Pilots For 9/11 Truth Present Their Math

[Cl1mh4224rd]

BTW its not about justice for DEAD MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN nooooo NOT WITH THE dipsticks from CIT/PFTT.
According to Ranke

No turkey and ham for the pseudo-skeptics this Christmas! They're being served a different holiday meal this year.

Well, damn... what the hell did I eat then, if it wasn't ham?

From Capt'n Booby and the lost guides:

We will be publishing a tech paper as a supplement to this analysis

This ought'a be good!

Why am I not surprised that they've got this as backwards as their thinking? Tech paper first, numbnuts, then the video supplement.

 

[Arus808]

holy damn. Just when you think that Balsalmo has gone of the deep end, he only ends up another 200 feet deeper. He's treading water but going nowhere.

His little "video" proves all along that he doesn't know WTF he is talking about.

 

[double_o]

Witness compatible?

Just look at what they are doing when they trying to match the flight path to Roosevelt Roberts' statement. They have the plane nowhere near the south parking lot (not to mention lane1) and flying southeast towards the airport which is completely opposite the what Roberts said. It seem that what they got right about this flight path is that there is no way for the plane to fly over the south parking lot.

In their own words:"It is possible for anyone to speculate on their bias while cherry picking witness statements"

 

[jhunter1163]

Thanks Ranquisamo (did I invent that one?)!

Yes, I believe you did. I'll be using it, if you don't mind.

 

[dtugg]

Yes, I believe you did. I'll be using it, if you don't mind.

That's cool. I believe I Ranquis came from you so you're more than half responsible anyway.

 

[Reheat]

So go back to the calculator P4T and let me know if you need any help resolving the components of the acceleration vector. The equation you are using is invalid for multiple reasons, the least of which is you are not dealing with a circular path in two dimensions for a constant velocity.

I wonder if we'll see the "hockey stick" math again?

 

[nicepants]

Rob doesn't seem to understand the difference between instantaneous values and average values.

Given the fact that the calculations are based on level flight, if you incorporate an initial descent, the G loads required are less, therefore the "pull up" will equal out the reduced G Loading during the descent.

 

[jaydeehess]

Strictly 2 dimensional
ignores Morin completely
ignores all statements about the aircraft being at tree top level
implies all manner of carp including some type of unknown specialty aircraft

At a 45 degree starboard bank with a 50 foot long wing(from fuselage to each wing) the fuselage would have to be at least 35 feet above the Pentagon. That is 45% higher than the roof of the building.. Odd that somehow no one noticed that the aircraft, which all describe as being low (some saying it was at tree top level, some saying that the (left) wing touched the ground, some who lost sight of it behind trees or embankments,) , was actually half again as high as the roof of the building they state it hit. Many claim it hit the ground floor which would be over 110 feet lower than the lowest possible height in the PfT video path over the building. 110 feet!!

Boger, an experienced air traffic controller certainly would have described a transport type aircraft at a 45 degree or greater bank as being in a steep bank. Same goes for Morin, though they thrown Morin's entire description out the window anyway.

They tell an obvious lie in stating that no one saw a SoC flight path.

PfT just gets worse and worse in their politically driven quest.

However, I do look forward to the technical paper coming soon from Cappy Bobby.

 

[jaydeehess]

Rob doesn't seem to understand the difference between instantaneous values and average values.

Wow! So a baseball travelling towards home plate at 100 mph getting hit by a baseball bat and then travelling at 100 mph right back at the pitcher experiences no g forces because they just all 'equal out'.

 

[A W Smith]

Wow! So a baseball travelling towards home plate at 100 mph getting hit by a baseball bat and then travelling at 100 mph right back at the pitcher experiences no g forces because they just all 'equal out'.

And a ride in a modern steel roller coaster is comparable to a ride to the 8th green in a golf cart, after all, it all averages out right? i mean the altitude of the platform where you board the roller coaster is the exact same altitude as the platform where you exit the ride, so you should experience no g forces in the vertical plane. THATS what Robbie is claiming.

 

[The Big Dog]

Ha ha ha!!

I knew it! I knew those fools would one day try to do the math, and in doing destroy CIT and their stupid NOC theory! Oh man, do I enjoy making fools dance for my pleasure...

In so doing they completely threw Morin and Paik and Boger under the bus!

For god's sake they don't even calculate the freaking flight path for the stupid animation they show in the video! Can a brother get a laughing dog!

Here is the CIT flight path:

Over the Navy annex, banked North of Citgo, descended below the tree line, pulled out of the bank, pulled out of the descent and then 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.

Gee Cap'n Bob, Tino, ya missing something in your video? Remember when TurboFan was in here blabbing about the feet above sea level?

Thanks Tino, thank Cap'n Bob, you proved CIT and Pfft to be incredibly incompetent frauds.

Your pal, incredibly happy detractor, 16.5!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sogKUx_q7ig

 

[WildCat]

Wow! So a baseball travelling towards home plate at 100 mph getting hit by a baseball bat and then travelling at 100 mph right back at the pitcher experiences no g forces because they just all 'equal out'.

Isn't The Truth^TM amazing!

 

[~enigma~]

Sort of like the idiot that tried to prove Newton's third was violated and my personal favorite the net force = 0 moron. Same bs in a different animal suit.

 

[Reheat]

Wow! So a baseball travelling towards home plate at 100 mph getting hit by a baseball bat and then travelling at 100 mph right back at the pitcher experiences no g forces because they just all 'equal out'.

It's worst than that. He continues to demonstrate that he has no clue regarding acceleration forces on an aircraft.

Perhaps someone who is a better search artist than I, should dig out that very old thread when he was registered here as JDX (I believe) in which he argued with Anti-Sophist about the difference in G forces between a Lear and a B-747. He refuses to learn and is spouting some of the same misconceptions now that he was then....

And to make it worse those idiots over on his Forum suck-up to him as if he knew what he was talking about.....

 

[WildCat]

Well, so we all agree that this was indeed a wonderful Chrstmas present!

Thank you Cap'n Bob and your little sidekick Tino, for giving the gift of lulz!

 

[SPreston]

Oh no, they didn't want the math after all

Note that no vertical pull-up was addressed at all throughout the entire charade. There is a good reason for that. I don't need to specify that as most understand that the calculated bank angle and G forces for the point to point flight path must be maintained in order to arrive at the destinated point. G must be added (as all of the witnesses stated that it was at a very low altitude) in order to fly over the building.

Reheat are your comrades throwing you under the bus?

What pull-up? Why does the aircraft need to pull-up. The decoy aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex. The Naval Annex is at a higher elevation than the Pentagon. The roof top of the Naval Annex is AT LEAST 100 feet higher than the roof top of the Pentagon which is 77 feet tall.

Come on. Try some common sense here for a change.

 

[WildCat]

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/P4t_NOC.jpg

What pull-up? Why does the aircraft need to pull-up.

The aircraft in your little picture will hit the Pentagon if it doesn't pull up. Did you notice that the nose is pitching downward?

Care to try again?

 

[Reheat]

Come on. Try some common sense here for a change.

Well, if it isn't the "brain trust" of the Ranquisamo gaggle.




As if you would recognize common sense if it bit you in the azz!

 

[SPreston]

Ugh oh. Bad move.

I'll leave it to the aeronautical guys to determine if the first equation is the proper one to use in this case.

Mr John Farmer you had better check with Mr Reheat before you risk your new cushy position here with your new compadres.

 

[BCR]

Let's see, almost all of the witnesses describe a descent beyond the Annex and acceleration (throttling up). One, Turcios even says that the plane required a pull-up to avoid hitting a structure on the roadway. Let's get consistent here Preston.