The "variable" SOC myth

onesliceshort
A Regular Jim Garrison
onesliceshort
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: April 29th, 2009, 10:11 pm

May 23rd, 2010, 2:53 pm #1

Please read this through guys because it is VITAL that we know that when we see detractors intending to somehow intermingle their interpretation of the "SOC path" into some unconfirmed online media testimonies.
This is pure bullshit. There is only ONE SOC path that corraborates the directional damage.

This thread debunks BOTH loyalist detractors and alleged "truther" detractors, especially towards the end but it is recommended that it is read through.

Here are a couple of random totally contradictory quotes from the swamp (which alleged 'truthers' are now clinging to):

Beachnut wrote:"Sorry, 77 was going 483 KIAS and it was flying a true track course of 61.5 degree for the last few seconds, so your failed NoC is pure nonsense based on delusional rants of idiots at CIT."


His much repeated flightpath image:



His 0.52 mile figure actually goes back to this point:



(0.52 mile = 2 745.6 feet)

and

"It does not matter what you make up the FDR has 61.2 to 61.5 degree for the last 22 seconds"

BCR has taken the time to get RADAR data from multiple sites which confirm 77's flight path and match the FDR information."

"Do you have something to refute the 61.5 degree true track course of Flight 77 stored in the FDR which lines up with the damage to the Pentagon and lampposts?"


Then in the same thread..

Jaydeehess wrote:No, he (Morin) is merely a little off. Less than the wingspan of the aircraft unlike Middleton who is at least off by 5 times the wingspann of the aircraft.


Mangoose wrote:"The plane was at the 8th Wing of the Navy Annex, that is where he witnessed it at that point. He places the plane approximately where the Air Force Memorial is now -- that is indeed a little over the Navy Annex but still on the south side of the Annex. Drawing a line from Morin's initial position and the Air Force Memorial would put the plane heading on the south side of the CITGO."

"He put the plane practically on top of him and he said that the plane would hit the Air Force Memorial if it had existed then. Plot a line and see where that takes you. Not "north of the Citgo".


ALL making up their own paths and changing them when the argument suits.

No more.

There are an array of "paths" that posters ambiguously 'hint' at while never defining, that may be considered by them as 'within' a range of paths labelled under the 'official flightpath' even though they do NOT line up with the directional damage and contradict both the NTSB course/heading data AND Stutt's 'right roll' data, wholly accepted without question and recorded through the entire path in question.

(I'm in no way advocating Stutt's authenticity but it IS data which detractors are now married to.)


The NTSB FDR decode by P4t, Warren Stutt's decode, the directional damage AND the "consolidated path" of Farmer ALL place the plane on ONE specific course.

TRUE HEADING CAPT values in Warren's decode change from 59.8º to 61.2º (a difference of 1.4º) from before the Sheraton Hotel.

TRACK ANGLE TRUE (Course) values change from 61.2º to 61.5º (a difference of 0.3º)

For the laymen amongst us...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_navigation



This is significant.

"For argument sake, if we go with between 0.3º to a 1.4º change in course over such a short period of time, when we are dealing with an aircraft traveling at more than 450 knots over a 5 second period, there isnt going to be much variation from "straight" (for want of a better word) with a less than a degree course change. Its less than the width of the fuselage over that distance.The 1.4 deg difference is less than the width of the wingspan over the full 5 seconds."

Rob Balsamo


To give an idea of how insignificant this course change actually is over 3,208ft:

0º :

http://i43.tinypic.com/29vxcn5.jpg

1.4º over the same distance:

http://i40.tinypic.com/34twg.jpg

The actual lateral change in course is only 100ft over this distance:






In simple terms this would give us a 10ft change in course every 320ft.

OR

Given the aircraft was allegedly flying at 540mph+/781fps according to the data

781/320 = 2.44
=2.44 x 10 (feet shift)
=24.4 ft shift in course per second.

The point in question begins at datapoint 151363 in Warren Stutt's OWN plotted path

http://i42.tinypic.com/334htzd.jpg

The distance from this point to Route 27 is roughly 4,056ft.

http://i40.tinypic.com/ic3fp2.jpg

4,056(ft distance to Route 27) / 320(ft necessary to change course by TEN feet) = 12.675 (points at which the plane will have laterally displaced by 10 feet)

10 x 12.675 = 126.75ft

Given the data, the aircraft would have shifted by 126.75ft over 5 seconds. Or roughly the width of the wingspan.



Again, Stutt's decode points to a 'straight' path for 7 seconds with NO left bank manouevre up to Route27.
Even HE presented this image on said trajectory based on his data decode:

Duration of right bank data

Positive values seen depict a right roll in his own decode:

http://i49.tinypic.com/2hcnaqo.jpg

There are NO negative values in these last 7 seconds.

This path is not open to the 'margin of error' argument given ALL of these points.

1) No approach parallel to the Navy Annex or "straight down" Columbia Pike is to be found in ANY data (FDR or RADES). Nor is it witness compatible.

2) According to Warren Stutt's heading/course data, which posters there (JREF or whereever) are 100% behind and promote, throughout this entire stretch from before the Sheraton to Route 27 there is between 0.3º to 1.4º change in course.

3) Warren Stutt's data regarding the roll angle shows the aircraft at point 151363

http://i41.tinypic.com/xepett.jpg

in a 5.6º RIGHT roll, increasing to 6.3º and steadily decreasing to 2.8º at Route 27. NO LEFT ROLL recorded.

Furthermore..

"I agree that the TRACK ANGLE TRUE (Course) and the PRES POSN values from which I plotted my path indicate the aircraft travelled in a fairly straight line relative to the ground despite the roll angle. I still think this could possibly be due to changes in wind speed and direction encountered by the aircraft as it was flying.

Regards,
Warren. "


CONCLUSION:

DETRACTORS CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW ANY OTHER PATH IS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE OR WHERE IT IS DOCUMENTED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM IN ANY DATA.
NOR CAN THEY PRESENT ONE "SOC WITNESS" AS OPPOSED TO THE OVERWHELMING NOC TESTIMONY.



Now for the juicy bit...

Detractors among the (alleged) "truther" camp such as Brian Good, Chris Sarns and a few "groupie trolls" that have thrown their hats into the ring, have decided to attack the NOC testimony by using the totally illogical argument that the FDR MAY HAVE BEEN fake. The "5 frames" MAY HAVE BEEN fake, that the NOC witnesses MAY be right but also push the paradoxical claim that CIT has "lied" about the existence of "SOC witnesses" and have presented convuluted "paths" from media quotes and bastardized interpretations of Terry Morin's description of what he claimed to see, totally ignoring the 100% verification of which side of the Citgo the plane flew on by people in a MUCH better position!

What they fail to do is take into account THE set of data that binds both these camps and makes any other scenario scribbled onto a map a physical impossibility, never mind the fact that NOBODY is on record as describing the final moments of the plane according to all the officially released data above. The directional damage path.

All other data is open to "clouding" and twisting to an extent but the directional damage path is non-negotiable.

The "consolidated path" (of RADES/FDR) as termed by John farmer and officially recognized is this:



One example of such a path was presented by AwSMITH over at JREF concerning a totally debunked presentation of his regarding the "shadow" the Paik brothers witnessed.
His math was totally wrong yet he presented this path to "back up" his claim as to what Paik was describing:



(Bear with me, as ANY OTHER PATH presented raises the same problems)

The variable course changes necessary to line up with the directional damage:



This path follows a 61.24º trajectory.
Over this distance, for the aircraft to somehow line up with the directional damage, a change of course/heading is needed of at least 4º. This change in course of 4º is necessary within a 3.7 second time period. WITHOUT a left roll.

The lateral parallel distance between these two paths is roughly 150ft.

Datapoint -3 on the 'consolidated path' is allegedly 2.7 seconds from lightpole 1

2,158ft/781 (fps = 540mph)

=2.725 seconds

From the AWSmith (totally debunked by Rob Balsamo) shadow math position to datapoint -3 would require:

@80º - 61.24 = @18.76º change in course over 545ft

To datapoint -2

69.77º - 61.24º = 8.53º change in course over 1,294 feet

To datapoint -1

66.45º - 61.24º = 5.21º change in course over 2100 feet

REM: A TOTAL of 1.4º change in course/heading is recorded in the FDR according to Warren Stutt's data over 4,056 ft

This manouevre did NOT happen.
Given the data the aircraft MUST be on the directional damage path.
There can NOT physically be any diversions from the last alleged recorded datapoints. Especially from points -4 and -3 on the 'consolidated path'/NTSB heading/course data and directional damage path which runs through the area in question.

If certain detractors claim that they don't believe any of the FDR data (hence an inside job but hey...more important to attack CIT than get to the "truth" huh?) they MUST explain why nobody describes the all important MINIMUM 45º LEFT bank from BEFORE the poles (even at the lower witnessed speed of 300 knots) and which would have resulted in lightpole 1 and/or 2 being missed completely by the wings.

Various detractors claim that a lesser bank would have sufficed (without actually backing it up) but no matter...

The following gif is a representation of what the plane WOULD have looked like if it had followed "Broken Sticks" path.



At a minimum 45º bank how the hell could the plane have struck the poles when there was very LITTLE margin of error as can be seen here?



The wingspan of a Boeing757-200 is @ 125 feet. Each wing measuring 50 feet.



The distance between lightpole 1 and 2 is roughly 165 feet.
Given the obstacles of the VDOT camera mast and the overhead sign, the right wingtip just passes to allegedly strike lightpole 1, leaving a margin of error of a few feet to strike lightpole 2.

(Ligon, I believe has a more detailed thread on this - I'll link to it later)

The unfounded, physically contradictory claims that the plane could somehow follow ANY other path THEN line up with the directional damage, whether at 350 or 540 mph at a minimum 45º bank angle is a falsehood. Plain and simple.

This is what a plane looks like at this angle:



Go here and check out the trigonometry:

http://www.visualtrig.com/Default.aspx

125 feet being the wingspan of the plane:



The opposite wing will be at a perpendicular height of 88.4ft!

The distance between the wingtips laterally is 88.4 ft.

Either one of the wings would have crashed into the overpass bridge where lightpoles 1 and 2 are, or would have completely missed.

Even a 25º angle produces a 52.8ft perpendicular height.

A lateral distance of 113.3 ft.

The lightpoles are 40 ft tall. The poles are 165ft apart.

Because of this specific trajectory it is alleged that the wingtips were just about able to reach both lightpoles 1 and 2 at a distance of 125ft (+3 or 4 ft)

Even at FIVE DEGREES bank angle the lateral distance is 124.5 ft.
According to the directional damage path which is exclusive to any bullshit figures, data or hypotheses, the PLANE HAD TO BE IN ALMOST PARALLEL FLIGHT TO HAVE HAD ANY HOPE OF STRIKING THE LIGHTPOLES.



ANY OTHER SCENARIO IS A MYTH.
NOT ONLY MUST THE PLANE BE SOC BUT MUST LINE UP WITH THE DIRECTIONAL DAMAGE PATH AS OUTLAID IN THE OFFICIAL PATH WELL BEFORE THE LIGHTPOLES


Now that it's PHYSICALLY debunked, look at the witness statements of the plane's description as it approaches and crosses Route 27.

Jeff Hill's interview with Penny Elgas who was ON Route 27:

"I SAW ONE WING STRAIGHT AT ME AND THE END OF THAT WING I SAW FROM UNDER THE PLANE BECAUSE IT WOBBLED, IT TIPPED..TOWARDS THAT FAR WING, THE OTHER WING, *JUST TIPPED ENOUGH*"


Albert Hemphill

As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment


Lincoln Liebner

I told them the plane came in full throttle, level, flaps up, wheels up..


Cissell James R.

Looking at the trajectories in the diagrams they have online seems off to me. I remember the plane coming in more directly at the side of the building than at an angle," said Cissell


Mike Dobbs
Fourth floor window of Pentagon.

It was an American airlines airliner. I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy annex at a slow angle. It looked to me to be on a zero-to-zero course

(...)

At first I thought it was trying to crash land, but it was coming in so deliberately, so level..
.


All 3 witnesses at the Citgo drew a map that shows a straight line.
No acute left bank manouevres. And of course, NOC.
All 4 maps drawn by the ANC workers depict a slight RIGHT bank. NO sharp LEFT bank.And NOC.

Sean Boger describes the right bank also and makes no mention of the NECESSARY (and impossible) sharp left bank and levelling out within a 1.5 second timeframe (given the speed he described) from Route 27.

There are TWO choices. Either the plane flew SOC AND is consistent with the directional damage path in almost parallel flight OR the plane flew NOC making the damage impossible. THERE ARE NO GREY AREAS.
















Quote
Like
Share

rSpieker
Concerned Citizen
rSpieker
Concerned Citizen
Joined: January 25th, 2009, 7:11 pm

May 23rd, 2010, 5:47 pm #2

Wow, that was a big impressive work.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

But do you really think that this will convince them?

The devil is in the details
Quote
Like
Share

onesliceshort
A Regular Jim Garrison
onesliceshort
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: April 29th, 2009, 10:11 pm

May 23rd, 2010, 7:56 pm #3

rSpieker @ May 23 2010, 09:47 AM wrote:Wow, that was a big impressive work.
:thumbsup:  :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:

But do you really think that this will convince them?



Cheers man :)

Nooo way. The "detractors" of CIT have an agenda. They don't want to be "convinced".

This is just to show that when they pull their own "paths" out of their ass, which usually entails them plotting a "weaving path" over short distances to try and fit with their interpretation of unconfirmed media reports, etc, that the physics
must be compatible too. Particularly regarding the alleged sharp left bank and immediate levelling out to line up with the damage.

Here are two maps drawn on the same PAGE by lunatic, CIT hater Brian Good



I pointed out that Morin described the fact that from his POV, that if the Navy Memorial had been there, the plane would have struck it.
(And that ALL NOC witnesses contradicted the path and that NOBODY describes an SOC path but he conveniently ignored this)

He promptly changed it to this



1. Between the trees in front of the Annex and the Citgo, he has changed the plane's course by 5º+ in what would be tenths of a second (at both official and witnessed speed). A minimum 45º bank is required according to P4T.

2. The plane must go into an even sharper left bank, which nobody reported seeing.

3. It must level out again within a second again to a maximum 5º bank to strike lightpoles 1 and 2.

4. The prick didn't even bother to line up the damage correctly.

5. Of course, the NOC witnesses totally contradict it.

ALL "paths" invented by these fools are cancelled out by the physical damage and the necessary manouevre to line up with and be able to strike the poles.

I'd like to work on it more, but it should put a stop to them confusing some people in that it takes away their much used method of "muddying the waters".

Sorry for the long post man lol.

Quote
Like
Share

KP50
Citizen Researcher
KP50
Citizen Researcher
Joined: September 24th, 2008, 9:00 am

May 24th, 2010, 12:35 am #4

Good post OSS.

The CIT bashers don't worry which flightpath theory they support as long as the flightpath contradicts the NoC path detailed in National Security Alert. Hence there is a loose alliance of

NoC but hit Pentagon.
NoC but hit lightpoles.
Over Annex but SoC and hit lightpoles.
Official flightpath south of Columbia Pike.

etc etc.

The proponents of each of these theories never disagree with each other, only with CIT and are more than willing to quote from JREF or any other debunking sources.

KP
Quote
Like
Share

onesliceshort
A Regular Jim Garrison
onesliceshort
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: April 29th, 2009, 10:11 pm

May 24th, 2010, 2:14 am #5

KP50 @ May 23 2010, 04:35 PM wrote: Good post OSS.

The CIT bashers don't worry which flightpath theory they support as long as the flightpath contradicts the NoC path detailed in National Security Alert. Hence there is a loose alliance of

NoC but hit Pentagon.
NoC but hit lightpoles.
Over Annex but SoC and hit lightpoles.
Official flightpath south of Columbia Pike.

etc etc.

The proponents of each of these theories never disagree with each other, only with CIT and are more than willing to quote from JREF or any other debunking sources.

KP

Cheers mate.

I really did it for neutrals and undecided watching any "debate" about the "paths" you mentioned.

The fact about the bank angle having to be almost parallel to have any chance of striking the lightpoles is the clincher in pissing on their "theories".
That coupled with nobody seeing a "left bank" of any description also puts a spanner in the works.

I would advise just to link to it any time anybody sees them start this crap.
Thing about these people is that they like to enter "debates" where there is oppurtunity to spin and twist (Good being the perfect example - 67 pages of it! lol)

The very fact that they have no qualms at all about linking to duhbunker sites shows the type of "truther" they really are.

OSS

Quote
Like
Share