Pilots For 9/11 Truth Present Their Math

[BCR]

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

Idiot! The first is a banking angle formula that P4T used and I am deferring to Reheat (aeronautical type) to discuss it. What you don't seem to grasp is that there are aerodynamic issues, and then there are strictly Newtonian physics issues. Forces acting on a body (whether it is a plane, a ball, a car, or a person) are independent of the body acted upon. Gravity pulls on ANY body with the same acceleration (the mass is different, which impacts the force). For every force applied, an equal and opposite force must be applied in order for the vertical net force to equal zero. In the case of a car, the ground exerts this force, in the case of a plane, aerodynamic lift is applied. So the mode of applying the force may differ and have unique characteristics (such as stall, etc) which aeronautical types need to address. However, the force it generates to overcome the force of gravity is a whole different commodity and is governed by Newtonian physics.

You guys really don't have a clue what you are talking about do you?

 

[The Big Dog]

Reheat are your comrades throwing you under the bus?

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

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.

Spreston, please tell me you are not serious. Your own graphic in your own post clearly shows the descent and pull up!!!

Aldo CLEARLY claims the plane pulled up and over the Pentagon.

Don't you care that PFFT is unable to calculate the claimed flight path?

They are lying to you. Stop being one of the flock and demand an explanation from the mutts at CIT and PFFFt

 

[twinstead]

Forget math. If they want me to pay attention they'd better have beer.

 

[The Big Dog]

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

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/AllGroupsMap.jpg[/qimg]

"What pull-up? Why does the aircraft need to pull-up." Uh oh SPreston, you better check with Mr. Marquis before you go calling him a liar:

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.

The bold sentence is a direct quote from Aldo.

Therefore, you fail.

Thanks SPreston!!!

 

[double_o]

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

That pull-up:

He claims he was on the phone with his sister with his back to the Pentagon at the time of the explosion which would explain why he missed the pull up and flyover.

This means he could not have watched the plane enter as he stated. He has also claimed since day one that he hit the deck so the obvious conclusion here is that he reacted as anyone would and hit the deck as the plane approached headed right towards him and simply missed the pull up.

http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic11.htm

 

[Bananaman]

It's been said before and obviously needs repeating again to Spreston, NO-ONE WITNESSED A PULL UP OVER THE PENTAGON. It's an insane idea. Yeah, we'll fly a passenger jet at the Pentagon that pulls up at the last minute while a missile or bomb or God knows what goes on underneath. It's so ridiculous it makes anyone who supports the idea look like a twerp. Like Spreston, really

Dear God.

Bananaman.

 

[Bobert]

Jesus what koolaid are you drinking SPreston?

 

[BCR]

Okay SPreston, I'll give you "experts" a chance to redeem yourselves and show us that you really do have a clue.

In the image above, I did not define fully one aspect of the equation. You will observe that [latex]$$ \frac{S}{r} = \frac{at}{v} $$[/latex]. Why is this a true statement when [latex]$$ r_1 = r_2 $$[/latex] and [latex]$$ v_1 = v_2 $$[/latex]?

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Seems a former member here claims that PFT can easily present the math for the Pull up.
I wont mention any names but it rhymes with Turbobanned.

"We can easily show that a pull up (ascent) is well within 757-200 limits
using several examples. The problem is, then they'll cry about the colour
of the grass...or the lack of brain cells they have.

It's all covered in the tech note in any case. We'll wait for them to scream
once we release that."

 

[WildCat]

The analogy is perfect in the sense that you're asking me to calculate stuff without any data. How stupid are people on this site?

How difficult is it for a plane to fly over the Annex on the north side of Citgo, and pull up over the Pentagon?

Has Turbofraud abandoned his "pull up" theory?

 

[Reheat]

Seems a former member here claims that PFT can easily present the math for the Pull up.
I wont mention any names but it rhymes with Turbobanned.

"We can easily show that a pull up (ascent) is well within 757-200 limits
using several examples. The problem is, then they'll cry about the colour
of the grass...or the lack of brain cells they have.

It's all covered in the tech note in any case. We'll wait for them to scream
once we release that."

They can show an aircraft rolling inverted and pushing up for all I care.

Where are ALL of their witnesses, yes every single one of them who saw an aircraft traveling sideways at 60 + degrees of bank?

Those shallow bank angles in the cartoon are pure horse manure. All it demonstrates is that they can draw lines on a map and make believe that's some sort of flight path their "witnesses" described. Ranquis has been doing that for over two years. This is more of the same.....

ETA: Have fun with the mental midgets, I've got better things to do....

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Pilots 4 911 Truth..... Their interpretation of the "Pull Up"

 

[The Big Dog]

Seems a former member here claims that PFT can easily present the math for the Pull up.
I wont mention any names but it rhymes with Turbobanned.

"We can easily show that a pull up (ascent) is well within 757-200 limits
using several examples. The problem is, then they'll cry about the colour
of the grass...or the lack of brain cells they have.

It's all covered in the tech note in any case. We'll wait for them to scream
once we release that."

Hee hee hee! Turbofan essentially admits within 24 hours that their silly cartoon is BUNK because it does not calculate the pull up!

We got to wait for the technical note which will include a descent and pull up, all while maintaining a 60 degree bank angle! hee hee!

 

[nicepants]

We got to wait for the technical note which will include a descent and pull up, all while maintaining a 60 degree bank angle! hee hee!

At a 60 degree bank angle...wouldn't that be more of a pull OVER? (More lateral movement than vertical movement)

 

[BCR]

At a 60 degree bank angle...wouldn't that be more of a pull OVER? (More lateral movement than vertical movement)

I am going to derive the x, y and z components for this fantasy flight this evening (or perhaps tomorrow). We will see how my Newtonian physics vector angles compare with their calculated bank angles. Then I'll leave it to them to calculate the [latex]$$ a_z $$[/latex] required to pull up or over and what that means to the lift required at such an angle to achieve it. I love math

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

All of the criticisms of the video have been addressed here.
If anyone wishes to debate these issues you are welcome to join the discussion.

 

[Baylor]

CIT RANKE

Furthermore the plane DOES NOT have to pass exactly over the alleged impact point.

That is a myth that they made up.

All you're doing is weakening your hypothesis about the witnesses being "fooled." But we all know you have no intention and never did have any intention of actually discussing it.

 

[jhunter1163]

A minor point I'd like some clarification on.. when I explained the proposed flyover to my ex-father-in-law, who was a B-52 navigator in Vietnam with 55 missions to his credit, he kinda furrowed his brow and said "flying through an explosion like that would take big, round, hairy (rule10)s."

So, to you aeronautical types, what do you think? Could a plane fly through such a blast at maybe 100 feet without taking fatal damage?

 

[WildCat]

TLB, will the PfffT and the CIT be releasing an animation showing their new flight path where the plane stays on level flight high above the Pentagon in a sharp bank? Because I'm having a hard time seeing how this path provides the illusion necessary to convince anyone that the plane actually hit the Pentagon. I mean, the original version was already well beyond the bounds of credulity but this one is way beyond even that!

 

[Baylor]

We all know the "witnesses were fooled" theory is stupid, and the fact that they were not fooled but actually saw the plane hit the pentagon is self-evident. But why it's even dumber than most people think may not be completely understood. I thought about starting a new thread about it, but figured it wouldn't lead to any scientific discourse but would just lead to a few cheap shots at CIT and it'd die shortly. I read lyte trip's "explanation" of how the witnesses were "fooled." I facepalmed myself so hard I got a concussion.