• 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

Reheat said:
Yea, they fold up kinda like a portable lawn chair designed specifically for 9/11 so the decoy aircraft could go North of the Citgo, not scrape a wingtip, and conceal the "airshow" banks it needed at low level. They must have worked because NOBODY saw that! ;)
Click to expand...

Are you srs?

That's a stretch even for P4T.

Link please.
 
Last edited:
Reheat said:
Yea, they fold up kinda like a portable lawn chair designed specifically for 9/11 so the decoy aircraft could go North of the Citgo, not scrape a wingtip, and conceal the "airshow" banks it needed at low level. They must have worked because NOBODY saw that! ;)
Click to expand...

I'd say you are wrong but I do recall that you spoke truth in the last sentence of post 48 of this thread and I fleshed the concept out slightly in post422 (see below)so I know that you already understand the real truth, the truth that the CIT don't want us to know.

Reptilian overlords supplied the tech. The sooper-sekrit, area 51, alien tech, free-zero-point energy craft all decked out to look like a 757 was actually what all the witnesses saw. In point of fact, the CiT have it wrong only on one point. The craft actually flew under the Pentagon by vibrating its elementary particles such that it slipped through solid earth (except for those extraneous parts that made it look like a 757 had crashed there and where left behind in the Pentagon)and reappeared just west of Bermuda.

Its perfect, it explains all aspects, the high bank required, the looking like a 757, the fact that no one saw the plane leaving the area of the Pentagon, the fact that all witnesses said it crashed. The plane/craft flew under the Pentagon by slipping extra-dimensionally through the 3-d universe we experience.

Try debunking that you debunkers you!
 
Last edited:
Not A strawman

No Craig. Not a strawman. Thats YOUR "possible banking turn" drawing. thats YOUR radius. and this is at the absoute minimum speed without the damn plane falling out of the sky. Read it and weep Craig.

turnperfcalc.jpg
 
One minor issue with the chart. I believe that 160 Stall Speed should be in the Knots column not MPH. Airspeed indicators, pilots and sailors operate according to knots. MPH is for everyone else.
 
Reheat said:
One minor issue with the chart. I believe that 160 Stall Speed should be in the Knots column not MPH. Airspeed indicators, pilots and sailors operate according to knots. MPH is for everyone else.
Click to expand...


I was using data for a 757 from here
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0088.shtml
which was given in MPH not Knots for take off speed (not actual stall speed or Vs) that chart automatically converts to Knots anyway.
 
A W Smith said:
I was using data for a 757 from here
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0088.shtml
which was given in MPH not Knots for take off speed (not actual stall speed or Vs) that chart automatically converts to Knots anyway.
Click to expand...

Well, 160 MPH is within the range depending upon weight.

The chart on your source page is for take-off which would be with 1 setting of FLAPS extended.

For the purposes of AA77 we're talking CLEAN CONFIGURATION. I would not want to be in a 757-200 at 140 Knots in a clean configuration.

I've been using 160 Knots as a mid-range figure and I do believe that would be closer to the middle of the clean configuration stall range. I'm trying to find a definite answer, but it's elusive. I think it was jhunter who posted it a while back.
 
Reheat said:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/197914/2/

Post # 39

Yes, Mr. JFK, if you enter bank angles greater than your IQ it does tend to have issues!
Click to expand...
He put in 90 degrees! jfk is very truthy, and a perfect addition to CIT, and p4t physics experts. How can one person be so dumb on this issue? Geometry, math physics. lcf truthers, are they all math challenged?

jfk, The level turn for 90 degrees, needs infinite G. The turn calculator is for level turns; there is no level turn at 90 degrees or more. Dolt!
 
Last edited:
jhunter1163 said:
Myself, from post #110 in this very thread:



For us non-aeronautical types, can you clear up what "clean configuration" means? Is that gear and flaps up, just cruising along?
Click to expand...
Gear and flaps up, yes. At that speed clean, level flight, the nose will be very high.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
He put in 90 degrees! jfk is very truthy, and a perfect addition to CIT, and p4t physics experts. How can one person be so dumb on this issue? Geometry, math physics. lcf truthers, are they all math challenged?

jfk, The level turn for 90 degrees, needs infinite G. The turn calculator is for level turns; there is no level turn at 90 degrees or more. Dolt!
Click to expand...

:dl:

What a dweeb. Analytical maths is not only a closed book to him, but a burned and buried book as well.

Stick to the banhammer, jfk, at least you have some proficiency with that.
 
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/197914/2/

Post # 42

It appears that Mr. JFK went to the same School of Aeronautics as Balsamo. Asymmetric thrust? Rudder? Would someone tell him he's way over his head in discussing anything except a jet powered tricycle.

I wonder if he even has a driver's license yet?

For the sake of propriety and common decency I sincerely hope that no one in the Burlingame family sees that post. That applies to anyone who knew him, as well. That accusation is below the level of a bottom feeder in a septic tank.
 
Last edited:
What the hell does he mean

....Especially if Burlingame was still in the seat.
Click to expand...

?????
Is it now to be thought that Burlingame ...... did what? Flew into the Pentagon? Flew over it? Died at the hands of vicious terrorists committed to becoming martyrs for their psychopathic leaders?
 
uk_dave said:
What the hell does he mean



?????
Is it now to be thought that Burlingame ...... did what? Flew into the Pentagon? Flew over it? Died at the hands of vicious terrorists committed to becoming martyrs for their psychopathic leaders?
Click to expand...

Since the standard truther argument is that Hani couldn't have piloted the plane into the pentagon, their theory hits a roadblock when they try to say that he instead performed this incredibly complicated and aerodynamically impossible flyover. So assuming that there was another pilot performing the maneuver avoids this roadblock.....(they fail to realize it creates 9 others)


ETA:
JFK@LCF said:
Mr. reheat Too bad you are attempting angles higher that your IQ...
Click to expand...
If that's not up for a Stundie, I'm nominating it.
 
Last edited:
An Open Invitation to ANY Truthers

There have been several accusations that the turn calculator that has been referenced and displayed here, is "over simplistic", "uses the incorrect formula(s)", "doesn't take into account all variables" that significantly affect something to accomplish something (the turn I guess).

We've also been accused of using an incorrect turn radius for the latest rendition of CIT's no flight path/potential flight path.

What formula or formulas should we use?

What radius should we use?

Even though this latest diagram DOES NOT adhere to witnesses descriptions, I along with others here are willing to discuss how to compute all of the parameters of that turn or any others you might want to discuss.

This is your chance to excel in explaining aerodynamics to us. Tell us how to do it.

I intentionally used that calculator and another chart (which agrees) because of the criticism of Ryan Mackey's calculations in which he was accused of using the wrong formula(s). Now, you don't seem to like this way either. What would make you happy?

I am very open and willing to learn, are you? We are interested and open to FACTS and supportable math/physics/aerodynamics. Is anyone willing to accept this opportunity?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom