tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
WoW... that's a new one!
But he's just looking for info.
Then bad JREFers got mean.
Now his feelings are hurt.
Pilots For 911 Truth RO2 Flight Path Verified
But he's just looking for info.
Then bad JREFers got mean.
Now his feelings are hurt.
Please show me one sentence where he attempted to do any such thing. How about a phrase. Not even a whole sentence. Just a phrase. My question was about the turn rate of a 757. It went downhill when he got defensive about my making reference to the holes in the data. It took several posts before he even acknowledged their existence and then chose to ridicule my observation by comparing the sampling rate of a CD/DVD to that of a radar sweep.
FINALLY. Thank you Apathoid. Now there is something that’s not only relevant to my question but actually helpful and productive
Try quoting the whole sentence. The only thoughts I had that could be construed as a preconception is that there are people here with technical knowledge. The only groups that I have formed opinions of (at least until a couple days ago) are A&E For 911 Truth, FRAUDS. CIT, LIARS AND FRAUDS. P4T, while I haven’t thoroughly researched them yet, their close association with CIT makes them highly suspect, though I have seen a couple very minor indications that they are not total frauds. But I could be mistaken. Now you can go ahead and try and cherry pick that one so I look like I am in league with them. Go ahead. I know you want to.WoW... that's a new one!
Reheat. While your reply taken by itself is quite harmless, to which I replied in kind, when put in the context of the entire discussion it starts to look a bit snippy.
My apologies for lumping you in with the rest.
911files. Thin skinned would be giving any credence to name calling. One thing I do take issue with is when someone calls my honesty into question (not you) for absolutely no good reason. If a man’s word is no good, then he is no good. Would you really let it slide if someone called your honesty into question? Or how about if they implied it by making constant reference to the “911Liars” in a reply to you? That one I did let slide.
But he's just looking for info.
Then bad JREFers got mean.
Now his feelings are hurt.
As a whole (with very few exceptions) I find this group to be no more knowledgeable or mature than the truthers, so far. While I expect that the average poster is between the ages of 14 to 25, I never hold it against them. While I probably have 20 to 30 years on most of you I treat you with the same respect that I would show any person. I judge you solely by the words that hit the screen. I offered a very easy way to check me out but apparently checking my profile at ATS is a little too difficult for you. It’s much easier to just ridicule me.
If you had bothered to check you’d see how I ripped into Craig with the facts.
Not cheap petty tactics but the facts. I flat out called him a liar and a fraud and challenged him to take it up with the moderators. But only after presenting him with the facts.
If you guys want to treat every new face as the enemy, that is your mistake. Some of you seem to be reasonable people but if you want to make excuses for and defend the immature actions of others then you deserve to be painted with the same broad brush. Is it really so hard to reign in your associates? Or do you really want to be judged by your support of their actions?
One particular quote from my time on the ATS forum comes to mind,” Craig steps over the line some times but his heart is in the right place.”
Please explain how that is any different than what has gone on here.
Please explain how the tactics employed in this discussion are any different than those employed by the truthers.
We’ve got the cherry pickers, the deniers of obvious facts and the ridiculers, just to name a few. And Beachnut is guilty of all three and you guys defend him. Why? Because his heart is in the right place?
What happened to the facts? It’s ok for you guys to ignore the facts but god help the truthers if they do the same?
Should I now add hypocrite to the list?
Sheesh. I don't know what you think you're accomplishing with these rants. I tried to be reasonably nice to you regarding what you seem to think is a simple question. It's not simple.
If it were simple perhaps you could do the math. The answer apathoid gave you, while correct, is incomplete. If you try to use that in an argument with Ranke, don't come back here asking for more. He has been at this garbage for a long time and he knows all of the arguments. Although he knows nothing about aerodynamics, he will either buffalo his way through it or he will go to pffft and get a BS rebuttal. If you don't thoroughly understand the aerodynamics involved it will have been for naught.
There are at least two L O N G threads on the CIT garbage to include a lengthy discussion on how to do the math for the turns. That's precisely why I referred you to one of those threads. I am not going to search for it, when you should be able to find it.
Again, my advice to you is to "let it go". When Ranke has no one to argue with at ATS the threads die quickly. They have been marginalized and isolated to their little corner of the Internet, so let them post their garbage. They have a small cult following, but are making no headway toward any worthwhile goal, simply because they are FRAUDULENT CLOWNS and even the vast majority of twoofers don't buy their junk.
If it were simple perhaps you could do the math. The answer apathoid gave you, while correct, is incomplete. If you try to use that in an argument with Ranke, don't come back here asking for more. He has been at this garbage for a long time and he knows all of the arguments. Although he knows nothing about aerodynamics, he will either buffalo his way through it or he will go to pffft and get a BS rebuttal. If you don't thoroughly understand the aerodynamics involved it will have been for naught.
There are at least two L O N G threads on the CIT garbage to include a lengthy discussion on how to do the math for the turns. That's precisely why I referred you to one of those threads. I am not going to search for it, when you should be able to find it.
Again, my advice to you is to "let it go". When Ranke has no one to argue with at ATS the threads die quickly. They have been marginalized and isolated to their little corner of the Internet, so let them post their garbage. They have a small cult following, but are making no headway toward any worthwhile goal, simply because they are FRAUDULENT CLOWNS and even the vast majority of twoofers don't buy their junk.
You use CIT stuff? It is a manufactured lie; that is not my opinion it is a fact.
Paik? drew a line directly to the Pentagon; find that photo and shove it in the cherry-picking quote-mining CIT delusion. If there was an official story flight path Paik nailed it with this visual by the CIT dolts who have Paik's interview that refutes their own delusion.
When you think about where Paik is pointing, it matches a straight line to impact at altitude. Paik's pointing supports the data from this thread OP! In the CIT version of pointing Paik, they wait until he looks back and is not aiming his pointer, and use a unguided finger as their NoC heading where you got your 15 degree required turn based on tainted witness statements; tainted by the dolts at CIT the best 911liars you can find.
The true track in the FDR for 30 seconds goes from 58.4 to 61.2 degrees. What rate per second is 2.8 divided by 30?
Do you think a 757 at 500 mph can change 15 degree in 1700 feet based on Hani's final habits?
Assume zero time to roll into 82.1 degrees of right bank (it would take more than 1 to 2 seconds), that gives a 7.27 G turn we get 15 degree of turn in 1700 feet.
Think wing crack, snap, bang!
No one saw more than 10 degrees of bank.
With roll in time it becomes more impossible.
I found all the flight paths CIT offer up in their truthNAZI "offer no theory" style are impossible based on other evidence and sometimes physics. CIT does not do math and physics they talk delusions.
Some CIT paths take over 50 Gs due to "holes".
I can't find the holes in the FDR; were are they?
There are no holes in the RADAR data.
There are no holes in the FDR.
82.1 degrees of right bank, 7.27 G turn ; what do you think? Got physics.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
It always amazes me when someone comes here and finds just what he expects to find. What are the odds of that?
As ye give so shall you receive, as you mete it out so shall it be meted out to you.
Last edited:
You’re right. I should not suffer fools and liars. There is no benefit when there is no doubt.
I thank you, R. Mackey, 911files, T.A.M. and Apathoid for your feedback.
82.1 degrees of right bank, 7.27 G turn ; what do you think? Got physics.