Home          Evidence       Strategy       FAQ       Report       News       Contact

DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you


Pages: (4) [1] 2 3 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post )

 G Forces - Scene From 9/11: Attack On The Pentagon, mathematical proof of deception
Craig Ranke CIT
Posted: Sep 15 2008, 07:53 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 3,930
Member No.: 1
Joined: 29-August 07



An update to Pilots For 9/11 Truth Arlington Topography & Obstacles article.


Watch 13 minute short here


QUOTE

"G FORCES", a scene from the new film "9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON" produced by professional pilots, Aeronautical Engineers and physicists analyzes the G forces required for a 757 to negotiate the Arlington region on September 11, 2001 based on flight data provided by the US Govt.
user posted image

Get full high quality presentation on DVD here.



I can't stress enough how important this piece is.

This 13 minute clip alone is enough to prove the official story false.

The official flight path is an aeronautic impossibility and the mathematical proof is right here.

It has nothing to do with "ground effect".

It boils down to what can only be fraudulent data from the alleged black box and centers on the final descent & pull-up required for the plane to descend from the top of the VDOT antenna and hit the light poles while ending up perfectly low and level as shown in the security video and required by the physical damage.

Pay close attention to this critical information and I highly recommend you support Pilots for 9/11 Truth with a DVD purchase of the full feature presentation that also includes a full breakdown of virtually every single north side witnesses' POV in comparison to the official flight path.

From the impossible final descent, to the lack of foundation damage, to the north side witnesses, this presentation is the ULTIMATE breakdown of the MOST critical and definitive issues proving a military deception in Arlington on 9/11/2001.

An absolute MUST SEE!
biggrin.gif
Top
facilitatetruth
Posted: Sep 15 2008, 10:35 PM


Concerned Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 83
Member No.: 187
Joined: 26-July 08



Amazing video; thanks for posting this. The more sophisticated the 3-D simulations of the possible flight paths, the more apparent it becomes that the FDR data was fabricated. I think the problem has always been just getting people to look at and understand the evidence. This video is great because it is so concise and requires no 'mental models,' which ARE required with spoken-word expositions of the evidence.

When I went to the Citgo station, my main goal was to create mental models of all possible flight paths from government and eyewitness accounts and compare them to determine which was the most plausible or possible. This video does all that for you, and can only serve to make it easier for people to understand the evidence.
Top
riv
Posted: Sep 16 2008, 06:45 AM


Concerned Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 62
Member No.: 6
Joined: 2-December 07



What is funny is how many ppl spent their time trying to debunk the eyewitnesses (that's what they do, and they call it a "theory") but never tried to analyze the real problems of the NTSB approach described by the official data.
Top
facilitatetruth
Posted: Sep 16 2008, 08:09 AM


Concerned Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 83
Member No.: 187
Joined: 26-July 08



QUOTE (riv @ Sep 16 2008, 06:45 AM)
What is funny is how many ppl spent their time trying to debunk the eyewitnesses (that's what they do, and they call it a "theory") but never tried to analize the real problems of the NTSB approach described by the official data.

I agree - I spend a lot of time trying to understand and figure out what the debunkers' position actually is on this, and you are right - they just won't accept the data, either the eyewitness accounts or hard FDR data. I read JREF forum posts regularly, and they spend almost all of their time ridiculing eyewitnesses, and generally making excuses for the data instead of honestly accepting it.

One possible explanation for this is that CIT's evidence and the contradictions in the government's data itself is completely fatal to their arguments. Therefore, in order to hold the same position, the only option is to ridicule or make extremely elaborate "counter conspiracy" claims, such as claiming that the north side eyewitnesses are really a government-sponsored disinformation campaign. This is ridiculous for so many reasons, but it is the best that they have.

I have also seen explanations of the north side witnesses as "aberrations of the norm" meaning that in a given population, there is a statistical certainty that there will be an equal amount of eyewitnesses for both the north and south side flight path. Aside from that being untrue, it makes no sense. This theory can make no predictions and is useless. If this were true, we would see the same "aberrations" in the accounts of eyewitnesses for all crimes, and we just don't see that.

The JREF posters are also huge fans of pseudo-mathematics, and they think that if they write out some equations that look complicated, it can be used to "prove" their position. The problem is that the equations are improperly used and almost always have no bearing on the question at hand. "Bizarre Non-Sequitur" is the best term for those pseudo-scientific "papers" posted on the JREF forum.

I actually read those "papers" very carefully and always find that they are just an extremely long-winded explanation of an uncontroversial and unrelated fact, or they are completely inaccurately applied physics or math concepts. Unfortunately, they are convincing to many because it appears to be "backed up" with irrefutable math equations that the posters never bother to actually check out for themselves. It's the classic "believe me because I'm the expert" argument that NIST and government in general uses all the time. They are always asking Craig and Aldo for "math" to prove their theory. Well, I would answer that geometry IS math and the eyewitnesses have proven that the official damage could not have been caused by flight 77 because it is geometrically impossible.

Top
Craig Ranke CIT
Posted: Sep 16 2008, 11:18 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 3,930
Member No.: 1
Joined: 29-August 07



These gif images pretty much kill it!

user posted image

user posted image


user posted image
Top
facilitatetruth
Posted: Sep 28 2008, 02:24 PM


Concerned Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 83
Member No.: 187
Joined: 26-July 08



Is "9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON" a larger documentary containing the short you posted above? If so, where can you download this? I wasn't able to find it on their site, or on youtube or google video.
thanks!
Top
Craig Ranke CIT
Posted: Sep 28 2008, 04:06 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 3,930
Member No.: 1
Joined: 29-August 07



QUOTE (facilitatetruth @ Sep 28 2008, 10:24 PM)
Is "9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON" a larger documentary containing the short you posted above? If so, where can you download this? I wasn't able to find it on their site, or on youtube or google video.
thanks!

He hasn't released the full version online yet.

Please support P4T with a DVD purchase as the animations are infinitely better on DVD anyway.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/store
Top
facilitatetruth
Posted: Sep 28 2008, 08:02 PM


Concerned Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 83
Member No.: 187
Joined: 26-July 08



Craig-
Thanks for the link- I'll definitely buy the DVD.
Top
SPreston
Posted: Oct 13 2008, 06:17 AM


Concerned Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 59
Member No.: 36
Joined: 13-February 08



QUOTE (facilitatetruth @ Sep 28 2008, 06:24 PM)
Is "9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON" a larger documentary containing the short you posted above? If so, where can you download this? I wasn't able to find it on their site, or on youtube or google video.
thanks!

Rob has now provided the full video for download to your hard drive. The IPOD version downloads as a mp4. Find a player for mp4s and install it to your computer. However the DVD version is a much better quality. The mp4 version is good.

9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON - Official Release
Top
Craig Ranke CIT
Posted: Nov 29 2008, 09:38 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 3,930
Member No.: 1
Joined: 29-August 07



In fact I'd like to use this thread as a reference for some of the other critical Pilots for 9/11 Truth presentations.

I encourage everyone to study all of this extremely important information that ultimately proves the the official data irreconcilable with the physical evidence and therefore fraudulent.

1. Initial analysis of 2006 released NTSB animation reconstruction of alleged FDR information depicting a north side approach (although still inconsistent with eyewitnesses): American 77 Final Maneuver.

2. Break down regarding why the RAW data showing a SOUTHERN approach is STILL inconsistent with the physical evidence due to pitch, roll, and descent & bank angles: American 77 Flight Path version2 - In 3D.

3. Technical explanation regarding why the 2006 released NTSB provided alleged FDR data does NOT completely stop depicting critical values 6 seconds before alleged impact:
American 77 Flight Recorder Position Data

4. Animation reconstruction of Arlington National Cemetery employee William Middleton's point of view in relation to both the south and north side approaches:
Middleton - Scene From 9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON

5. Mathematical formulas based on hypothetical NoC flight paths demonstrating aeronautical possibility:
9/11: THE NORTH FLIGHT PATH: Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible
Top
Celtil
Posted: Dec 25 2009, 03:24 PM


Curious Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 35
Member No.: 1,133
Joined: 21-December 09



The official version requires that the flight 77 passes the antenna top of the VDOT?

It is a certainty?

In fact, the antenna determines the altitude of the aircraft at the Annex to the navy?

user posted image
Top
Craig Ranke CIT
Posted: Dec 25 2009, 04:10 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 3,930
Member No.: 1
Joined: 29-August 07



QUOTE (Celtil @ Dec 25 2009, 11:24 PM)
The official version requires that the flight 77 passes the antenna top of the VDOT?

It is a certainty?

In fact, the antenna determines the altitude of the aircraft at the Annex to the navy?



The "official version" requires it to be much higher.

Lowering it to the antenna is a generous hypothetical example but yeah, I suppose for the sake of argument you could say that it is possible to hypothetically be lower especially since the official flight path is actually a bit SOUTH of the antenna.

Either way the witnesses prove the plane was on the north side of Columbia Pike and the gas station proving it did not hit.

No other arguments are relevant when considering this independent verifiable evidence proving that the plane did not hit.
Top
Celtil
Posted: Dec 25 2009, 04:53 PM


Curious Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 35
Member No.: 1,133
Joined: 21-December 09



It is an important point that i knew not.

I understand better the animation of PF9T.

The PF9T simulates the impact of the plane with a great pole. Before road-sign. The great pole has not been touched in reality ...

In animation of PF9T. Assuming a passage from the south of the VDOT antenna. The second pole is not touched. we know it was toppled in reality

Pilot for 911 truth

01:05.



But I'm not sure I understood. Even the official path does not include some elements that should be touched?

Ie if the aircraft passes through the south of the VDOT antenna?


Okay, if the passage above the antenna is required. The G are too important.


It's simple and this is evidence. Nobody should be able to contradict this.
Top
Celtil
Posted: Dec 25 2009, 05:31 PM


Curious Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 35
Member No.: 1,133
Joined: 21-December 09



QUOTE
Either way the witnesses prove the plane was on the north side of Columbia Pike and the gas station proving it did not hit.


For defenders of the official version, the witnesses are to be ignored.

Therefore all points must be developed...So they will not choice.
Top
Celtil
Posted: Dec 27 2009, 03:45 PM


Curious Citizen


Group: Member
Posts: 35
Member No.: 1,133
Joined: 21-December 09



Do you know why some have not the same result as PF9T?

Exemple:


user posted image


Calculations:

G force 1

G force 2

I am not a physicist, but I do not understand why results are so differents?
Top
« Next Oldest | Pentagon | Next Newest »
InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free

Topic OptionsPages: (4) [1] 2 3 ... Last »



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.1193 seconds | Archive