Pilots For 9/11 Truth Present Their Math

BTW - thanks for correcting my math. Do you think the boys at P4T will figure out the 'correction'?

We differ by 1%-2% so if that is what the PfT boyz wish to characterize as 'correction' then is stil remains to be determined which of us was off by that amount.

I suspect that since I derived my numbers by first determining how PfT's formula comes to be that they like my numbers better nah-nah-nah;)

What seems indicative by the way the boyz present their findings is that they are using formula that they find without actually understanding the underlieing concepts. It was painfully obvious that this was the case with the "11 G" page of nonsense so with that history and the manner with which they present the latest calculations I would say it would be a safe bet.

This time they got the application of the math correct but in order to have a flight path that was possible they had to re-write Morin's account pretty much in its entirity and completely ignore the fact that no one describes the bank angles required. Then there is the physical evidence that actually corroborates some eyewitness accounts of a slight port bank(chunk of concrete curb punched out by an engine)

So one wonders, in the new interview, that no one other than the CiT/PfT boyz ever witnessed, did Morin recant basically everything in his original statement after "I was at the elevators"?:eek:
 
Actually, at low values of angle the two match exactly, but at angles of 78 degrees they are off by .02 g's. That is due to one using full range and speed values and the other using a trigometric value (cos) for the angle. In other words, rounding errors. The equations are exactly the same.

And yes jaydeehees, that is the point exactly.
 
Last edited:
you know those glasses make that monkey look surprisingly intellectual.

TAM;)
 
I use G force the pilot feels, the plane experiences. So if you use a formula that gets 2 Gs for a level turn at 60 degrees of bank, it is good for pilot talk. I would use the force the pilot and aircraft experience.

Poor Balsamo has to slow down the plane and make up junk to make his delusional flight path work. And then he tells his minions of stupid idea believers; he has no theories or clue what happen on 9/11. What a great leader of people who love delusional ideas.

The last 20 seconds of flight, the highest (as in momentary maximum) bank angle was 8.8 degrees. Balsamo is stuck with a turn radius at 463 knots of 122,000 feet. When Balsamo slows down his “NWO-CRAFT of woo” to 300 knots, he is stuck with a 51,000-foot turn radius. How dumb can Balsamo get as he continues to use the worse investigators in the world to publish his implied lies, and non-theories for his cult to cut and paste all over the internet?

Was there really a hovercraft jet in that video of stupid?

As for NoC paths, all of them are impossible. Balsamo will never figure out why.
 
Last edited:
in the interest of being completely accurate Morin would be recanting all after;
"I had just reached the elevator in the 5th Wing of BMDO/Federal Office Building (FOB) #2 – call it approximately 9:36 AM. I was already trying to make some sense out of the World Trade Tower attacks having heard about them on the radio. The news was sketchy, but the fact that it was a terrorist attack was already known. I then realized that I was wearing sunglasses and needed to go back to Lot 3 to retrieve my clear lenses. Since it was by no means a short walk to my car, I was upset with myself for being so distracted."

The next thing he originally stated is;
Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5
the Pft/CiT say he has changed this to his still being between those two wings.

Next Morin stated
was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4
when I became aware of something unusual. I can’t remember exactly what I was thinking about at that moment, but I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left.[/quote]

He can hardly be turning towards a security station if he has yet to exit from between the wings.
Is Morin saying that he was mistaken about having started this turn? He is if the CiT/PfT are correct in their interpretation of the words Morin spoke in the newer interview. We will never know what those exact words were though, they're not recorded.

As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening. I instantly had a very bad feeling about this but things were happening very quickly. The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB).

According to the CiT/PfT Morin must be changing this since they put the aircraft not at the outer edge of the building since they state that Morin said in the later interview that he was nearer the central portion of the wings.
That is if the CiT/PfT are correct in their interpretation of the words Morin spoke in the newer interview. We will never know what those exact words were though, they're not recorded.

Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities.

If the CiT/PfT are correct in their interpretation of the words Morin spoke in the newer interview it is difficult to understand how Morin could discern all this detail as the aircraft passed over him while he is between the wings of the complex. The aircraft would only be in view while directly overhead, not in his line of sight until it came over the wing to his right and disappearing as it passed over the wing to his right.

Did Morin change his story to have him sprinting like an Olympic qualifier to a location in the parking lot where he could observe these details as the plane again came into view?
We will never know what those exact words were though, they're not recorded.

Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon.

Again, how can Morin see this if he is between the wings of the Annex below the CiT/PfT flight path?

Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon. There was a large explosion noise and the low frequency sound echo that comes with this type of sound.

Again all of this detail must have been recanted by Morin unless he managed to sprint into the parking lot far enough to be able to see the aircraft beyond the far wall of the Annex. Even if he did that then he is correcting the suggestion that he had the plane in sight from the moment it passed over him all the way into the Pentagon.


Associated with that was the increase in air pressure, momentarily, like a small gust of wind. For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2000lb bomb going off roughly ½ mile in front of you. At once there was a huge cloud of black smoke that rose several hundred feet up. Elapsed time from hearing the initial noise to when I saw the impact flash was between 12 and 15 seconds.

Can't quibble with any of that except for the elapsed time. Eyewitness estimates of elapsed time is not particularily accurate. For elapsed time only a few multiples of human reaction time witnesses will often underestimate elapsed time whereas in cases where things take longer they will often over estimate the elapsed time. ("it happened so fast" versus "it was like time slowed down")

PfT/CiT says that we should pester Morin for our own clarification if we don't believe them.

I choose to believe that he was not recanting almost all of his previous statement. If PfT wishes to assert that Morin changed all of it then they should have recorded it. I am not going to pester this man just to prove that the interpretation of a second 'interview' by a fringe group is incorrect. If Mr. Morin chooses to set the record straight on his own that is his perogative but hopefully he would not try to do so by contacting CiT/PfT.
 
Last edited:
Wha? They're talking about a turn radius of 23 STATUTE MILES?

I don't know if Pffft is talking about it or not. I think Beachnut is saying that if you limit the bank to the 8.8 degrees, that's the radius you get at that speed.
 
Last edited:
Well it seems that the CiT may(or may not) have recorded the last discussion they had with Morin.

Curious that all they will release about it so far is their own interpretation of what he says. The questions I asked in post 345 still stand.

They also wish to pat me on the head in having given me (us) the formula
n=1/cos(theta)

However I simply wished to show them how it is derived. It was fairly obvious they had no idea why 'n' ( a unitless number in the equation as they write it) would be a multiplier of 'g' ( which has the magnitude and units of ~32 feet/sec/sec) for a a/c in level flight, or why it could be calculated by raising
cos(theta) to the power of -1.

I get it, Farmer gets it, I still don't think that PfT understands it despite he fact that we illustrated it for both the case where vertical acceleration=0 and for the general case for which the total acceleraton experienced by the a/c is not as simple as g/cos(theta).

Fact is they demonstrated , in the 11g nonsense page, that they could find formulae and utterly misuse them due to a lack of understanding of the physics concepts. This time they found a formula, applied it properly and then used it to find a path the plane could fly. Unfortunately that path may be flyable but bears little resemblence to what their own witnesses describe.
Certainly the consensus among witnesses was for little banking at all, let alone 22-45 degrees. The first PfT/CiT animations based on Lagasse and Brooks statements show nothing like a 45 degree bank. In fact they show wings level. Odd that they missed that the first go 'round.

For illustration purposes for persons looking for acomparison, a steep ski run would be 30 degrees, that is also about the pitch of an average staircase.(extreme skiers ski 60 degree slopes, anything over 75 degrees cannot hold enough snow to ski on) A 'steep' mountain pass highway is only actually about 5 degrees(aka 8.7 percent grade)

Certainly if Morin was where he said he was in his original statement their path is incorrect, and if he was where they now place him little of his original statement can be possible
 
Last edited:
They also wish to pat me on the head in having given me (us) the formula
n=1/cos(theta)

Obviously they don't get it yet. We don't need no stinking formula, we got physics :)

If we need a formula, we will make our own thank you very much.
 
Wha? They're talking about a turn radius of 23 STATUTE MILES?
yep, but Balsamo doesn’t know these are the facts, he has manufactured implied lies, he ignores the facts and evidence; Balsamo will quibble about the wind, descent rates, et al, too. The truth: the FDR is proof p4t are making up lies, and the witnesses statements are confirmed by the FDR when analyzed by an aircraft accident investigator.

The heading change in the last 20 seconds; rates less than 0.8 degrees per second, typically less than 0.3 degrees per second.

No bank angles greater than 8.8 degrees in the final seconds stored in the FDR. This means the minimum turn radius is over 20 miles. FDR confirmed the witnesses, who from their vantage point, indicated shallow bank angles.

The math experts at p4t, and idiot investigators (CI2T) team, have to have a big bank angle, a fictitious flight path, and a slower speed to come up with math that matches the non-paths from their witnesses. What does this mean?


The FDR does support the downed lamppost and the final heading and track of 77’s impact with the Pentagon and is the key problem with Balsamo’s failed ideas based on ignorance and paranoia. I thought I saw some plane flying slow, I guess it was a F-35. At an air show I ran for the USAF, we had Harriers come to use our air space, they said they could not do anything but wanted to takeoff and land during the day of the air show; the fact is a hovercraft jet (jump jet) seems to many as a movie stunt, the Harriers were most impressive taxiing in the air! But what purpose do jump jets, or slow flight have to do with a full throttle 757 intent on killing Americans as promised by UBL all those years ago? The terrorist apologist Balsamo calls me a government loyalist; darn, did he cheat and see my oath in the USAF. But it seems it was my duty to expose fraud; Balsamo is a fraud making up lies, oops, implications of lies about junk he does not comprehend. If it had been the government, I would expose the government. Sorry, Balsamo is the fraud this time, Nixon was the fraud all those years ago. Balsamo has missed the train, the plane, and the clue bird.
The F-35 makes its most radical departure from the past with the choice of the lifting system for the F-35B jump jet. F-35B, short-takeoff and vertical-landing
It was a hovercraft jet in the video of stupid. Wow, what idiots do for making math match their failed non-path, non-theory, no clue p4t ideas. Balsamo continues his doltish ideas by making up paths to fit the math of ridiculous NoC 77 not hitting the Pentagon lies he can back up with evidence, but sticking to his no theory failure mode of fraud by making others spew his lies, he can only imply.

 
Has PFFT and CIIT calculated the vertical manuevers yet to go along with their Paik/Morin/Boger/LaGasse under the bus flight path? No.

Well, after checking, I see that Cap'n Rob is using our “Tree Fort” reference.

Now, Cap'n Bobby, you know we started using that back at least as early as when old Dom got kicked out of the CIT tree fort.

Now, your terrorist apologies, your fake math, you and Dmole's bizarre fascination and obsession with the “Government loyalists (just how many pinned threads have you devoted to us, anyhow?) That I can put up with, but stealing “Tree Fort”?

NEVAR! Shame, shame shame!
 
yep, but Balsamo doesn’t know these are the facts, he has manufactured implied lies, he ignores the facts and evidence; Balsamo will quibble about the wind, descent rates, et al, too. The truth: the FDR is proof p4t are making up lies, and the witnesses statements are confirmed by the FDR when analyzed by an aircraft accident investigator.

The heading change in the last 20 seconds; rates less than 0.8 degrees per second, typically less than 0.3 degrees per second.

No bank angles greater than 8.8 degrees in the final seconds stored in the FDR. This means the minimum turn radius is over 20 miles. FDR confirmed the witnesses, who from their vantage point, indicated shallow bank angles.

The math experts at p4t, and idiot investigators (CI2T) team, have to have a big bank angle, a fictitious flight path, and a slower speed to come up with math that matches the non-paths from their witnesses. What does this mean?


The FDR does support the downed lamppost and the final heading and track of 77’s impact with the Pentagon and is the key problem with Balsamo’s failed ideas based on ignorance and paranoia. I thought I saw some plane flying slow, I guess it was a F-35. At an air show I ran for the USAF, we had Harriers come to use our air space, they said they could not do anything but wanted to takeoff and land during the day of the air show; the fact is a hovercraft jet (jump jet) seems to many as a movie stunt, the Harriers were most impressive taxiing in the air! But what purpose do jump jets, or slow flight have to do with a full throttle 757 intent on killing Americans as promised by UBL all those years ago? The terrorist apologist Balsamo calls me a government loyalist; darn, did he cheat and see my oath in the USAF. But it seems it was my duty to expose fraud; Balsamo is a fraud making up lies, oops, implications of lies about junk he does not comprehend. If it had been the government, I would expose the government. Sorry, Balsamo is the fraud this time, Nixon was the fraud all those years ago. Balsamo has missed the train, the plane, and the clue bird.
It was a hovercraft jet in the video of stupid. Wow, what idiots do for making math match their failed non-path, non-theory, no clue p4t ideas. Balsamo continues his doltish ideas by making up paths to fit the math of ridiculous NoC 77 not hitting the Pentagon lies he can back up with evidence, but sticking to his no theory failure mode of fraud by making others spew his lies, he can only imply.


I don't think Pffft realizes that even with a vectored-thrust aircraft, it still has to bank to turn. The thrust from the engine is directed downward. It can turn tighter without stalling, but the thrust is aligned pretty much along the lift vector of the wing. (there's variation fore and aft, I think the Harrier can vector the thrust five degrees or so forward of vertical).

To turn without banking, the thrust would have to be directed out the side of the aircraft at the center of gravity, and there would have to be a lot of it: the mass of the aircraft times the lateral acceleration for the turn.

I don't have much imagination, so it's hard for me to see how this could be done on a multi-engine jet airliner. You would think some witness would have mentioned if the engines had been turned sideways on their pylons.

Actually, all the thrust from the engines would probably not be enough to do a flat turn at the radii of the paths under discussion. I'll let someone else calculate it.
 
Since Turbofan got banned right before he was going to post the math pwning us ...
I was particularly inspired by the exchange on this page where Cap'n Bob runs his mouth:

What are the odds that every single PfffT yahoo that's been here managed to get banned before they could post a single claim of the CIT flight path? Yeah, we're scared of ya Cap'n Bob... because of math you can't produce! :p

Why are FDR experts terrorist apologist know as p4t better at math for the fantasy flight paths, but can't do better than 11.2 Gs for the actual flight path as they try to refute the actual flight path of Flight 77 with anti-intellectual voodoo math?

What a waste of time, Balsamo learning math to use it on fake flight paths, he can't defend or support with evidence.
 
Last edited:
Why are FDR experts terrorist apologist know as p4t better at math for the fantasy flight paths, but can't do better than 11.2 Gs for the actual flight path as they try to refute the actual flight path of Flight 77 with anti-intellectual voodoo math?

What a waste of time, Balsamo learning math to use it on fake flight paths, he can't defend or support with evidence.

I don't keep up with P4T/CIT stuff myself, but out of curiosity, which witnesses are being through under the bus with the up-to-date P4T/CIT flight path?
 
I don't keep up with P4T/CIT stuff myself, but out of curiosity, which witnesses are being through under the bus with the up-to-date P4T/CIT flight path?

Well, all of them! None of them saw the extreme banks required, most of them testified that the plane descended to a point that would require an extreme and impossible pull up, and they all said the plane hit the Pentagon!

The original purpose of this entire execise was to get the dimwits at CIT/PFFT to realize that no airliner could fly their stupid path, and that they should take a close look at their empty lives. It never occurred to me how their egos would not let them do that.

So, CIT has abandoned any claim that the plane flew through a Hollywood special effect at the impact site. Over course the fly over plane would have been visible to the witnesses at ANC AND CITGO. So everything they have ever done is worthless.

PFFT is to busy investigating the background of the debunkers to correct the egregious math errors on their web site.

I can't believe they tried to do the math! Suckers!
 
Sad really. I thought CIT was doing some great work documenting eyewitness accounts until they started the character assassination of those who did not fit their world view. Now it is all falling apart and they seem to have gone completely over the deep end. Oh well, we have the memories.
 
Sad really. I thought CIT was doing some great work documenting eyewitness accounts until they started the character assassination of those who did not fit their world view. Now it is all falling apart and they seem to have gone completely over the deep end. Oh well, we have the memories.

by "documenting" you mean interviewing with leading questions, cherry-picking quotes, bias interpretation, etc...right???

TAM:)
 
Do you recall when I emphasized that it was important to include the caveat that the scenario had to agree with ALL of their witnesses statements and descriptions. I've plotted the turn radii, so I know the score.

I'm glad you agree that a reasonable path has to agree with all the witness statements, Reheat. Your paper overlooks Morin's statement that there was an "FOB flyover".

reheat.jpg


Why didn't you follow your own "caveat" to model all "witness statements and descriptions"?
 

Back
Top Bottom