Remember when Rob was posting under the username "JohnDoeX" at the Loose Change Forum, and when he became a mod and went completely Ban Crazy. He would ban people after one post. Hillarious.
TAM
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Present Their Math
- Thread starter WildCat
- Start date
-
- Tags
- rob balsamo
Remember when Rob was posting under the username "JohnDoeX" at the Loose Change Forum, and when he became a mod and went completely Ban Crazy. He would ban people after one post. Hillarious.
TAM
1337m4n
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 3,510
It's the classic Twoofer double standard. When THEY ban someone, it's because whoever they banned was "disruptive" and "distracting from the issues" and "trying to conceal the Truth". When JREF bans someone, it's because we're all "afraid of teh Truth".
Go ahead P4T, post your Truth. We are reading that little thread of yours as we speak. Post this magic math.
Go ahead P4T, post your Truth. We are reading that little thread of yours as we speak. Post this magic math.
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
The math? For what reason? But but but . . . . one of your own people (e^n) already proved the actual flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo possible, didn't he? Isn't this just one more gigantic hole in the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY? Aren't there hundreds of such holes?
PS: All the Truthers send their love and say thanks for all the publicity.
.
.
PS: All the Truthers send their love and say thanks for all the publicity.
.
.
Last edited:
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
And where does the "flyover witness" who placed the plane over the south parking lot fit in with that?The math? For what reason? But but but . . . . one of your own people (e^n) already proved the actual flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo possible, didn't he? Isn't this just one more gigantic hole in the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY? Aren't there hundreds of such holes?
And I'll note that e^n's math didn't account for the changes in altitude claimed by CIT. And you do realize that even with this simpolified flight path (which is not the CIT flight path) the plane would be banking damn near sideways, which no one reported.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
SP! Welcome back. Now you are aware that there are several things wrong with e^n's path, don't you? Here is the a big one: it does not take into account vertical moves. You know, the descent and the ascent that are CRITICAL to CIT's fantasy.
SP, doesn't it bother you that CIT and PFFT refuse to do the calculations that show an airliner could fly CIT's NOC path?
They are playing you for a fool.
Nobody?
FAA flight path
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc
1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive
Yes posting on internet forums that barely a soul visits (PFTF) is much more fun and exciting then well I dont know, BRINGING MASS MURDERS TO JUSTICE!
Keep up the good work the terrorists are proud of you!
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Oh brother, Spreston has picture posting rights.
"Nobody." SP do you even read what you post? Prather says it was "angled a little bit." He show about a 15 percent bank tops! What bank angle does e^n's path require?? Prather contradicts e^n's path!! You don't understand even that??
Further, he said it "dropped down a little bit.... it dropped down more." So calculate that drop, pull up and ascent! Do it sp, do it. You are so sure that CIT isn't lying, do the math!!!
they are lying to you SP, don't be afraid, the math will set you free!
"Nobody." SP do you even read what you post? Prather says it was "angled a little bit." He show about a 15 percent bank tops! What bank angle does e^n's path require?? Prather contradicts e^n's path!! You don't understand even that??
Further, he said it "dropped down a little bit.... it dropped down more." So calculate that drop, pull up and ascent! Do it sp, do it. You are so sure that CIT isn't lying, do the math!!!
they are lying to you SP, don't be afraid, the math will set you free!
Until any math is forthcoming, my stock answer to this incomplete hypothesis applies.
That goes for SPreston, TheLoneBedouin, or any other Pilots For Truth faithful.
That goes for SPreston, TheLoneBedouin, or any other Pilots For Truth faithful.
Ha, Ha!
All you've see from present company are pictures. That's all he's authorized to post.
The last time he tried to post math he embarrassed himself and all of the other Forums on which it was posted. It required an apology and a few days in hiding so that it might be forgotten.
Note Cap'n Bob is too busy to post math, so he'll pass it off to one of his deluded minions. It's funny that he bragged about how it only took him 20 minutes to calculate and post an attempted refutation of my essay on the subject, but he doesn't quite have the time to do it now. It took him more time to posted his garbage than it does to do the math.
If you EVER see any math, rest assured it won't be anything to prove this FRAUD. It will just be pictures and hand waving to attracted more fools.
SlightlyAbovePar
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 80
Guys (and Gal),
Like you, I find the mental state of truthers fascinating. Truly, utterly fascinating. That is, the lengths truthers will go to remain committed to the delusion rather than a pure pursuit of the truth. The movement, as Pomorro (apologies if I don’t have the name completely correct) stated many months ago, simply can not admit even the smallest error. Why? Because then the entire fantasy becomes endangered in a piecemeal fashion.
This is why it’s been seven months and no corrected math is forthcoming. It never will be. Instead, they point to others supposed “proof” and claim since one flight path (which doesn’t conform to their own dam story) has been ‘proven’ “possible” then that proves their (many) flight paths are “possible” and therefore corroborative math is not needed for their own, very specific claim.
I, like many of you, find this logic-bending fascinating. However, engaging them in a tit-for-tat, neener-neener style of cross-forum posting is childish and lowers the bar to their level. There is no need to indulge in this kind of behavior. They – as history has shown – will implode under their own hypocrisy, lack of intelligence and behavior. There is no need to engage them in the above posting(s) manor. Simply point out the glaring errors, the repeated discussion of the same topics for for literally years now and move on.
Look at this very thread for examples. When – as for the last seven years – pressed for actual details, facts, math, context, etc what happens? Some truther fool posts what is essentially bait for a subject change and many of us take it. Can you see “9-11 Truth” has nothing to do with truth, or 9-11? It’s about getting attention, from us. It might have been something else many years ago, but at this point their existence is purely attention seeking in nature.
I understand CIT, PFT and others are a source for continuing comedy gold. I agree. I am merely suggesting that you don’t have to encourage the behavior by being a bad actor yourself. They will provide the comedy gold all by themselves. As a matter of fact, the less we engage them, the nuttier they get.
Like you, I find the mental state of truthers fascinating. Truly, utterly fascinating. That is, the lengths truthers will go to remain committed to the delusion rather than a pure pursuit of the truth. The movement, as Pomorro (apologies if I don’t have the name completely correct) stated many months ago, simply can not admit even the smallest error. Why? Because then the entire fantasy becomes endangered in a piecemeal fashion.
This is why it’s been seven months and no corrected math is forthcoming. It never will be. Instead, they point to others supposed “proof” and claim since one flight path (which doesn’t conform to their own dam story) has been ‘proven’ “possible” then that proves their (many) flight paths are “possible” and therefore corroborative math is not needed for their own, very specific claim.
I, like many of you, find this logic-bending fascinating. However, engaging them in a tit-for-tat, neener-neener style of cross-forum posting is childish and lowers the bar to their level. There is no need to indulge in this kind of behavior. They – as history has shown – will implode under their own hypocrisy, lack of intelligence and behavior. There is no need to engage them in the above posting(s) manor. Simply point out the glaring errors, the repeated discussion of the same topics for for literally years now and move on.
Look at this very thread for examples. When – as for the last seven years – pressed for actual details, facts, math, context, etc what happens? Some truther fool posts what is essentially bait for a subject change and many of us take it. Can you see “9-11 Truth” has nothing to do with truth, or 9-11? It’s about getting attention, from us. It might have been something else many years ago, but at this point their existence is purely attention seeking in nature.
I understand CIT, PFT and others are a source for continuing comedy gold. I agree. I am merely suggesting that you don’t have to encourage the behavior by being a bad actor yourself. They will provide the comedy gold all by themselves. As a matter of fact, the less we engage them, the nuttier they get.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Well other witnesses say that it was in port wing low bank when it hit the Pentagon which is completly contrary to that animation's starboard bank.
The flight path that e^n used, as noted above, does not take into account the vertical manouvers reported. Turcois for one saw the aircraft go below his line of sight beyond the highway. If it did so then how did it manage to pull up in time?
e^n's flight path also would make it impossible for Morin to ever have seen the aircraft. From where Morin was he would have the Annex between him and the aircraft until the plane was at the Citgo at which time, if other witnesses such as Brooks and Lagasse are correct, the plane would have been below his line of sight. So is Morin's testimony now thrown under the bus in order to use e^n's averaging of all witness statements?
PfT/CiT must supply a flightpath for which all of their witness's statements are consistent. Specifically they can be mistaken about the exact path but any final conclusion on a path must at least allow for every witness to have at least been able to see the aircraft. It must allow for an aircraft manouver in both the lateral and the vertical which can be performed. It must be consistent with a large aircraft, a fast (300+ knots) and it must put the aircraft at the point which all witnesses state as the impact point.
It should be noted that any 'flyover' will, by definition, be ignoring the multitude of witness statements in which the aircraft hit the Pentagon. It ignores those witness statements that had the port wing touch the ground prior to impact. It ignores witness statements about the aircraft hitting the ground floor as opposed to an upper floor.
Any NoC statement ignores the statements by some who say they saw the lamp posts get hit.
Any theory which states that the fireball somehow hid the pull up would require evidence of a fireball that occured several hundred feet in front of the Pentagon given that no aircraft can go vertical, at several hundred knots ground speed, within its own length (let alone a lesser distance).
Once again it should also be noted that although the logical route would be to draw up a consise technical paper outlining how PfT arrives at the conclusion that the FDR data describes a grossly different flight path than does the damage to the lamp posts. Instead, they choose argue inccessantly on the internet with persons they claim do not have the expertise to understand the concepts involved.
The logical route would be to draw up a route, with a margin of error on each side, that would be consistent with the eyewitness reports they tout and to show that this path is technically possible for a large fast aircraft to perform while still being consistent with the eyewitness statements. Instead, after seven years, the members of the CiT and PfT have yet to come up with a flight path for the alledged flyover. This allows them the flexibility to state that if a debunker on the internet comes up with any math on any flight path they can then state that this is not the path the aircraft took ( in the case of the 11 g gross mistake by PfT, when corrected by a debunker they made this claim despite the fact that this path was a fabrication of PfT's in the first place)
The logical route would be to take these consise technical papers to organizations whose raison d'etre is flight safety such as ICOA, the FAA, the NTSB, the unions representing the pilots and air crews and such publications as "Aviation Week". Instead, they choose argue inccessantly on the internet with persons they claim do not have the expertise to understand the concepts involved.
It is patently obvious that for whatever reason, PfT and the CiT are not following the logical route instead much prefering to spit and shout back and forth on the internet and in the fringe media with the anarchists and anti-semites as their allies.
The flight path that e^n used, as noted above, does not take into account the vertical manouvers reported. Turcois for one saw the aircraft go below his line of sight beyond the highway. If it did so then how did it manage to pull up in time?
e^n's flight path also would make it impossible for Morin to ever have seen the aircraft. From where Morin was he would have the Annex between him and the aircraft until the plane was at the Citgo at which time, if other witnesses such as Brooks and Lagasse are correct, the plane would have been below his line of sight. So is Morin's testimony now thrown under the bus in order to use e^n's averaging of all witness statements?
PfT/CiT must supply a flightpath for which all of their witness's statements are consistent. Specifically they can be mistaken about the exact path but any final conclusion on a path must at least allow for every witness to have at least been able to see the aircraft. It must allow for an aircraft manouver in both the lateral and the vertical which can be performed. It must be consistent with a large aircraft, a fast (300+ knots) and it must put the aircraft at the point which all witnesses state as the impact point.
It should be noted that any 'flyover' will, by definition, be ignoring the multitude of witness statements in which the aircraft hit the Pentagon. It ignores those witness statements that had the port wing touch the ground prior to impact. It ignores witness statements about the aircraft hitting the ground floor as opposed to an upper floor.
Any NoC statement ignores the statements by some who say they saw the lamp posts get hit.
Any theory which states that the fireball somehow hid the pull up would require evidence of a fireball that occured several hundred feet in front of the Pentagon given that no aircraft can go vertical, at several hundred knots ground speed, within its own length (let alone a lesser distance).
Once again it should also be noted that although the logical route would be to draw up a consise technical paper outlining how PfT arrives at the conclusion that the FDR data describes a grossly different flight path than does the damage to the lamp posts. Instead, they choose argue inccessantly on the internet with persons they claim do not have the expertise to understand the concepts involved.
The logical route would be to draw up a route, with a margin of error on each side, that would be consistent with the eyewitness reports they tout and to show that this path is technically possible for a large fast aircraft to perform while still being consistent with the eyewitness statements. Instead, after seven years, the members of the CiT and PfT have yet to come up with a flight path for the alledged flyover. This allows them the flexibility to state that if a debunker on the internet comes up with any math on any flight path they can then state that this is not the path the aircraft took ( in the case of the 11 g gross mistake by PfT, when corrected by a debunker they made this claim despite the fact that this path was a fabrication of PfT's in the first place)
The logical route would be to take these consise technical papers to organizations whose raison d'etre is flight safety such as ICOA, the FAA, the NTSB, the unions representing the pilots and air crews and such publications as "Aviation Week". Instead, they choose argue inccessantly on the internet with persons they claim do not have the expertise to understand the concepts involved.
It is patently obvious that for whatever reason, PfT and the CiT are not following the logical route instead much prefering to spit and shout back and forth on the internet and in the fringe media with the anarchists and anti-semites as their allies.
Last edited:
Given the minute amount they currently get, I can understand their appreciation. Tell them, no sweat...any time.
TAM
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
this is a small part of the internet, hardly "publicity"
perhaps when the PfT and CiT actually get around to doing what it would take to get organizations with expertise in FDR data analysis to take them seriously they will actually garner some real publicity but I fail to see how anyone at JREF can do it for them.
Last edited:
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Wow. Here's a situation where Truthers again are shown to be either idiots, frauds, or both. But, they thank us for the publicity. I guess the old adage any publicity is good publicity holds true, but sheesh...how can a buch of folks who want to be taken seriously hold their heads up high when 1. Nobody takes them seriously anyway and 2. They usually come accross as idiots?
Things don't appear to be going well for our intrepid investigators. It would be almost sad if they weren't accusing perfectly innocent people of being complicit in mass murder, but now it's funny as hell.
Things don't appear to be going well for our intrepid investigators. It would be almost sad if they weren't accusing perfectly innocent people of being complicit in mass murder, but now it's funny as hell.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Publicity?
Can you remember the last time Fat Aldo and Craig got publicity in the OC Weekly? It sent Craig into full blown drama queen mode on You Tube, with the heavy sighs and emotional voice all quivering!
That was awesome! Thanks for the reminder SP.
Say, how is the math coming at the tree house.
What do ya say Cap'n Bobby?
Can you remember the last time Fat Aldo and Craig got publicity in the OC Weekly? It sent Craig into full blown drama queen mode on You Tube, with the heavy sighs and emotional voice all quivering!
That was awesome! Thanks for the reminder SP.
Say, how is the math coming at the tree house.
What do ya say Cap'n Bobby?
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374