Pilots For 9/11 Truth Present Their Math

[jhunter1163]

Of course she lied! She's military, she worked IN THE PENTAGON!

Actually, she's retired and moved on to a civilian career of suing people to try and get money.

 

[Bell]

No. Not necessarily a mistake. The FBI was on-site primed to grab all videos and cameras.

You have evidence for this?

The light poles were scripted with the taxi and driver.

You have evidence for this?

Scripted media witnesses were ready to go.

You have evidence for this?

Explosives were ready in the construction trailers at the wall and inside.

You have evidence for this?

Perhaps the NOC decoy aircraft flew exactly where planned. Perhaps not.

A real aircraft impact into the Pentagon would be too risky. It might have crashed and burned before it got there. Worse, it might have accidentally crashed into the roof and killed thousands; maybe even poor Rummy snoozing at his desk.

So, if it was so risky (even a NoC flightpad) then why was Rumsfeld even in the building? Also, why would the government be bothered by a few thousands death more? It didn't bother them in New York.

Actually hitting the five 337 pound light poles likely would have sheared off the wings, dropping the aircraft on the lawn short of the wall.

Those lightpoles break even when a car hits them. A CAR!

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/04/large_krash.jpg

Of course Hani Hanjour could not have flown a 757 like a fighter jet.

Who says he did?

Too risky; the aircraft likely would not have penetrated the wall and destroyed the targeted personnel and records. If it totally missed the first time, would the public buy a go-around without fighter intervention? Not too bloody likely.

Please provide the math that shows a 757 at +500 mph can not penetrate the wall.

Planted explosives were much more reliable. Easily brought in and hidden in a long-term construction site. Their damage radius and kill-zones are well known through years of experience. Military personnel who might witness something are easy to gag and transfer. Order them to lie; except April Gallop refused to lie, didn't she?

What about ATC, NORAD, AA, FBI, CIA, PD, FD and many more agencies that where part of the conspiracy, or must have witnessed that things were not as they were told they were. Where are those wisthle blowers?

Simulate the aircraft and safely do the deed with explosives, and BS the American public with Mainstream News Media disinfo agents. It had always worked just fine before.

So in the end this is your theory: the Pentagon was attacked so some records could be destroyed.

 

[dtugg]

Didn't Gallop settle with American Airlines? Why, in your expert opinion, SPreston, would she do this their jet didn't hit the Pentagon?

 

[jhunter1163]

Wisdom from the Goddess of Legaltainment™ regarding Ms. Gallop:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4281470#post4281470

Anyway, back OT, can someone sum up the attempted "rebuttals" of 911files' work? I have a low tolerance for crazy this morning.

As an aside, it seems to me that PfffT and Ranquisamo would have been better served keeping Farmer on their side. The guy does fantastic work.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Too risky; the aircraft likely would not have penetrated the wall and destroyed the targeted personnel and records. If it totally missed the first time, would the public buy a go-around without fighter intervention? Not too bloody likely.

Planted explosives were much more reliable. Easily brought in and hidden in a long-term construction site. Their damage radius and kill-zones are well known through years of experience. Military personnel who might witness something are easy to gag and transfer. Order them to lie; except April Gallop refused to lie, didn't she?

SPreston... really? You are saying this specific area was targeted to kill certain officials and destroy specific documentation?

So, in the middle of a major renovation where CIVILIAN contractors are working...massive bombs were planted inside the walls and construction trailers covertly?

You think this is easier than using, say,.... a paper shredder?

Go ask Craig when he is interviewing the civilian contractors that were there that day. DARE him to accuse them of being involved in this massive military deception.


in addition to the ridiculousness of your posts, I would like to add that you seem to repeat yourself and posting the same pictures over and over. This could be a sign of Tardive dyskinesia. This is a common side affect from using anti-psychotic medication.

Perhaps TAM here can assist you in a new medication?

 

[chillzero]

If you don't keep it civil, it will be closed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[Alt+F4]

They screwed up didn't they, and after the eyewitnesses were revealed to the world; it was much much too late to silence them because they were on videotape and residing on hard drives all over the nation. Big booboo, huh?

Revealed to the world?! Are you kidding me? You guys absolutely REFUSE to present your information to the outside world. Again, go to the Washington Post, the Bush-hating New York Times or any law enforcement agency in the world.

Make free CDs and hand them out on the street. Take out ads in newspapers. Drop flyers from overpasses. Isn't the Pulitizer Prize waiting for you? Why continue to delay President Obama presenting you guys with Presidential Medal of Freedom? What are you waiting for? Why the delay?

 

[Mangoose]

This is what I don't get.

Craig says: "We no longer believe the plane was exactly over the impact point due to the ANC witnesses and Roosevelt Roberts' account."

So how does that square with the graphic they and their lackeys use?

The lines converge onto the same point that the "official south path" converges on, don't they?

 

[Senenmut]

911 files-
did you go and talk with the hotel employees where the employees were watching the video of the plane hitting the pentagon. i remember reading about that somewhere, maybe in your lawsuit you posted somwhere. I was just wondering what they said to ya? are the employees under orders not to talk?

 

[SPreston]

Now SPreston, you obviously were not paying attention. I just derived the same equation your P4T buddies used with simple Newtonian physics. If you prefer to use cheat sheets, then be my guest, but I prefer to derive the equation myself so that I have a grasp of what the equation means. So if without using the cheat sheet, I get the same result as the cheat sheet, then you might want to pay closer attention.

Farmer, perhaps you should be using cheat sheets, because your math is very wrong.

Your G loads are wrong. Google "Load Factor chart" under google images. Its the same for all types.

 

[DGM]

Farmer, perhaps you should be using cheat sheets, because your math is very wrong.Your G loads are wrong. Google "Load Factor chart" under google images. Its the same for all types.

Care to expand on this? So far his work looks right to me (I will admit that it's been years since I studied this).
please explain and make your case.

 

[dtugg]

SPreston, please, please show me the math for this one:

I mean, it must be possible, otherwise, why would Ranquisamo (I assume that is where it came from) pimp it out?

 

[jaydeehess]

Given the fact that the calculations are based on level flight, if you incorporate an initial descent, the G loads required are less, therefore the "pull up" will equal out the reduced G Loading during the descent. Get it? Probably not...

"equal out" means to the same level altitude. Since the Annex is higher than the pentagon, the G loads required to pull out of the dive will be equal to (but opposite) the G loads reduced due to the descent from the Annex.

Cappy Bobby is stating that the difference of the lesser g force encountered due to desent will be equal and opposite to the increase in g force during a climb out. Too bad he is so challenged in getting his point accross.(explains why he refuses to produce a consise technical paper outlining how the FDR data illustrates a grossly different flight path than the downed lamp posts do)

The g forces they calculated for their level flight (which incidentally would put the aircraft twice as high as the Pentagon roof as it flew over with its wings banked to 45 degrees or so) were strictly in the horizontal. Desent/ascent g forces would be in the vertical plane, total g forces would be the vector sum of both.

Standing still we experience a 1 g acelleration straight down(90 below horizontal)
Note: below I use numbers picked simply to illustrate the point.

In level flight a lateral force of 1 g combined with a vertical(due to gravity alone) g force of 1 g will result in the airframe experiencing a 1.41g force in a direction 45 degrees below the horizontal.{ inv_sine(1/1.141)=45 deg} pulling down and to the center of the turn

A desent would cause a reduction in the normal 1 g experienced due to gravity. A desent of half the acelleration of gravity would result in the airframe experiencing that 1 g lateral force due to the same turn with only 0.5 g vertical and the vector sum would be 1.11 g, 27 degrees below the horizontal.{ inv_sine(0.5/1.11)=27 degrees}pulling down and to the center of the turn

In an ascent of 0.5 g vertical force we now have 1 g lateral and 1.5 g vertical (adding in gravity) we get an total force of 1.8 get an angle of {in_sine(1.5/1.8)=56 degrees above the horizontal. This would be felt as pulling up and to the center of the turn

So the plane would go from 1.141 g to 1.11 g then to 1.8 g and if the desent and ascent lasted equal time then the plane would end up at the same altitude where it began.
That is what Cappy Bobby is trying to say.

BTW, I see that I have a title at PfT. I am the "resident circular logic GL ".

 

[chillzero]

*sigh*
Off topic postys also remove.
Chillzero had other things to attend to.
Chillzero is not the only mod.
You don't help an off topic drift by waffling on about it being off topic. Not sure how often I'll need to keep repeating this.

Now, keep it civil, and on topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: CHILLZERO

 

[jhunter1163]

I wonder how Morin is liking it there under the bus. The guy is obviously a trained observer, and gave a detailed report of what he saw. For a while there Ranquisamo were hailing him as "the smoking gun". But now, since his observations are extremely inconvenient to their *snicker* "math", they've forgotten all about him.

Such is the life of a Twoofy icon.

 

[jaydeehess]

This thread is supposed to be about the math presented by PfT. However PfT first presented a web page with math for a flight path that they dragged up putting the aircraft flying over the VDOT tower. That math was shown to be in gross error by Reheat and Mackey. PfT then complained that this was bogus because the flight path does not line up with the FDR data. A clear case of setting a goal post then moving it when it is inconvienient.

In the latest case they were tasked with showing the math for a flight path that would satify the eyewitness accounts. This they have accomplished by ignoring some eyewitness accounts completely, to the point of denying some of them even exist(nothing exists unless the CiT 'confirmed' it) and grossly rewriting details given by others, most notably Morin's but also Boger, Paik, Brooks, Lagasse and Turcois.

The plane was described as being over Morin and parallel to Columbia Pike whereas the range of flight paths shown never has the plane in a position by which Morin would be describing it that way.

Boger states clearly that he saw it hit the Pentagon and he was a mere several dozen feet from the port wing of the aircraft.

Paik points to the direction the plane went which corressponds to where morin says he saw it coming from and not along the path he drew of the Navy Annex which he(Paik) could not see from his location. Paik also states he thought it had clipped the VDOT tower.

Brooks, Lagasse, and Turcois all describe a very low, very fast passage of the aircraft and many describe the sound as having the engines at high throttle.

So whereas the math they present does seem to be accurate for the path they used, the path does not corresspond to the path described by their witnesses. Turcois states that the plane was no longer visible to him because it was below his line of sight beyond the embankment/roadway, many many others describe 'tree top' level or only a few dozen feet agl as it passed them.

PfT then needs to show that the aircraft can not only perform the turn but while doing so also perform a pull up and over from an altitude of say 45 feet agl as it passes over the highway
AND most importantly,
the CiT must show how such a manouver can be hidden from the view of every single solitary onlooker to the degree that some actually believed that the aircraft not only hit the Pentagon but that it hit the lower floors.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

It really doesn't matter what Capt. Bob posts on his site or on Youtube. He is nothing. His fantasy is a joke. I took a couple screen shots on Youtube. One was of his most watched video:

been posted for two years...

Now, we look at Lola... she has been up for the same amount of time.

Yeah Captain... you are making a huge difference in the world.

 

[jaydeehess]

I'd like to know how a 45 degree bank angle does not appear to be illustrated in any of the animations of the aircraft in the new video. Too inconvenient perhaps.

Also inconvenient was Morin's statements. Odd thing is that their reasoning for throwing out Morin's statements are that one cannot expect all eyewitnesses to be accurate. Morin has more experience than many other of their own eyewitnesses and was much closer to the aircraft than were the ANC witnesses who's description of the flight path as being over the annex Craig accepts over Morin who states otherwise.

Even more inconvenient was Boger's description of the plane actually hitting the Pentagon, of Lagasse's statement that the plane hit the Pentagon, Brooks' statement that the plane hit the Pentagon, none of whom were surprised that it hit a lower floor rather than an upper floor, none of whom noticed that it was 150% - 200% higher than the roof of the Pentagon(as PfT now asserts) It does have to be at least 145% higher than the roof height as it is at a bank of 45 degrees, supposedly, and one does not want that starboard wing dragging along the roof.

Why don't we move discussions about lamp posts to a separate thread if SPreston cannot comment on the math?

 

[WildCat]

SPreston, when will your heroes at CIT and PfffT create an animation showing their new flight path, the one where the plane maintains level flight high over the Pentagon and banking sharply?

You keep ignoring this question for some reasson, is it because they realize how their new flight path (the old one had a descent and a pull up) has absolutely no chance of fooling anyone from any angle? Or is it because they are frauds and are deliberately trying to deceive?

 

[BCR]

911 files-
did you go and talk with the hotel employees where the employees were watching the video of the plane hitting the pentagon. i remember reading about that somewhere, maybe in your lawsuit you posted somwhere. I was just wondering what they said to ya? are the employees under orders not to talk?

I visited a number of hotels, but I did not find anyone who mentioned watching the video. The Doubletree refused to comment on their video and the Sheraton folks were informed not to talk by their management. None-the-less, some Sheraton staffers did indicate that the FBI visited and took their video. Ft Myer (behind the Sheraton) also reported (officially) that the FBI made a stop by their location but did not take theirs since they had no sky coverage (unfortunately they did not save their videos). I did challenge the FBI with the Sheraton employee testimony and on appeal they did another search for it, but concluded recently that they can't find it. So, your guess is as good as mine on this one.

Farmer, perhaps you should be using cheat sheets, because your math is very wrong.

Your G loads are wrong. Google "Load Factor chart" under google images. Its the same for all types.

Oh my, I simply used the same formula that Rob used to prove the "official path" impossible. Are you saying Rob used the wrong equation