Pilots For 9/11 Truth Present Their Math

[BCR]

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.

No TLB, I do not care to debate in loony land. I will help you guys out with the math here among folks who understand math. I will even solve the bank angle for the descent which you guys did not do for your fantasy flight. Then it is up to you guys to show how Sean Boger was looking down from the helipad tower at the plane and how it suddenly managed to pull up and over the Pentagon during the time interval that he was hitting the floor in the tower.

Besides, P4T don't got latex so that we can talk math

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

How stupid are you TLB?

THe people on that site are idiots, and Cap'n Bob is a freaking thug.

Cripes, Ranke claims we are moving the goal posts. God, what a half wit. I've been using that same freaking path for eight months.

You guys are idiots.

But thanks for your cartoon!

 

[Reheat]

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?

You're ex-father-in-law is absolutely correct. Lots of guys have been killed from their own bomb blast. In fact that very thing happened to a very good friend of mine in Vietnam.

For the level delivery of a 500 # high drag (this is a bomb with either retarding fins "Snake Eye" or the newer versions with a ballute (parachute device) at 200' the minimum airspeed would be 550 Knots or preferably faster. For slightly slower speeds the altitude must be higher. For a non-retarded "slick" 500 # the minimum level delivery would be 1000', 500+ knots. Shrapnel goes a L O N G way. In actual experience, bomb fragments from 500 # have been found over 1 mile from the impact point.

A 2000 # bomb CAN NOT be delivered at low altitude. There are no retarded bombs in this category. I don't remember the blast radius and safe escape criteria, but it is considerably higher that for a 500 #er.

I brought this up in discussions when Lyte Bulb was registered here. Guess what? He hand waved it away by postulating that the explosion was timed for the aircraft to be clear of blast fragments. I believe he also mention a shaped charge that wouldn't have created fragments above the explosion and the visible blast seen on the video was just "Hollywood fireworks".

He has a BS explanation for everything. That's why this FRAUDULENT DELUSION has persisted for so long.

 

[twinstead]

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.

Find some real experts who don't think you folks are idiots. I could care less about 'debates' on an internet forum. Ours OR theirs. If the evidence you have is so self-evident then make something happen NOT on the internet.

How much simpler can it get? DO SOMETING ABOUT IT.

 

[SPreston]

Come on Reheat; a little truth for a change.

The only plausible flight path that will work IN THE HORIZONTAL is exactly the one that we've seen for over a year. It is the same one that is now being referred to as e^n's flight path.

As I stated above that one is 67.4 degrees of bank, 2.6 G's at 460 knots. That path COMPLETELY ignores Morin. That bank angle and G at that speed MUST be maintained all of the way from Paik's position to impact. That does not account for a pull-up and flyover which would require more G.

Why would e^n or you for that matter require a speed of 460 knots in your example?

Because you are creating a classic strawman argument so you cannot lose?

200 knots would be 370.4 kph (230.1 mph) (337.5 fps)
250 knots would be 463 kph (287.7 mph) (421.9 fps)
300 knots would be 555.6 kph (345.2 mph) (506.3 fps)

The official Flight 77 at 464.9 knots (861 kph) (535 mph) (784.6 fps) never happened. There is no need to use the speed of an aircraft which was not even in Virginia. Correct?

The fraudulent Flight 77 FDR never happened
The faked 84 RADES Data never happened
The C-130 coming up from the southwest shadowing Flight 77 never happened

Incidently is that a F-111 Aardvark as your avatar?

 

[Dog Town]

The fraudulent Flight 77 FDR never happened
The faked 84 RADES Data never happened

Wow Brainiac got something right! Sadly for him, the only fraud belongs to
Capt'n Booby and the lost guides,which he pals around with!


PRICELESS!

 

[twinstead]

All I want is to be shown is how all those witnesses could possibly be fooled, and why SPreston is allowed to hand wave away any evidence that is contrary to his position as 'faked' with no corroborating evidence and still expect to be taken seriously.

Is that too much to ask?

 

[SPreston]

I didn't say a word about all that did I?

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).

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?

Why all the anger? What has any of that gibberish to do with my post you quoted? I only suggested you check with Mr Reheat before making a fool of yourself and getting tossed out of your newly found home away from home and subsequently away from all "Truthers". Do you feel safe here?

It wasn't me who deleted all of my files; screwing over thousands of people from both sides of the debate who had linked to your research and photos. Are you proud of yourself? Did it make you feel good getting even with . . . . . . everybody?

 

[Hokulele]

... why SPreston is allowed to hand wave away any evidence that is contrary to his position as 'faked' with no corroborating evidence and still expect to be taken seriously.

He isn't allowed to. The hand waving really isn't fooling anyone, as can be seen by the overwhelming rejection of this nuttery even by other CTists.

 

[twinstead]

He isn't allowed to. The hand waving really isn't fooling anyone, as can be seen by the overwhelming rejection of this nuttery even by other CTists.

You're right. I do keep forgetting that these folks are condered idiots by most other truthers as well, akin to the WTC no planers. That's gotta hurt.

 

[scissorhands]

Its good of SPreston to embed a video of a plane doing a 45 degree and plus bank, just to show how that would have been commented upon by the witnesses at the pentagon.
Thanks SPreston.

 

[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.

At http://thepentacon.com/ it shows the plane passing right over the explosion. Go figure.



(click image)

 

[WildCat]

At http://thepentacon.com/ it shows the plane passing right over the explosion. Go figure.

I notice there is no banking by the plane in that animation either.

SPreston and TLB, when will CIT be producing a new animation that agrees with the flight path they are claiming currently?

 

[stateofgrace]

Why all the anger?

Nobody is angry, that I see. Maybe you could explain to us lurker types why you feel the need to defend people who produce maths that are two dimensional, in a pitiful attempt to describe a three dimension situation.Or maybe not.

Maybe it is because you also side with an "earnest scientist" who does not understand the difference between mass and weight?

Does it not anger you,SP, that you side with fools?

As it not sunk in, yet, that you are being taken for a mug by clueless fools?

PS..

Thanks Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Great presentation.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/1004475/1/

 

[jhunter1163]

I believe he also mention a shaped charge that wouldn't have created fragments above the explosion and the visible blast seen on the video was just "Hollywood fireworks".

OK, then, the obvious follow-up question is, supposing that the visible blast were "Hollywood pyrotechnics" (i. e. no shrapnel), could a plane withstand that from 100 feet or so? My gut feeling is no, but planes may be more robust than I think.

 

[Bell]

OK, then, the obvious follow-up question is, supposing that the visible blast were "Hollywood pyrotechnics" (i. e. no shrapnel), could a plane withstand that from 100 feet or so? My gut feeling is no, but planes may be more robust than I think.

I doubt Hollywood gasoline/petrol explosions can cause that much of a damaging shockwave to objects (AA77) 100 feet away from it, when those objects are traveling away from that blast at 535(?) mph.

But Irl, the object (AA77) did not so much as travel away from that blast, but was being PART of the blast.

 

[Reheat]

OK, then, the obvious follow-up question is, supposing that the visible blast were "Hollywood pyrotechnics" (i. e. no shrapnel), could a plane withstand that from 100 feet or so? My gut feeling is no, but planes may be more robust than I think.

I'm not aware of any experiments that have been done. It would be rather difficult to get anyone to volunteer for that test!

 

[Reheat]

I doubt Hollywood gasoline/petrol explosions can cause that much of a damaging shockwave to objects (AA77) 100 feet away from it, when those objects are traveling away from that blast at 535(?) mph.

But Irl, the object (AA77) did not so much as travel away from that blast, but was being PART of the blast.

You're forgetting that the engines would be ingesting all of the crap that would be in the air.

I fact, I believe there were large chunks of something flying all over the place in the one video we have seen. I would not choose to go through that.

Just as a reminder, Lagasse himself said he picked up aircraft parts quite a distance from the building. Also, pyrotechnics do not blow large chunks in the air above the building or emit oily black smoke. Why are we even discussing this?

 

[jhunter1163]

You're forgetting that the engines would be ingesting all of the crap that would be in the air.

I fact, I believe there were large chunks of something flying all over the place in the one video we have seen. I would not choose to go through that.

Just as a reminder, Lagasse himself said he picked up aircraft parts quite a distance from the building. Also, pyrotechnics do not blow large chunks in the air above the building or emit oily black smoke. Why are we even discussing this?

That was my feeling too, not so much structural damage as engine damage/failure.

The whole idea is ludicrous; this is just one more level of ludicrosity (if that's a word) that the Ranquisamo boys won't explore because it blows another hole in a theory already riddled with them.

 

[Bell]

You're forgetting that the engines would be ingesting all of the crap that would be in the air.

I fact, I believe there were large chunks of something flying all over the place in the one video we have seen. I would not choose to go through that.

Just as a reminder, Lagasse himself said he picked up aircraft parts quite a distance from the building. Also, pyrotechnics do not blow large chunks in the air above the building or emit oily black smoke. Why are we even discussing this?

Hollywood pyrotechnics -indeed- don't include such shrapnell to be blown all over the place. As a matter of fact... I just thought of this.. the Pentagon didn't need a fake Hollywood explosion, but a real biga$$ explosion, as to damage the Pentagon in the way we witnessed. Such an explosion would indeed hurtle debris into the air, and toward the plane and it's engines.

And about this discussion... you have PfT to blame for that