Regarding 'Debunking the North of the Citgo Theory'

[TheLoneBedouin]

Funny stuff! So a special vectored thrust aircraft which doesn't exist was created just to fly North of the Citgo and make you a famous investigator.

There's something really disturbing about people who can lie with such impunity.

 

[pomeroo]

There's something really disturbing about people who can lie with such impunity.

Well, you might want to invest in a dictionary. "Impunity" does not mean what you think it does. On the subject of conspiracy liars, it is truly disturbing that agenda-driven ignoramuses can lie with such brazen disregard for reason and evidence.

To summarize your efforts to date:

Roughly 100 people are on record as having witnessed a plane crash into the Pentagon.

Nobody witnessed a flyover.

Wreckage of the aircraft was found inside the Pentagon and on the lawn.

Remains of the passengers and crew found inside the Pentagon were identified by DNA testing conducted at the Dover Port Mortuary.

YOUR BASELESS FANTASY IS DEAD.

 

[R.Mackey]

You've got to be kidding! Vectored thrust on, at a minimum, an airplane that could easily be mistaken for a 757.

Oh dear FSM, can it get any more stupid? I'd think vectored thrust on engines located out on the wing might just tear them off the plane... but hey I'm not a genius truther with common sense.

Just to inject some education into yet another utterly baffling thread...

... there IS such an animal: http://www.aviastar.org/air/germany/dorn_do-31.php

I saw this in the Deustcher Museum's aero wing at OberschleiBheim.

Fascinating aircraft, and a piece of trivia that I thought I'd never use.

No, it wasn't flying around the Pentagon, and no, it couldn't pull off those turns either. And "mistaken for a 757" is a stretch, but at least it is a transport.

ETA: One could also call the V-22 Osprey and its predecessors a "mixed mode" aircraft, i.e. neither fixed nor rotary wing, and they are transports too. But hardly something to confuse with AA 77, and I believe it actually has a lower g-limit.

 

[Reheat]

... there IS such an animal: http://www.aviastar.org/air/germany/dorn_do-31.php

Unfortunately, you've let the cat out of the bag and he'll go find a witness who saw one...

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

e^n, do you agree that Reheat's model is definitely inaccurate?

 

[R.Mackey]

Unfortunately, you've let the cat out of the bag and he'll go find a witness who saw one...

I dare him.

As you might have guessed if you know anything about VTOL, an aircraft like this isn't seen as much as heard. It's not exactly going to fit the narrative, no matter how heavily witness statements are quote-mined or interpreted. And it would have no chance to escape unnoticed.

Vectored thrust isn't the right solution to this problem anyway, as we already commented some months back. It helps with rapid changes of attitude, short-field performance, and hover, but it has almost no impact on an aircraft's ultimate turn radius. If anything, the massive fuel consumption and strict thrust-to-weight requirements VTOL places on the airframe will actually hurt -- turning in a VTOL tends to be limited by inlet performance, whereas a more conventional aircraft wouldn't have this problem.

A specially built F-15 with a super-duper hotshot pilot, I might believe pulling a brief 12 g maneuver, for instance. That will never happen with a Harrier, and certainly not a VTOL/vectored thrust transport.

If this is really what the Pilots For Truth have come up with, it makes me wonder if they know anything about aircraft at all.

 

[WildCat]

TheLoneBedouin, does this part found at the Pentagon come from a missile or an airplane other than a 757?

 

[Reheat]

If this is really what the Pilots For Truth have come up with, it makes me wonder if they know anything about aircraft at all.

Oh, some of them know, but it get's enhanced by the "know nothings" in the group. If you've read through the thread, ahem...... you just encountered one tonight.

Good analysis of VTOL/vectored thrust, BTW, I hadn't given it much more than a passing thought as it was too ridiculous to seriously consider.

The problem is that he doesn't understand the incredible G that the F-15/F-16/F-22 can pull.

He still thinks vectored thrust is his messiah after I shot down variable wing sweep.....

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

TheLoneBedouin, does this part found at the Pentagon come from a missile or an airplane other than a 757?

I don't know- but it didn't come from AA 77.

 

[WildCat]

I don't know- but it didn't come from AA 77.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

The problem is that he doesn't understand the incredible G that the F-15/F-16/F-22 can pull.

He still thinks vectored thrust is his messiah after I shot down variable wing sweep.....

There is no need for a messiah- you didn't model the witness statements accurately. No one saw the plane fly parallel to the annex. Quit playing stupid.

 

[beachnut]

Unfortunately, you've let the cat out of the bag and he'll go find a witness who saw one...

What model is this new truther talking about? ! He has not said one thing that makes sense.

 

[pomeroo]

I don't know- but it didn't come from AA 77.

The FBI says you are wrong. Now, stop wasting time and explain why the FBI would consent to be an integral part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy.

(All together now) WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

 

[Reheat]

There is no need for a messiah- you didn't model the witness statements accurately. No one saw the plane fly parallel to the annex. Quit playing stupid.

So, by your rules Morin is a liar.

 

[beachnut]

I don't know- but it didn't come from AA 77.

Wrong, first try. Do you get extra credit 9/11 truth points for not using evidence?
It helps if you offer proof, in the form of real evidence, not talk, when you make up stuff.

Guess you can guess the correct answer now. I have used this method of answering questions, but it does not look good.
WAG

 

[WildCat]

I don't know- but it didn't come from AA 77.

Do you think maybe it has a serial number on it?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

There is no 'second plane'- that's the point.

So what happened to the shadowing plane?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

If this is really what the Pilots For Truth have come up with, it makes me wonder if they know anything about aircraft at all.

I stopped wondering that a long time ago.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

An FDR may have been recovered. But it doesn't seem likely that the FOIA data came from it.

Uhh... are you suggesting that they accidentally released the data from a plane that never crashed? Or are you suggesting they released fake data that accidentally proves the NoC and flyover claims to be "true"?

So, by your rules Morin is a liar.

Of course. That's why they had to "interpret" his account.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

So, by your rules Morin is a liar.

No. It contradicts his own testimony. It contradicts everyone else's testimony. We don't even know if this is his testimony since it is second-hand- in Craig's interview Morin indicated he was in between wings 4 and 5.