• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Challenge to CIT

VespaGuy said:
I've never visited the PentaCon forum before. Boy, that place is a ghost town. There are more regular Truthers posting here than there.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad...
Click to expand...

Because I love statistics...

Craig: 347 posts
Rest of top 10 posters COMBINED: 331 posts

Craig and Aldo combined: 404 posts
All other posters combined: 412 posts

(As of 1:39 AM EST 4/2/08)

It's the Craig and Aldo (mostly Craig) show all right.
 
Last edited:
jhunter1163 said:
Because I love statistics...

Craig: 347 posts
Rest of top 10 posters COMBINED: 331 posts

Craig and Aldo combined: 404 posts
All other posters combined: 412 posts

(As of 1:39 AM EST 4/2/08)

It's the Craig and Aldo (mostly Craig) show all right.
Click to expand...


Hell, they should just move in together and pass notes to each other across the coffee table.

They'll probably convince the same amount of people about their delusions, AND it will lower teh interwebz noise floor significantly.
 
Last edited:
Reheat said:
S
A map of the flight path depicting ANY aircraft that reasonably meets YOUR witnesses descriptions flying a path from overhead Edward Paik's business to a position North of the Citgo Station and then directly to the impact point at the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

AFAIK, they've done this.

Your diagram should include speed, headings, bank angles, G's (both lateral and vertical), estimated altitude and pull up point to overfly the Pentagon.
Click to expand...
Why such a high bar?

Why not just ask them to calculate the accelerations on an object (ignoring all aircraft specific physics -- just treat it as a point object) flying a CIT-plausible path? Even a 2d one, ignoring the pull-up.

If they can't do that, I'd settle for a "best-case" flight path, approved by them, for this purpose, given on a 2d top-down image with a scale (like from google maps). I'll sit down annotate some points, and I'm sure one of the forum math nerds (like me) will sit down and cobble together the mathematics necessary to calculate it for them.
 
Last edited:
Three plot points CIT

CIT do you agree? or disagree with these three plot points?


1) Entry hole in the pentagon,,, Agree? or disagree?
2) Northern most fuel pump at the Citgo station.... Agree? or disagree?
3) Center of Columbia pike directly in front of Paiks shop.. Agree? Or disagree?


Cmon CIT, The world awaits!!
 
Anti-sophist said:
AFAIK, they've done this.
Click to expand...

Yes, they have, but all of them are different. I'm just trying to get them to settle on one plausible path (as if it matters).

Anti-sophist said:
Why such a high bar?
Click to expand...

Aim High!

Anti-sophist said:
If they can't do that, I'd settle for a "best-case" flight path, approved by them, for this purpose, given on a 2d top-down image with a scale (like from google maps). I'll sit down annotate some points, and I'm sure one of the forum math nerds (like me) will sit down and cobble together the mathematics necessary to calculate it for them.
Click to expand...

I'll do this later in the week if they don't respond and I'll do a best case, as well. I already have the numbers to include turn radius, but I'm not into digital graphics, so if you or anyone else can draw the turn radius on a map I'll be glad to pass it by PM. Volunteers to plot the turn radius on a map?
 
A W Smith said:
CIT do you agree? or disagree with these three plot points?


1) Entry hole in the pentagon,,, Agree? or disagree?
2) Northern most fuel pump at the Citgo station.... Agree? or disagree?
3) Center of Columbia pike directly in front of Paiks shop.. Agree? Or disagree?


Cmon CIT, The world awaits!!
Click to expand...

I'm not CIT, but the aircraft needs to be on heading (within a degree or so) toward the impact point by the sign on Washington Ave where Tucious (sic) witnessed the "pull up". I've calculated both that point and the impact point, but if you only use the impact point they have to reject a "star witness".
 
Reheat said:
Aim High!
Click to expand...
Remember, these are Troothers. Let's give them a task they can possibly handle.

However, I don't think they'll accept this challenge, because even as feeble as their physics skills are, deep down they know any flight path they might propose is physically impossible without a steep bank, and that they would be waltzing into a trap.

No, it's just a morbid game to them. They want to avoid the ugly facts.
 
CurtC said:
Remember, these are Troothers. Let's give them a task they can possibly handle.

However, I don't think they'll accept this challenge, because even as feeble as their physics skills are, deep down they know any flight path they might propose is physically impossible without a steep bank, and that they would be waltzing into a trap.

No, it's just a morbid game to them. They want to avoid the ugly facts.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think they know, until now. They haven't even considered turn radius. They've just pulled straight lines out of their "puteau" and drew them on a digital map.

ETA: I don't intend to use formulas. I'll just use online stuff and give them the URL.
 
Last edited:
Based on my back-of-the-envelope stuff, they have exactly two choices, in regards to their flight path's g-force problems:

1) Pretend the math is wrong
2) Say the plane was going much slower

My suspicion is they'll start with #1, and slowly realize that math isn't an evil JREF plot, and head towards #2. Just like every other time. That being said, I'm still waiting for them to provide a plausible flight path (on a 2d image with a scale) that I can use to calculate the g-force.

The more important issue, to me, is the broader issue. How they can just draw some lines, proclaim them "gentle", wave some hands, appeal to intuition, and therefore conclude it's totally reasonable. That lack of rigor speaks to such a more fundamental problem then simple flight path hypotheses.
 
Anti-sophist said:
Based on my back-of-the-envelope stuff, they have exactly two choices, in regards to their flight path's g-force problems:

1) Pretend the math is wrong
2) Say the plane was going much slower
Click to expand...

1) is why I'm not going to use formulas. 2) They've argued against slow speed and promoted the accepted the high speed in multiple posts.

I absolutely agree with you're overall premise. There is obviously some kind of mental problem in evidence.....
 
Anti-sophist said:
1) Pretend the math is wrong
2) Say the plane was going much slower
Click to expand...
What they actually did was

3) Consult Rob Balsamo who said that you can't calculate the bank angle necessary for a turn based on the radius and speed, and

4) Hide behind the fact that they don't know the exact speed it was travelling, and finally

5) Ignore me.
 
hes already claiming that its some super duper hopped up MILDEC plane that can turn without banking that steep.

Another option would be to lose Paik. They would have to throw him in the same barrel as Lloyd. If you remember the very first thread Craig started was the one questioning Lloyd here. far in advance of his silly video release. he HAD to get rid of Lloyd or his pentacorn wouldn't fly. Now he is forced to do the same with Paik. Paik has to become disinfo.

among Paik's claims are

The plane was very large
he describes the plane as flying very very fast. he only took seven steps running out towards the street before he heard the impact.
His first recollection was that it came close enough to clip the VDOT tower. Which is behind the VDOT building across Columbia pike. thats not good. its too far over Columbia pike and not centered over the Annex as it needs to be to go north of the Citgo
he describes the plane as flying very very low. almost clipping the last building of the annex. and thats not good for PFT claimed too high altitude either.
Paiks claim that he saw it almost clip the annex puts the path close to Columbia pike at the very end of the building. To fly north of the Citgo it had to be on the north end of the annex by then. Out of View from Paik.
 
Last edited:
Reheat said:
I absolutely agree with you're overall premise. There is obviously some kind of mental problem in evidence.....
Click to expand...

Is there an award for the most "stating the obvious" quote of the day.

TAM;)
 
Last edited:
CurtC said:
What they actually did was

3) Consult Rob Balsamo who said that you can't calculate the bank angle necessary for a turn based on the radius and speed, and
Click to expand...

And he has the audacity to call himself a pilot? He probably can't so to him the statement is true! :D

CurtC said:
4) Hide behind the fact that they don't know the exact speed it was travelling, and finally
Click to expand...

That's a black hole too.

CurtC said:
5) Ignore me.
Click to expand...

The ultimate fix for delusions.
 
A W Smith said:
Paiks claim that he saw it almost clip the annex puts the path close to Columbia pike at the very end of the building.
Click to expand...



This brings up something else I was wondering about: If this plane was in a 60 degree or more bank, that would put one wingtip much lower than the body of the plane. Are there any obstacles along that flightpath that would have been likely to have been struck if this were the case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom