Pilots For 9/11 Truth Present Their Math

[BCR]

Why don't you check the pdf linked below . . . its the same formula Reheat used and the same formula Pilots for 9/11 Truth used . . . all based on "Newtonian Physics" but tailored for aircraft maneuverability.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10761304

Or here

Now SPreston, you obviously were not paying attention. I just derived the same equation your P4T buddies used with simple Newtonian physics. If you prefer to use cheat sheets, then be my guest, but I prefer to derive the equation myself so that I have a grasp of what the equation means. So if without using the cheat sheet, I get the same result as the cheat sheet, then you might want to pay closer attention.

 

[SPreston]

Now SPreston, you obviously were not paying attention. I just derived the same equation your P4T buddies used with simple Newtonian physics. If you prefer to use cheat sheets, then be my guest, but I prefer to derive the equation myself so that I have a grasp of what the equation means. So if without using the cheat sheet, I get the same result as the cheat sheet, then you might want to pay closer attention.

Where did Anti-Sophist disappear to? I thought A-S equated your math to pseudo-science. You need to properly define your variables. These people here at this forum are only going to hang on your every word for so long, and then Reheat will get them back. Then where will you be?

 

[e^n]

Where did Anti-Sophist disappear to? I thought A-S equated your math to pseudo-science. You need to properly define your variables. These people here at this forum are only going to hang on your every word for so long, and then Reheat will get them back. Then where will you be?

I haven't checked the equations in 911files radial acceleration image but there is nothing particularly special about this problem. You have repeatedly used my estimated least force approach, and every single one of the criticisms i've seen leveled at it in this thread are correct.

The model applies only to a banked circular level turn at a constant speed, there is no time for roll in or roll out, nor ascent or descent. I don't want to break any civility rules, but it seems that you don't even understand the basic principles I am applying. The equation I used solves for bank angle given

• Lift vector
• Turn vector

In a level turn, the lift vector is constant, and in a circular turn, the turn vector is constant, so the solution is quite simple. Improving this model to account for a loss in altitude means that you will have to reduce the lift vector in proportion to the aircraft's weight. Because the two vectors are perpendicular, this can do nothing but increase the bank angle required.

You happily tote the image I produced as if it meant your theory was plausible, but then also use images and accounts which do not match the models predictions. This is disingenuous at best.

911files, your work thus far, save for any conspiratorial theorising, seems to be exemplary. I also note you've been having security issues with your sites. I have all but retired from 911 debate, but I think it is still quite important to ensure people have a good understanding of the actual facts of the matter. I would be happy to write any code needed to help you out, I also host a currently unused wiki with a useful domain name. IT is my speciality, so let me know what you require.

 

[BCR]

SPreston, the math is right there for anyone to evaluate. So go ahead, review the math and show me the error of my ways.

 

[SPreston]

Bogus un-verified witnesses?

corroborated witnesses while you hand wave off physical evidence ?

James R. Cissell

''Out of my peripheral vision, I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower. ''If you couldn't touch it from standing on the highway, you could by standing on your car.'' ''I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' Cissell said. ''I remember thinking, 'The World Trade Center was just the beginning, there's going to be more.' '' He remembers the helipad the plane flew over before smacking into the Pentagon was close enough to him that ''I could have thrown a baseball at it and hit it.'' While he remembers seeing the crash, Cissell remembers none of the sounds. ''It came in in a perfectly straight line,'' he said. ''It didn't slow down. I want to say it accelerated. It just shot straight in.''

You could touch the plane by standing on your car as it pulled up over a seven story building? really?

Cincinnati Post reporter Kimball Perry altered Mr Cissell's account as explained below. How many other alleged eyewitness accounts were altered and fictionalised by propagandist reporter disinfo agents? I would guess all of them since no OFFICIAL STORY believer and defender is willing to seek them out and verify their accounts.

Not the same story when Mr Cissell gets away from the propagandist journalist, is it? Do you see why these unverified eyewitnesses accounts are totally worthless? We do not even know for sure that all of these alleged witnesses actually exist in reality do we? Even if they did actually exist, the very poor reporters failed to question them in detail to actually learn what they did or did not witness and from exactly what location. And not one of them places the aircraft they allegedly saw, on the official south path, do they?

These are uncorroborated witness accounts not worth the paper they are written on. For some alleged witnesses, it is uncertain if they were on the lawn, the road, or up on the hill behind some trees up there.

James R. Cissell

James R. Cissell contacted us to express his anger at the newspaper for taking his comments completely out of context.

"The Cincinnati Post article, which you refer, angered me greatly after reading it. It is almost completely fiction based loosely on an interview I did with a Cincinnati Post reporter Kimball Perry who called me in response to an on air phone report that I did for Channel 12 in Cincinnati."

Cissell relates what he actually told the reporter.

"The reporter took extreme creative license not only with the title but also with the story as a whole. Why he felt the need to sensationalize anything that happened on September 11 is beyond me. My words to the reporter were, "I was about four cars back from where the plane crossed over the highway. That it happened so quickly I didn't even see what airline it was from. However, I was so close to the plane when it went past that had it been sitting on a runway, I could have seen the faces of passengers peering out."

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/j...606flight77.htm

Multiple choice question SPreston

Full Speed would be what?
A) 200 knots would be 370.4 kph (230.1 mph) (337.5 fps)
B) 250 knots would be 463 kph (287.7 mph) (421.9 fps)
C) 300 knots would be 555.6 kph (345.2 mph) (506.3 fps)
D) 464.9 knots (861 kph) (535 mph) (784.6 fps)

Dan Creed

"It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point. I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up."

Screaming at 230 mph SPreston?

Do aircraft scream or do jet turbofan engines scream? Would jet engines scream if the aircraft was flying at 230 mph and the engines increased suddenly to full power? Would the aircraft immediately be flying at 535 mph? No? You are grasping at straws to counter real live honest verified and videotaped eyewitnesses who are unafraid to testify and place the actual aircraft Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and far far away from the five light poles and official damage path through the Pentagon. The real aircraft could not possibly have flown down there; especially at the nonsensical official speed of 535 mph.

Your Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY sucks.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Nonsensical of 5..

 

[dtugg]

Hey, SPreston, please show me the math for that last little flight path you showed. Surely it is actually physically possible otherwise there would be no reason for you to be pimping it for your masters.

Also, how many people saw a large plane fly towards the Pentagon and then pull up and fly over it at the last second? You can give an estimate if you are not sure.

Hidden answer:

The answer of course is zero, because it didn't happen. Every single person that thinks it did is an idiot or crazy, or a combination of the two.

 

[Bell]

Could someone fill me in, please?

Why is this NoC flightpath so important? The only reason I can think of is the lightpoles, which could not have been knocked over by the plane in that scenario. I then wonder, why did the NWO knock over those lightpoles in the first place, instead of sticking to the NoC flightpath, and still claim AA77 hit the Pentagon. The endresults would have been the same. The NoC theory is just to silly because of the complexity of it.

So, is this it? Or is there more to this story?

Eta: In other words, the lightpoles are the smoking gun. Since the plane did not knock them over, the gubmint/NWO did.

 

[dtugg]

Could someone fill me in, please?

Why is this NoC flightpath so important? The only reason I can think of is the lightpoles, which could not have been knocked over by the plane in that scenario. I then wonder, why did the NWO knock over those lightpoles in the first place, instead of sticking to the NoC flightpath, and still claim AA77 hit the Pentagon. The endresults would have been the same. The NoC theory is just to silly because of the complexity of it.

So, is this it? Or is there more to this story?

Well, also, the damage the Pentagon couldn't have been caused by a plane flying NoC; the damage clearly indicates the flight path of the "official story." I agree with Ranquisamo that a NoC plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon. But it is glaring obvious to anybody with a properly functioning brain that their cherry picked witnesses interviewed years after the fact are mistaken/mislead/misrepresented.

The rest of your post is spot on. It makes no sense whatsoever for them to fake a SoC path but really fly it NoC. Furthermore, it would make much more sense for the NWO to fly the plane into the building. Ranquisamo isn't very smart.

 

[Horatius]

The rest of your post is spot on. It makes no sense whatsoever for them to fake a SoC path but really fly it NoC. Furthermore, it would make much more sense for the NWO to fly the plane into the building. Ranquisamo isn't very smart.

I think their point is that the NWO screwed it up: They meant to fly the SoC path as set up by the light poles and the damage to the Pentagon, but they missed the approach.

Of course, this leaves the problem of how the rest of the set up (flyover at just the right time and place to be hidden by the "explosion") still worked out well enough to fool every single witness. But I don't expect the CIT boys or the PfTers to address this issue.

 

[Bell]

Well, also, the damage the Pentagon couldn't have be caused by a plane flying NoC; the damage clearly indicates the flight path of the "official story." I agree with Ranquisamo that a NoC plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon. But it is glaring obvious to anybody with a properly functioning brain that their cherry picked witnesses interviewed years after the fact are mistaken/mislead/misrepresented.

The rest of your post is spot on. It makes no sense whatsoever for them to fake a SoC path but really fly it NoC. Furthermore, it would make much more sense for the NWO to fly the plane into the building. Ranquisamo isn't very smart.

Ok, thanks. So AA77 could not have hit the Pentagon in a NoC scenario. I wasn't aware of that, I assumed that the pull-up was impossible (I don't follow this flightpath disscusion in great lengths).

So, PfT has about a dozen witnesses who recall seeing AA77 fly NoC.
AA77 NoC could not have hit the Pentagon = it flew over.
AA77 NoC could not have hit the lightpoles = NWO agents knocked them down.

On the other hand, dozens more saw AA77 SoC, and saw it hit the Pentagon.
There where AA77 airplane parts inside and in front of the Pentagon.
There where remains of the AA77 passenger recovered at the site.

This all adds up to??

Based on my observations, PfT indeed cannot do math.

 

[dtugg]

I think their point is that the NWO screwed it up: They meant to fly the SoC path as set up by the light poles and the damage to the Pentagon, but they missed the approach.

Of course, this leaves the problem of how the rest of the set up (flyover at just the right time and place to be hidden by the "explosion") still worked out well enough to fool every single witness. But I don't expect the CIT boys or the PfTers to address this issue.

Well, I guess the NWO can do anything they want, including fooling eyewitnesses even after they screwed up on an epic proportion.

 

[SPreston]

Some honesty for a change? Is this a first?

Well, also, the damage the Pentagon couldn't have be caused by a plane flying NoC; the damage clearly indicates the flight path of the "official story." I agree with Ranquisamo that a NoC plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon.

How refreshing; a bit of honesty. The damage path through the light poles and through the Pentagon interior indeed does clearly indicate the flight path of the Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY.

The ANC witnesses were interviewed way back in 2001 by the Center for Military History, and a FOIA judge ordered their accounts (13) released. But the CMH released the accounts with names redacted, assuming that they could not then be found and reinterviewed. But Citizens Investigation Team found them anyway and one other unreleased witness, verified their existence in reality, and verified that their original accounts had not changed over the past 6+ years. The account of the unreleased CMH witness was released soon after.

CIT questioned them in detail onsite at ANC where they had originally witnessed the attack on the Pentagon, and videotaped the interviews. With no verfied witnesses supporting the official south flight path down the hill and through the light poles, these verified north flight path eyewitnesses proved that the actual aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo. The Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY does not allow for the aircraft spending any time above the Naval Annex.

The ANC eyewitnesses also proved that the C-130 did not arrive from the southwest shadowing the decoy aircraft as depicted in the RADES and by one lying witness; but from the west northwest over ANC, and 2-3 minutes behind the decoy aircraft. The 84 RADES data was thus proven falsified. Another nail in the Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY coffin.

Whether or not the 9-11 perpetrators made some stupid decisions and forgot the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) when carrying out a covert mission, is another debate. Obviously they made a lot of stupid errors which is why their 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is collapsing and sinking into the quicksand it was built upon. It is simply amazing the number of holes and coincidences and improbabilities and outright impossibilities designed into the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY.

The nonsensical light pole in the windshield script and the simulate the aircraft crash while flying it north script are just two bizarre designs among many.

 

[SPreston]

No, they would never fly an aircraft into the Pentagon.

The rest of your post is spot on. It makes no sense whatsoever for them to fake a SoC path but really fly it NoC. Furthermore, it would make much more sense for the NWO to fly the plane into the building. Ranquisamo isn't very smart.

I think their point is that the NWO screwed it up: They meant to fly the SoC path as set up by the light poles and the damage to the Pentagon, but they missed the approach.

No. Not necessarily a mistake. The FBI was on-site primed to grab all videos and cameras. The light poles were scripted with the taxi and driver. Scripted media witnesses were ready to go. Explosives were ready in the construction trailers at the wall and inside. Perhaps the NOC decoy aircraft flew exactly where planned. Perhaps not.

A real aircraft impact into the Pentagon would be too risky. It might have crashed and burned before it got there. Worse, it might have accidentally crashed into the roof and killed thousands; maybe even poor Rummy snoozing at his desk.

Actually hitting the five 337 pound light poles likely would have sheared off the wings, dropping the aircraft on the lawn short of the wall. Of course Hani Hanjour could not have flown a 757 like a fighter jet. Too risky; the aircraft likely would not have penetrated the wall and destroyed the targeted personnel and records. If it totally missed the first time, would the public buy a go-around without fighter intervention? Not too bloody likely.

Planted explosives were much more reliable. Easily brought in and hidden in a long-term construction site. Their damage radius and kill-zones are well known through years of experience. Military personnel who might witness something are easy to gag and transfer. Order them to lie; except April Gallop refused to lie, didn't she? Simulate the aircraft and safely do the deed with explosives, and BS the American public with Mainstream News Media disinfo agents. It had always worked just fine before.

 

[Alt+F4]

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.

I just read the first 25 post over there and every single one of them was refuting what people are posting here.

My honest question is: why? If you guys are 100% certain of your calculations why do you care what the people over here think, people referred to as stupid and morons? This forum means NOTHING. Why isn't the forum you linked to filled with suggestions on how to get this information out to the general public and the important people who can do something with it?

 

[Horatius]

No. Not necessarily a mistake. The FBI was on-site primed to grab all videos and cameras. The light poles were scripted with the taxi and driver. Scripted media witnesses were ready to go. Explosives were ready in the construction trailers at the wall and inside. Perhaps the NOC decoy aircraft flew exactly where planned. Perhaps not.

A real aircraft impact into the Pentagon would be too risky. It might have crashed and burned before it got there. Worse, it might have accidentally crashed into the roof and killed thousands; maybe even poor Rummy snoozing at his desk.

Actually hitting the five 337 pound light poles likely would have sheared off the wings, dropping the aircraft on the lawn short of the wall. Of course Hani Hanjour could not have flown a 757 like a fighter jet. Too risky; the aircraft likely would not have penetrated the wall and destroyed the targeted personnel and records. If it totally missed the first time, would the public buy a go-around without fighter intervention? Not too bloody likely.

Planted explosives were much more reliable. Easily brought in and hidden in a long-term construction site. Their damage radius and kill-zones are well known through years of experience. Military personnel who might witness something are easy to gag and transfer. Order them to lie; except April Gallop refused to lie, didn't she? Simulate the aircraft and safely do the deed with explosives, and BS the American public with Mainstream News Media disinfo agents. It had always worked just fine before.

So, your theory is, everything happened exactly as they planned it? Including physically impossible flight paths, and huge glaring flaws that serve no purpose but to give away the whole deception?

And you really believe that?

 

[dtugg]

No. Not necessarily a mistake.

Oh, OK. So you're of the opinion that the NWO deliberately flew a NoC flightpath but faked the "official" one? Really? Why? Are you seriously this far gone? Even assuming the whole thing was staged, why not just say if flew NoC and not bother with the knocking down of light poles and such? I would bet my life that you do not have a rational answer for this.

 

[Reheat]

Oh, OK. So you're of the opinion that the NWO deliberately flew a NoC flightpath but faked the "official" one? Really? Why? Are you seriously this far gone? Even assuming the whole thing was staged, why not just say if flew NoC? I would bet my life that you do not have a rational answer for this.

Heck, that one is easy to answer. They wanted to create a new game on the Internet. psssst - it's known by the name of 911^TM

 

[Alt+F4]

Military personnel who might witness something are easy to gag and transfer. Order them to lie; except April Gallop refused to lie, didn't she?

Of course she lied! She's military, she worked IN THE PENTAGON!

 

[A W Smith]

The FBI was on-site primed to grab all videos and cameras. The light poles were scripted with the taxi and driver. Scripted media witnesses were ready to go. Explosives were ready in the construction trailers at the wall and inside.


Planted explosives were much more reliable. Easily brought in and hidden in a long-term construction site. Their damage radius and kill-zones are well known through years of experience. Military personnel who might witness something are easy to gag and transfer. Order them to lie; except April Gallop refused to lie, didn't she? Simulate the aircraft and safely do the deed with explosives, and BS the American public with Mainstream News Media disinfo agents. It had always worked just fine before.

When reading the above paranoid fantasy nonsence, A funny quote from Biil O comes to mind

"Number one you hate your country, Number two your a loon."


You certainly are entertaining SPreston, But for the sake of your family, Get mental help. Or at the very least get back on your meds.