Sunday, September 21, 2008


September 21 2008
possible updates

For what it's worth, Pilots For 9/11 Truth recently released a new video based on math and stupid, that tries to say some stuff about the Pentagon attack. They're hoping to sell it, and so maybe have a breakthrough to push it with, like finally deciding on a theory of what did happen rather than just raising leading questions pointing towards no plane hit, held back out of "professional caution" and responsibility. LMAO. Please do not buy it, unless you support their long-running practical joke on gullible suckers. I don't even plan to watch it, but their talking points about the video focus on the presence of some serious math to correct their earlier egregious errors, months in the process of correcting. I'm fully capable of understanding the formulas I either failed to learn or forgot after High School, but only with the kind of time and attention I won't devote to facts whose only purpose is to debunk stupid shit I already know is wrong. Therefore, for those inclined to follow the math, especially those who lean towards believing the video, here is a link to John farmer's posts breaking down the "errors."

PFT Fantasy Flight Path and further analysis.

Myself, I don't feel like wasting any time on this. But if I change my mind, I'll plunk more stuff into this link. This is quite sparse, so I'm sure I'll have to add something.
Their G-Force on final descent analysis was relesed for viewing in a promo short video. Essentially, it’s a response to their epic 11.2 G error (admitted even!), first proposed in the Arlington Topography piece earlier this year. The correction was several months in the making, and only slightly different - 10.14G in the best case scenario. Now 11.2 Gs was waaaay off from what everyone more reasonable found, and it would appear the reason for the still-large gap is that peoples’ presumptions differed. His descent path is shown here in yellow, my notes added.
They presume, as I knew, a descent from just above the antenna tower to low enough to strike the first light pole by the time it got there. Two problems – it did indeed have to end where they show, but not start. The antenna tower is maybe 5 feet wide, and there’s no evidence if it was directly over, to the left, or to the right of it. All we know is close, and judging by eyewitness accounts, it was considerably lower than the top, so either left or right (and I’m banking on left, or north).
Terry Morin: “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.”
Edward Paik: "It almost hit my roof [...] If [the plane was a] little bit lower… it would have hit the [Navy Annex] building almost it seemed like. [The wing] knocked down the antenna… the plane was in the middle of the road… that’s why it hit the Antenna."

There is some evidence the antenna may well have been damaged, but it's not conclusive. If true, this would leave PffT's initial altitude presumption nearly correct, and contradicts the lowness described by both Morin and Paik. What correlates is a plane tens of feet above the Annex roof, I'd say closer to 30-50 feet above rather than 90-110 above as PfffT decide is the "lowest possible." It would be laterally quite near the tower, near enough to seem to have impacted it near the top. This would put it over Columbia Pike, and and running near-parallel the building's edge. Numerous witnesses (including Paik via gestures and Morin via seeing stripes on one side) confirm the plane was in a mild left bank, with right wing high. If the plane passed north of the tower, the right wingtip would be nearest the tower and its antenna at the top.

So, the descent from altitude, at the very least, cannot resonably be presumed as directly above the tower, greatly effecting the steepness of the resultant dive to the light poles. Second, and more important, the nature of the dive change is at issue – he has a sudden pivot, two straight lines bumping into each other, rather than like an actual plane's single uninterrupted parabolic curving movements. Ooops! My first comment was that this descent “has been sponsored by the letter L,” ala Sesame Street, and Reheat and other JREFers aptly took to calling it the ‘hockey stick’ descent. [Horatius did a funny comic strip on it] Apply sharp corners to “alleged” flight paths and you’ll force all change to one point and get unrealistic G-force calculations. Thanks PfffT for illustrating bad reasoning at work. Now just up the volume on the certainty language and demands for phone debates, and you can perhaps at least provoke people into wasting time, as a consolation prize for not being accurate.

Discussion on the G-Force video:
Pilots For 911 Truth
Above Top Secret
CIT forum


Anonymous said...

In a previous life Rob Balsamo was either a pimp or a con artist. To all those who might want to buy the truth from this con artist please send the money to me. At least I won't pretend it's for the greater good like Rob does. I'll be honest and say it's for my own personal gain.

Caustic Logic said...

Now that's the 9/11 Truth!

Where are we NOT seeing that? Orwellianly enough, at least one group with "for 9/11 Truth" attached.