Pilots For 9/11 Truth Present Their Math

Ranquis, why don't you come up with a path that is consistent with your own witnesses' testimony and then perhaps Reheat will nice enough to do the math for you and show you why it is impossible.
 
dtugg said:
Ranquis, why don't you come up with a path that is consistent with your own witnesses' testimony and then perhaps Reheat will nice enough to do the math for you and show you why it is impossible.
Click to expand...

What are you trying to say? That this isn't a reasonable flight path?

Flover_south_witness_loc.jpg
 
Bump for Reheat

TheLoneBedouin said:
I'm glad you agree that a reasonable path has to agree with all the witness statements, Reheat. Your paper overlooks Morin's statement that there was an "FOB flyover".

reheat.jpg


Why didn't you follow your own "caveat" to model all "witness statements and descriptions"?
Click to expand...

Please answer.
 
Already did TLB...I know it is New Years Eve, but please pay attention.
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
Please answer.
Click to expand...
Yes, Morin place Flight 77 on the south flight path.

You left out the question. Next time, cut the SPAM, include a question.

p4t had to learn math, so they could defend a fantasy no theory non-path. Present some evidence to support your failed path made up by anti-intellectual anti-government terrorist loyalist. Ironic the terrorist claim credit for what Balsamo can't do in the safety of a simulator. Balsamo a pilot who can't do what Hani did fly a heavy jet.

I understand you can't answer questions due to Balasmo's no theory, no clue policy on 9/11.


All the witnesses from CIT have 77 hitting the Pentagon, modeling their testimony is the south flight path. In the CIT videos, witnesses are clearly pointing to the south. Bad news for you and CIT, to publish your own debunking while you spin lies and fantasy non-paths.
 
Last edited:
Morin got it extremely close. About as close as you can expect a witness to get, maybe a few degrees and a some yards off.

500px-Doubletreemap.jpg


Only Wallace and Riskus got it more accurate.

Awmap.png


Et7.jpg
 
Last edited:
UnLovedRebel,

A line directly parallel with the FOB impacts the corner of the Pentagon. "A minor right turn" would place the impact at the wrong wedge.

How is that "extremely close" to the official story?

:boggled:
 
Last edited:
Edited by Myriad: 
personal attack removed
Who really cares, seeing as how the plane hit poles on the way in, smacked a generator and punched a hole in the wall of the Pentagon. Even the ANC witnesses point to the path it took SoC, not NoC (Hint: If it went NoC they would be pointing almost straight up). Now it either went NoC, or it went over the south parking lot. Which is it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You actually think that a plane making a ~20 degree turn almost instantly as depicted in that little graphic is reasonable for a minor turn, or even actually possible? Well, what am I saying, you are probably the one who drew it, Ranquis.

For the record, I don't really care that Morin was off. The point is that he directly contradicts you guys but yet he is still included in your "smoking gun" evidence.
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
UnLovedRebel,

A line directly parallel with the FOB impacts the corner of the Pentagon. "A minor right turn" would place the impact at the wrong wedge.

How is that "extremely close" to the official story?

:boggled:
Click to expand...
Are you sad Morin support a path south of the Citgo? I know you can’t say anything that supports a theory, p4t don’t allow freethinking or rational thought.

You finally see Morin does not support your failed non-path, your no theory junk ideas of Balsamo's failed pilot association, p4t.

Let me explain, the parallel path description is closer to the real path of 77 than your fantasy NoC path.

Don't forget to watch the CIT video as witnesses point clearly to the south.
 
beachnut said:
Are you sad Morin support a path south of the Citgo? I know you can’t say anything that supports a theory, p4t don’t allow freethinking or rational thought.

You finally see Morin does not support your failed non-path, your no theory junk ideas of Balsamo's failed pilot association, p4t.
Click to expand...


This is quickly becoming an exercise in stupid. If we demonstrate that one path is stupid, they replace it with another stupid path. It is at the point now I don't even know what CIT/P4T is even proposing as a path. They keep shifting from stupid to stupid. Someone wake me up when the stupid is over.
 
dtugg said:
You actually think that a plane making a ~20 degree turn almost instantly as depicted in that little graphic is reasonable for a minor turn, or even actually possible? Well, what am I saying, you are probably the one who drew it, Ranquis.
Click to expand...
If the plane hits the corner of the Pentagon, a right turn (of any degree) would cause the plane to make a huge hole in the wrong wedge.

For the record, I don't really care that Morin was off. The point is that he directly contradicts you guys but yet he is still included in your "smoking gun" evidence.
Click to expand...
He doesn't contradict us. He says there was an FOB flyover- read his testimony
Edited by LibraryLady: 
Edited for civility
.

Please bear in mind to be civil in your posts.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheLoneBedouin said:
.
Edited by Myriad: 
personal attack removed
Click to expand...
Balsamo has no theory, you can’t say what you just said, it is a theory, and theories are prohibited at the truthNAZI p4t implied lies group of failed pilots on 9/11 issues.


Morin's statements support the actual path 77 took on 9/11. Your p4t guys have no theories, so stop spewing the lies of Balsamo, which he can only imply.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheLoneBedouin said:
If the plane hits the corner of the Pentagon, a right turn (of any degree) would cause the plane to make a huge hole in the wrong wedge.
Click to expand...

So why did you make a drawing with an instantaneous ~20 degree turn?

He doesn't contradict us. He says there was an FOB flyover- read his testimony
Edited by Myriad: 
personal attack removed
Click to expand...

Edited by Myriad: 
personal attack removed
.

I read his testimony, to people with properly functioning brains, it clearly says that the plane went SoC, which directly contradicts your fantasy, Ranquis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom