REHEAT, REASONING, RADII
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
June 12 2008
a bit rough
Note: Lest Reheat think I'm being too harsh on purpose, lemme just say, nah! This is important work and he's right in general, I'm sure. I've just spotted a few things, and I'm such a contrarian...
JREF member and anonymous retired Air Force pilot “Reheat” has been offering mathematical proof of the impossibility of CIT’s NoC flight path for a while now. His new paper Debunking the North of Citgo Theory, as published at 911myths.com, further develops the theme, and spurs me to finally note his work. This additional nail in the coffin is couched as “an analysis of the aerodynamics required based upon witness testimony,” a novel approach to the north path analysis – check if it’s possible before asserting it happened and proves that other things didn’t. It’s encouraging to me that someone else feels it’s worth the time to engage this silliness earnestly. I often feel hoodwinked for arguing against something so stupid, but I have nothing to blame but my own obsession. And Reheat has taken issue with the same theory and gone and done math about it – imagine how twisted his mind must be!
His assertion, in this paper and previously, that “the calculations are aircraft type independent” has caused some confusion, and the first thing I did was ask him to clarify. To summarize as I understand it, these numbers WILL apply to any fixed-wing aircraft in the presumed turn, but exactly HOW the G-forces apply depends on the craft. F-16 could do better than 757 with the same turn. The details still escape me a bit, and so I’ll just let the paper speak for itself and offer Brainster’s accurate summary that Reheat has “taken the Morin and Paik flight paths, and then shown the turns necessary to be where the Citgo witnesses claim, then done the calculations to show the stress that the planes [sic] would have experienced trying to make those maneuvers, and that they would have stalled out.”
What I can offer now is some focus on the operative concepts and logic behind this effort, where CIT and allies have claimed straw man, faith-based argument, general scumminess, and disinfo. Unless I’m reading wrong, they have some cause to complain. The paper explains the start point, with witnesses “Edward Paik and Terry Morin who place the aircraft flying parallel to Columbia Pike. There is no problem with this portion of the testimony as it was stated, without CIT’s spin.” The problem is that CIT’s spin is part of what they have decided and the reason this proposed flight path exists to debunk in the first place.
Reheat places Morin where he actually describes himself, but has the path going directly over him there, in a straight line directly parallel to the Pike/FoB edge that has no turn at all from Paik’s position (Paik>Morin listed as requiring 0 degrees of turn). This is the red line in graphics below, on a heading of 72 deg, which is close to reality I’m sure, but not fit for this exercise. Paik himself drew several paths crossing the annex at an oblique angle, which must be ignored to use only gestures from an earlier testimony. And according to CIT, Morin was north of the spot Reheat chose, between the wings of the Annex, as they decided with this ridiculous graphic. Marquis: “when he saw the plane for the brief instant it would appeared parallel to the outer edge of the FOB-which, again, is where the flight path was at; the outer edge Also I am sure he meant it figuratively and not literally, since he can't see the entire flight path.” [not their path from this location anyway – source]
In short, the way I see it, if you want to debunk CIT’s flight path, you need to realize it’s a fiction THEY wrote based on certain interpretations and take those into account – like ignoring the low impact aspects of their Noc witnesses. We’re already factoring that out and presuming a flyover and looking here at lateral turns, NEWS. They did not propose a path literally parallel to the FOB, so including one will distort the path. And it puts one in the line of arguably valid straw man accusations.
Next: a bit technical, sort-of. To be sure I understood the concept behind his turn radii, I stripped away the numbers and made it visual, which helps me. I looked first (and only) at the most moderate curve. I connected the Morin point to the NoC 1 pin, then drew in a simu-curve (orange) to average the heading change more realistically.
Next I checked the headings at Morin and att NoC 1 and found app. 72 and 40, for a change of 32°, which is a bit off from the numbers on the chart, but close enough for what I’m doing here. Then I set a circle around the R1 pin and found it traced that same curve. So this is the right center presuming the plane started south of the Annex at Morin’s location. From there we have another center point for the second turn to impact, this time labeled P1. (“The tags P1, P2, and P3 are the center points of the turn radii for the NoC locations to the impact point at the Pentagon.”) Following the same pattern, we get a curve like this: Which gives us a final flight path like this for NoC1: Now I understand maybe that's part of the point here, but CIT never proposed anything like that, and never needed to. As whoever it was stated in response, Reheat “twists it (pun intended) even more with an S-Turn? Now there is no doubt in my mind why he wants to remain anonymous. Too funny. He must really be desperate to put an S-Turn in there.” Indeed, if I’m reading it right, there is a pronounced S-curve to the proposed path while CIT’s proposed NoC path is all one arc (blue above, their most moderate proposal). Yes, this means Morin was really fudging, but who can disprove that? It's not much further from what Paik drew - his exact lines works for neither official nor NoC paths without fudging. Reheat’s initial straight path as far as the FoB has an edge to run along requires a left and then right bank, whereas CIT has argued for a single right bank over the whole span and crossing the building. These are two different flight paths.
And as far as the degree of the second turn, JFK’s criticism – for once anyway - seems valid here. Unless I’m missing something, there’s no reason “the tags P1, P2, and P3” need to be THE “center points of the turn radii for the NoC locations to the impact point at the Pentagon.” It doesn’t need to fly the full arc 180° - it could fly nearly straight after the Citgo starting from a less northerly heading there. Let me help out here with a possibility:
Someone else can crunch the numbers on that.
If nothing else, this episode illustrates the absurdity of trying to concoct a real flight path from witnesses by focusing on discrepancies rather than correlation, and the dangers of selective reading - someone, or some part, always has to get thrown under the bus. And besides, if someone "must really be desperate to put an S-Turn in there,” someone needs to look into the chaps who put out this desperate s-s-s-swerve a while back and started all these tortured calculations.