Regarding 'Debunking the North of the Citgo Theory'

[Reheat]

I base my theories on evidence. If Morin's testimony is so unreasonable, why is it used as the basis for Reheat's (strawman) calculations? Why did you 'critical thinkers' lap up his bs math so uncritically?

And you wonder why people even troofers consider you a joke. You don't know the definition of strawman just like Ranke.

Where's your math, bozo?

 

[Reheat]

The difference between you and I, is that I like to do my homework correctly. If humans were capable of determining exact heading, speed, aircraft performance, wind speed, aircraft modifications, etc., then I would be able to do my homework.
Humans, of course, can't do these things. They can only accurately determine location in relation to reference points and can only approximate things like speed, heading, wind speed, type of aircraft, etc.
There is simply no way your calculations are remotely accurate. Period.

All anyone needs in the location of the aircraft at any specific time. Witnesses don't need to know any of those items.

Your ignorance is coming through loud and clear. Period.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

This is important ONLY to you. I could give a crap less what you think. There was only 1 aircraft anyway, AA77, and it struck the Pentagon.

If you don't accurately model CIT's claims then your model is meaningless.
You cannot say "I'm the one who debunked CIT"- it would be a lie.
You cannot say "That flightpath is impossible"- it would be a lie.
You know this, but your disdain for the truth prevents you from saying so. You wouldn't debate CIT of PFT on Air America and you had to pretend you were a female student pilot to even join the PFT forum. Everything you do is a lie.

My statements are correct and you are WRONG because you are ignorant about aerodynamics.

Then you would be ignorant about aerodynamics since you admitted there are jets that could have flown your made-up flight path.

 

[Reheat]

Furthermore, there *are* aircraft that can make his ridiculous turns- so it is simply a lie to say that his calculations are "aircraft independent".

Name them? Where is the math to prove this, windbag.

This was more of a side note anyway, since he clearly misinterpreted Morin's account.

I'm not the one who misinterpreted Morin's account, or Paik's either. They fit together nicely without your spins to make it what you want it to be.

A more important question is why have so many self-proclaimed "critical thinkers" accepted the distortions of an anonymous "pilot" without raising such basic questions?

Because I can prove what I say. All you can do is blow hot air!

 

[Reheat]

If you don't accurately model CIT's claims then your model is meaningless.

Your claims are meaningless regardless of what I do.

You cannot say "I'm the one who debunked CIT"- it would be a lie.

I already have and you're a little late with your hot air...

You cannot say "That flightpath is impossible"- it would be a lie.

Your statement in quotes is a lie as I"ve shown you multiple times.

You wouldn't debate CIT of PFT on Air America and you had to pretend you were a female student pilot to even join the PFT forum. Everything you do is a lie.

Now, this is a strawman. An excellent example. I don't need to debate you as you are a know nothing bag of hot air. I've already won and that fact that you continue after you've lost is further evidence.

Then you would be ignorant about aerodynamics since you admitted there are jets that could have flown your made-up flight path.

You'll have to quote it if you want me to see it as your "Mommie" JFK banned me after you couldn't stand the heat. I don't really need to see it to know it's more of your hot air....

 

[robeeb]

Ok, so why don't you apply that same logic to Reheat. His conflation of the decoy jet an AA77, and his "aircraft independent" claim are two basic errors. Why take Reheat seriously?

I have read all of Reheats comments on this thread, and I see no glaring errors in his comments. If I did, I'd challenge him to explain. I am also a pilot, so my opinion that Reheat has made no errors is based upon my knowledge of the subject from a first hand point of view. I have to say, you are persistent, and you are able to keep your debates and comments here civil. If you were to pick up a couple of books on aeronautical principles, and principles of flight as they apply to fixed wing aircraft, you would have a much better base to build upon for your ideas and theories. You would also be able to separate the totally hopeless theories from the ones that might actually have substance.

 

[e^n]

Not according to Morin, who witnesses a descent. This decreases g load for a constant bank and speed.

We are not calculating based upon a constant bank, but based upon a variable bank.

An aircraft which is descending has greater weight than lift. In order to maintain the minimum curve the plane would have to roll more in order to distribute less force into opposing gravity, and more (proportionately) into turning.

And what exactly is the "impact/flyover vector"- might your calculations change if the flyover did not occur precisely over the impact point?

Indeed they might, but witness accounts give a pretty clear indication they passed directly over the impact point, and besides if they did not, CITs theory about an explosion confusing them would not make sense. If you wish to propose an alternate bearing and position then please do.

The new witnesses report fairly steep angles- watch the trailer.

We already have many eyewitness accounts, all of them suggesting slight bank angles and at least one or two claimed 'wings level' if I remember correctly. Remember, according to the CIT debating rules, if you have multiple corroborated accounts, you cannot disprove something.

Craig's interview with Morin supports this.

Perhaps you should look at the speeds I used.

e^n, you know that this is an idiotic exercise in futility if we don't have the data to form even a vaguely accurate mathematical model. Please stop supporting Reheats nonsense- there are more fruitful methods of analyzing CIT's data.

There is no data to analyse, CIT has presented only witness account and speculation. On the contrary, we do have data to form a reliable bounding case. From my understanding of events, it is inconceivable that the plane made a smaller turn and it is unlikely it was travelling much slower.

You may disagree, but you have given no good reason we should not conduct a normal attempt at modelling.

 

[nicepants]

This is important ONLY to you. I could give a crap less what you think. There was only 1 aircraft anyway, AA77, and it struck the Pentagon.

Actually, there was another aircraft...a C-130 I believe, in the area, perhaps this was the "other aircraft" that this guy saw.

 

[A W Smith]

No. The "entire body of witnesses" means "the entire body of witnesses to events concerning the attack at the Pentagon". It does not mean "the entire body of witnesses to events surrounding the attack at the Pentagon". Evidence must be appraised before it is considered material evidence, not after.

For example, if someone lied about there location, and they are proven to be in a completely different location than they said they were, their testimony would be invalidated and hence would neither prove nor disprove a hypothesis.

you just invalidated lagasse who said he was at a specific pump but the citgo video proved otherwise.

 

[jhunter1163]

I notice that TLB's witness has the time wrong by half an hour or so. Maybe it was Norman Mineta in disguise.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Find any aeronautical site on the Internet which supports this in context. In other words an authoritative written source. You lose again....

Where's your source, Bozo?

While I don't consider you authoritative, how about a quote from you?

G is only decreased as the aircraft ENTERS the descent. Once the descent stabilizes the G requirements are the same for the same bank angle/turn rate.

In other words, a constant descent, such as Morin describes, reduce g loads.

All anyone needs in the location of the aircraft at any specific time. Witnesses don't need to know any of those items.

But you did not even seek to define this variable. You used observations which lead to logical absurdities when taken literally. You patently ignored other observations which did not lead to such absurdities. Then you don't even address criticisms of your model and say "where's your math", indirectly indicating that your model is correct. Here's what a real scientist would have done:

Building a Mathematical Model
1)Identify the problem

You attempt to identify the problem as "Is the NOC aerodynamically possible?", yet you do not study this exclusively. You also throw in Morin and Paik's testimony. You give precedence to Morin's account even when it contradicts both itself (if taken literally), Paik, and the NOC witnesses. You give no reason for preferring Morin- one can only assume it is because you set out to disprove CIT.

define the terms in your problem

You do not attempt to define your variables, even when public information shows that they are wrong (e.g. the decoy jet being AA 77). You make no attempt to clarify these values with either CIT or PFt, and run away from their forums when challenged.

2) Begin with a simple model, stating the assumptions that you make as you focus on particular aspects of the phenomenon.

You don't state your assumptions.
757=Decoy Jet is stated as a fact, when it is really an incorrect assumption.
You assume that some parts of witness testimony are completely objective while others are not- and you give no reason for this assumption!
You assume that one witness testimony, and a self-contradictory one at that, invalidates all other contrary testimony- and again you give no reason for this assumption. It sure looks like trying to deliberately build a model that produces your desired result.

3) Identify important variables and constants and determine how they relate to each other.

Again, no attempt to define your variables.

Verifying and Refining a Model

Once the model has been developed and applied to the problem, your resulting model solution must be analyzed and interpreted with respect to the problem. The interpretations and conclusions should be checked for accuracy by answering the following questions:

* Is the information produced reasonable?
* Are the assumptions made while developing the model reasonable?
* Are there any factors that were not considered that could affect the outcome?
* How do the results compare with real data, if available?

No attempt from either you or your Jref followers to ask any of these questions. In fact, when others ask these questions, you mindlessly repeat:
"Where's your math?", again not even addressing criticism of your model.
This isn't science.

I'm not the one who misinterpreted Morin's account, or Paik's either. They fit together nicely without your spins to make it what you want it to be.

Paik placed the plane over the FOB. That does not fit Morin's parallel claim. You are yet again blatantly lying to save your strawman paper.

I don't need to debate [...]I've already won.

That quote sums you up rather nicely.
To see how to do real research, please visit this page.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

you just invalidated lagasse who said he was at a specific pump but the citgo video proved otherwise.

Stop being stupid. I said "completely different place". Would Lagasse's capacity to observe the plane be affected by being at a different pump?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

NO he is not saying some witness testimony is objective while others isn't. YOU ARE. Reheat understands that eyewitness testimony is not reliable. But your whole claim is based on it so he is showing how some witnesses testimony disagrees with your claims.

Reheats conclusions unlike yours are not based soley on eyewitness testimony, they are based on ALL the evidence. And using ALL the evidence it's easy to see how much of the eyewitness testimony is not accurate. And this problem alone makes your claims unreliable. Especially when compared to all the much more reliable evidence. In order for you to maintain your claim you have to be specific about which witnesses you choose as objective and which ones aren't. This is called cherry picking. And since you are cherry picking, Reheat is showing you all the things that show otherwise. And while you only see this as cherry picking, it's simply because you aren't getting it.

 

[A W Smith]

Stop being stupid. I said "completely different place". Would Lagasse's capacity to observe the plane be affected by being at a different pump?

Yes! he was under a canopy! Location is critical!

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

He says he "...saw another plane flying around the south parking lot". So where's the bit where he witnesses the flyover?

That was the flyover plane- its the only possibility.

Actually, there was another aircraft...a C-130 I believe, in the area, perhaps this was the "other aircraft" that this guy saw.

Besides the pilot stating that he didn't shadow the plane, its physically impossible for a C-130 to shadow a 600 mph 757. It could only be the flyover plane.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Yes! he was under a canopy! Location is critical!

Its altitude was around the height of the Pentagon. He could see it. He could also hear it. Stop playing stupid.

 

[Reheat]

While I don't consider you authoritative, how about a quote from you?

Gee, I'm terribly disappointed.

In other words, a constant descent, such as Morin describes, reduce g loads.

You are so far out in left field you're out of the ball park. I fully understand why you can't come up with an authoritative source other than tripe from Balsamo. Misinterpreting me won't hack it....

...<snip tripe>...

You also throw in Morin and Paik's testimony. You give precedence to Morin's account even when it contradicts both itself (if taken literally), Paik, and the NOC witnesses. You give no reason for preferring Morin- one can only assume it is because you set out to disprove CIT.

I interpreted Paik and Morin based on what THEY said and in Paik's case indicated with his hands, not your crap.

I understand that you are upset because I didn't make your delusion work. Yea, I get it.....

You do not attempt to define your variables, even when public information shows that they are wrong (e.g. the decoy jet being AA 77). You make no attempt to clarify these values with either CIT or PFt, and run away from their forums when challenged.

Bwhahahaha! You want me to consult CIT or pfffft, but I ran away. Yea, this is brilliant.

757=Decoy Jet is stated as a fact,

What decoy jet? No specific aircraft was assumed except for stall speed. The stall speed is typical for a transport category aircraft. I'm not going to repeat this stuff again.

"Where's your math?", again not even addressing criticism of your model.

Where's your math?

This isn't science.

As if you would know.

Paik placed the plane over the FOB. That does not fit Morin's parallel claim.

Then explain to someone who cares why he thought it hit the VDOT tower or why he gestured with his hands to indicate a path down Columbia Ave?

You are yet again blatantly lying to save your strawman paper.

You like that word, don't you. Why, is my paper going somewhere?

 

[A W Smith]

Its altitude was around the height of the Pentagon. He could see it. He could also hear it. Stop playing stupid.

So now you concede it was low enough to hit the pentagon?.

 

[Drs_Res]

I hate to tell you this, but he did not say anything about the height of the aircraft.
You are putting words into his mouth, and YOU are making an assumption that this other plane was shadowing AA77.

Opps, that's right you don't believe that it was flight AA77, you believe it was an F-16 or something else.

Tell me what happened to all of the people on AA77? You remember them, the people who's DNA was found in and around the crash site.

Let's hear your narrative of what happened to that aircraft and the people on it.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Hey, Let's Interpretate.....

Roberts:Ok. [indecipherable assumed: I was on] my overtime unit 156, which was scheduled to be at the heliport at 10:45 for a departing flight. So I was doing my release and, uh, coming towards that side of the building and I stopped at the south loading dock and I relieved one [break assumed: of the officers stationed there]. As I was sitting there there's a tv thats right there and all of a sudden a news flash came across the tv that said the World trade center has been bombed. First thing that came to my mind is New York City, because I'm from New York, and I started thinking about my parents. So after I thought about it I looked again and they said there was another plane coming on the television. Then my sarge, sargeant Woody, he called and he said "Hey Rob, listen we've gone to threat con delta(?)" I hang up the phone- the plane hit the building. Watching the tv it was almost timed for preciseness. As I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot- this is about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning.

LB,
Maybe you guys wanna leave Roberts out of it?
I have to wonder if you can count change. You can't do flight vectors, and now you can't tell time.
Let us read this more logically..... He's a pretty precise witness.

So the TV was reporting the WTC had been bombed. Right. That was in the first 15-20 minutes after WTC 1 was hit. And "there was another plane coming on the television"...... THAT WASN'T 77 !!!! He's talking about the one we all know was on television, UA175. His words make sense in no other way, because there ain't no footage of 77 heading for Washington, IS THERE?

So as he got off the phone the plane hit the building! You think he's talking about the Pentagon and he's talking about television... The hit on WTC 2.

You guys can't be serious.

And then his comment about it being around 9:12 or 9:11 when he saw some other plane? Well, the timing, right after the tv shots, would be possible, but I have no idea what plane he'd be talking about... (anyone know if there are records of recon or other flights checking out the Pentagon fifteen to twenty minutes before 77 hit?).... But if it's just minutes after 175 hit tower 2, there ain't no way even remotely witnessing 77.