheduling conflicts you know. Between Golf, Bingo, and Shuffleboard there's very little time for all of those retired nutjobs in the core group! :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom