Pilots for 9/11 Truth- Anyone familiar with this claim?

[Btodd]

I've had a new one thrown at me (I'm not up to speed on the Pilots for 9/11 Truth stuff). Among the many ridiculous claims that 'Hani Hanjour couldn't have done it", this one was thrown out.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html

The above, after stipulating its evidence and reasoning, concludes that it is: "Impossible for any transport category aircraft to descend from top of VDOT Antenna to top of pole 1 and pull level to "impact hole" as reported by the government story and seen in the DoD "5 Frames Video". 11.2 G's was never recorded in the FDR. 11.2 G's would rip the aircraft apart."


While I'm aware of the sham that the entire website is, I would like to refute the claim itself, instead of simply ripping into the sham itself. Otherwise, it's labeled an 'ad hom' to point out when people are fraudulent. I know nothing about aviation, so I was wondering if this has been covered here.:)

[WildCat]

Discussed here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109066

[DGM]

Discussed here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109066
To death I might add.

[Btodd]

Discussed here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109066

Thank you, WildCat.

[Myriad]

Not only is it familiar, it gets more familiar every time I go there to check whether Rob Balsamo has fixed the elementary calculation errors in it. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3525856#post3525856)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Wildy]

To death I might add.

Everything is discussed to death here. We might as well just start making up fanciful strawmen to debunk because the "truth" movement isn't going to come up with anything new.

[Anti-sophist]

Just to distill all the nonsense, the link you provided contains the following errors...

1) He uses tons of unfounded and silly assumptions in his calculation
2) His calculation is still done incorrectly. The first error occurs on this line:


97.5/32 fps accel due to gravity = 3.0 G's + 1 G = 4 Gs
97.5 in his calculation is a height measured in feet.
32 is the acceleration due to gravity. Despite the fact that he's incorrectly labeled it as "feet per second" the correct unit is "feet per second per second".

His calculation effectively says that a height divided by an acceleration equals a g-force. That is completely incorrect. A g-force is an acceleration in question divided by the normal acceleration due to the earth's gravity. It's a ratio of acceleration, therefore, strictly speaking, it has no units.

A height divided by an acceleration has units: seconds squared. Since the units don't match, it's quite obvious that whatever he has calculated is not a g-force, despite his claims. As for what he has actually calculated, I have absolutely no idea what physical meaning anyone could gain from an answer of 4.0 seconds squared.

It's a meaningless gibberish number, but it's certainly not a g-force.