Why does FAA/Norad animation show NoC flightpath?

[TheLoneBedouin]

It could, but only if you could describe the conditions at contact with much more precision. Depending on exactly what part of the aircraft hit the poles, at what angle, at what speed, etc., you will get radically different results.

As long as we assume the energy was enough for the pole to "break-away" and a descending angle (as hypothesized), my question is independent of these variables.


To a limited degree, the behavior will be more or less the same -- the pole will rotate when hit, and probably acquire horizontal momentum as well, probably flipping end over end a few times like a caber. Exactly how it flips depends on exactly how much moment it takes to break the base, how much flexure is in the pole itself, whether it contacts the ground and at what angle, what surface the ends hit and how they behave, and so on and so on.

Like a caber? Really? When a Scottsman throws a caber he is applying a force orthogonal to the direction he is running. What force was orthogonal to the heading of Flight 77?


However, since we cannot specify the initial conditions with any accuracy at all, we cannot possibly estimate its final disposition with any usable accuracy. This is, indeed, deterministic chaos in action. Your branding of this as "idiocy" is, therefore, ironic.

We can specify the conditions with enough accuracy that my question can be answered.


As I've noted here numerous times, one cannot predict what number will come up on a thrown die. If we could, Las Vegas and Monte Carlo would be out of business overnight. The light pole impacts are vastly more complicated than even this intractable example.
We can, however, predict that a number 1-6 will come up. I am asking a very general and simple question.

[TheGrunion]

As long as we assume the energy was enough for the pole to "break-away" and a descending angle (as hypothesized), my question is independent of these variables.


Like a caber? Really? When a Scottsman throws a caber he is applying a force orthogonal to the direction he is running. What force was orthogonal to the heading of Flight 77?


We can specify the conditions with enough accuracy that my question can be answered.


We can, however, predict that a number 1-6 will come up. I am asking a very general and simple question.

Really? Go ahead and explain it then. Show us your work. Show us that you understand physics. Fill out that graph that you asked us to complete in post 242

[R.Mackey]

Like a caber? Really? When a Scottsman throws a caber he is applying a force orthogonal to the direction he is running. What force was orthogonal to the heading of Flight 77?

The pole was vertical, attached at one end, and it was hit with great force somewhere along its length. This gives it rotational moment.

This should have been obvious to anyone, even those who have flunked Physics.

[gumboot]

Jesus wept, I remember covering "levers" in science classes when I was about 10!

[X]

The pole was vertical, attached at one end, and it was hit with great force somewhere along its length. This gives it rotational moment.

This should have been obvious to anyone, even those who have flunked Physics.


Although, theoretically, it should be possible to calculate what height a plane would have to hit the pole to impart no rotational momentum.

A point where the moment of inertia of the upper part is equal to the moment of inertia of the lower part plus the moment caused by shear coupling resistance.

However, to do so would require far more information than is available. Information on geometry, materials, imact direction and time, etc etc.
To say that such a point would lie below the halfway point of the poles height, on the other hand, requires no such information.

Did the plane hit below the halfway point of the light pole?

[TheLoneBedouin]

The pole was vertical, attached at one end, and it was hit with great force somewhere along its length. This gives it rotational moment.

This should have been obvious to anyone, even those who have flunked Physics.
I don't understand. A caber-thrower produces an upwards force on the caber- what was the upward force on the pole?

[beachnut]

I don't understand. A caber-thrower produces an upwards force on the caber- what was the upward force on the pole? Are you serious!? Mackey gives you the answer. Read his post for comprehension this time.

[R.Mackey]

I don't understand. A caber-thrower produces an upwards force on the caber- what was the upward force on the pole?

Even though for some types of impact you can get a (partially) vertical force, for instance a nacelle hit below the center of mass, you don't need an upward force to cause the pole to rotate. If you can't figure that out, you have no business lecturing anyone about chaos theory and classical mechanics.

Of course, you are (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122439) the guy who doesn't know that 0.001% != 0.001, so I guess that's part for the course. I strongly suggest you lose the indignation, stop typing, and just try to learn.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Even though for some types of impact you can get a (partially) vertical force, for instance a nacelle hit below the center of mass, you don't need an upward force to cause the pole to rotate.
Oh, but you do.
No upward force and the pole hits the ground. If the impact was near a cliff or in outerspace, then you could have a full caber-like rotation (though technically that's not the best description since throwing a caber implies a vertical force).

[Jonnyclueless]

No, you wouldn't need an upward force.

[R.Mackey]

Oh, but you do.
No upward force and the pole hits the ground. If the impact was near a cliff or in outerspace, then you could have a full caber-like rotation (though technically that's not the best description since throwing a caber implies a vertical force).

No.

If hit from the side, and near the top, like we expect, the pole will rotate around its center of mass after the base is broken. Since this impact happens very, very fast, this will leave the pole momentarily in free space. There is no vertical force required to get it completely airborne.

Having said that, it is also possible for the collision to be significantly inelastic. At impact, the upper part of the pole may deform and actually catch on the aircraft. From there it's anyone's guess as to where the pole goes -- whether it merely gets swept along before buffeting or rebounding free, or if the deformation means the leading edge actually lifts it up like a dustpan under a chunk of FOD.

In a caber toss, there is really very little vertical force applied anyway. What happens instead is the throw is done after the caber starts to lean. This creates a force couple, with the (vertical) force at one end and gravity pulling down in the middle. This rotates the caber, but rarely lifts it much. One gets good caber distance by timing the rotation properly to get it to topple in the right direction after it hits the ground. One does not throw it upward very far, unless one is absurdly strong...

Please stop trying to lecture me about physics. You have no idea what you are talking about, and you are embarrassing yourself. This will not help you learn in the slightest.

[TheLoneBedouin]

No.

If hit from the side, and near the top, like we expect, the pole will rotate around its center of mass after the base is broken. Since this impact happens very, very fast, this will leave the pole momentarily in free space. There is no vertical force required to get it completely airborne.
Ok, so the pole is in "free space". The height from the bottom of the pole to the ground is less than the height of the pole. During the brief instant of "free space" the earth's gravity pulls the pole towards the ground. Since a full rotation in the direction the plane was going requires a height higher than the height of the pole, the pole cannot possibly rotate in a "caber-like" full rotation.


Having said that, it is also possible for the collision to be significantly inelastic. At impact, the upper part of the pole may deform and actually catch on the aircraft. From there it's anyone's guess as to where the pole goes -- whether it merely gets swept along before buffeting or rebounding free, or if the deformation means the leading edge actually lifts it up like a dustpan under a chunk of FOD.

Still, unless the plane was ascending, there is no way the pole could do a full rotation.


In a caber toss, there is really very little vertical force applied anyway. What happens instead is the throw is done after the caber starts to lean. This creates a force couple, with the (vertical) force at one end and gravity pulling down in the middle. This rotates the caber, but rarely lifts it much. One gets good caber distance by timing the rotation properly to get it to topple in the right direction after it hits the ground. One does not throw it upward very far, unless one is absurdly strong...

But the vertical force is key. You can't get it to do that without hitting the ground unless there is a vertical force.


Please stop trying to lecture me about physics. You have no idea what you are talking about, and you are embarrassing yourself. This will not help you learn in the slightest.
Actually, I think being embarressed by errors is a major factor in helping one learn- or were you never embarressed by your errors?

By the way- what is wrong with Mike Wilson's case study (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8)? Pointing out his errors may help me spot any of mine.

[PhantomWolf]

If hit from the side, and near the top, like we expect, the pole will rotate around its center of mass after the base is broken. Since this impact happens very, very fast, this will leave the pole momentarily in free space. There is no vertical force required to get it completely airborne.

And that's not including the air vortexes about the wing that could easily lift a pole into the air after it has been severed.

[Corsair 115]

The path to impact requires 83 degrees of bank...I suspect they don't understand what an 83° bank actually means. Much as they don't seem to understand that knowing an aircraft made a 330° turn actually tells us nothing about how hard or soft that turn was.

[Caustic Logic]

Really? Go ahead and explain it then bright guy.
I'm with loner that it can be predicted, but with Funk in the sense that it involves lots of guess work and is not worth the time. I don't know how, but I know it can be done. It's very boring I'm sure.

ETA: I see we've already discussed it more than it's worth. I guess it's good for keeping your brain working, like crossword puzzles. :)

[Caustic Logic]

Hey Rad Logic,

Ask them why there are no indications of pole strikes in the FDR data.
We all saw that white smoke trail in the DoD video (insert rolling eyes here),
:rolleyes:
but nothing in the data that shows damage, or impact.
Nothing that shows it any closer than app. a mile away from the poles and impact. Possible connection? Nah, just ignore...

After you ask them why they wont debate you live, ask them to produce
their witness videos, and photos of a hole large enough to accept AA77.

I'll do all these things for you, Turbofan, if you meet my challenge. I'll debate you on phone, recorded, I have no witness videos. and I'll show you a hole at the Pgon that a 757 in fact DID fit through. All this if you first bake me two dozen cranberry muffins. I'm serious. Do you accept my challenge or will you run in terror? Is the truth not worth a bit of baking, packaging, and mailing? I'll get you my address, if you ain't too chicken.

Lastly, ask why the airplane took off from the runway without rolling onto
the grass if the map was rotated incorrectly!

I just love all of these half baked excuses.

As Funk said:

You should know the answer to this, if you do not then you should not be posting about such matters.

Balsamo knows it, has had it explained many times. In case he's not helping you out, here... THIS is the map that was rotated wrong. No one has claimed any other "map" was rotated, so THIS is what we're talking about. Inside the red here, see it? Where in this image is the runway? http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/frame1.jpg

Waiting for the muffins, turbo.

[TC329]

1) why are there no indications of pole strikes in the fdr data?

2) what is the white smoke trail seen in the 5 frames?

3) what is the cause of that smoke?

[gumboot]

I suspect they don't understand what an 83° bank actually means. Much as they don't seem to understand that knowing an aircraft made a 330° turn actually tells us nothing about how hard or soft that turn was.


As I'm fond of pointing out, a Super Tanker can make a 330° turn.

[TC329]

hey gumboot,

find a pic of a lightpole in the street not near lloyds cab yet?

[Dave Rogers]

Ok, so the pole is in "free space". The height from the bottom of the pole to the ground is less than the height of the pole. During the brief instant of "free space" the earth's gravity pulls the pole towards the ground. Since a full rotation in the direction the plane was going requires a height higher than the height of the pole, the pole cannot possibly rotate in a "caber-like" full rotation.

Wrong, because as the top end of the pole strikes the ground, the pole still has angular momentum. If the turning moment produced by the fact that the pole's centre of gravity is offset from the point of impact (and hence the line of action of the reaction force) is insufficient to reduce that angular momentum to zero by the time the pole has reached the vertical, then the pole will continue to rotate. It's trivial to demonstrate that this will be the case for any sufficiently large angular velocity of the pole. In layman's terms, if the pole is spinning fast enough, it won't stop spinning just because one end hits the ground.

TLB, I think you need to check your simple mechanics again. This is high school stuff.

Dave

[Disbelief]

1) why are there no indications of pole strikes in the fdr data?


What would a pole strike look like in the FDR data? What sensor would it trip? How would it do so if the FDR was not recording at this point?

[funk de fino]

1) why are there no indications of pole strikes in the fdr data?

It would only be there if it damaged the engine. There are no pole sensors on the wing. Even if the engine showed any fluctuations the FDR data that would show this, is missing. this further debunks PFT.

2) what is the white smoke trail seen in the 5 frames?

Some people say it from the damaged engine.

3) what is the cause of that smoke?

Possible engine damage from pole.

[16.5]

Ok, so the pole is in "free space". The height from the bottom of the pole to the ground is less than the height of the pole. During the brief instant of "free space" the earth's gravity pulls the pole towards the ground. Since a full rotation in the direction the plane was going requires a height higher than the height of the pole, the pole cannot possibly rotate in a "caber-like" full rotation.


Still, unless the plane was ascending, there is no way the pole could do a full rotation..

Lets do a little experiment shall we, hell we'll even call it a contest!

Take a pencil, stand it upright, lightly holding the top with your finger. Using your other hand, gently approach the pencil, and then BRISKLY give the pencil a flick with your fingers anywhere above the middle of the pencil >>p-chuwwww!>>> Off the pencil goes tumbling end over end! My first time, I got 4 revolutions! The second time, 2.5 revolutions before it hit my chair.

The first one to get more than six get $1 Brazzilian Truther Bucks!

Oh science, we have ever so much fun with you!

[TheGrunion]

Oh, but you do.
No upward force and the pole hits the ground. If the impact was near a cliff or in outerspace, then you could have a full caber-like rotation (though technically that's not the best description since throwing a caber implies a vertical force).

The pole is going to hit the ground anyway due to gravity, which is a vertical force.

In addition the pole will be subjected to a significant moment force that will cause it to rotate.

This explains moment forces very well. Unfortunately, I suspect that its a bit over your comprehension level. There is a couple of sentences in section 4.4 that you might be able to understand though.

http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en3/notes/Statics/moments/moments.htm

[R.Mackey]

Ok, so the pole is in "free space". The height from the bottom of the pole to the ground is less than the height of the pole. During the brief instant of "free space" the earth's gravity pulls the pole towards the ground. Since a full rotation in the direction the plane was going requires a height higher than the height of the pole, the pole cannot possibly rotate in a "caber-like" full rotation.

No.

At the speeds the pole is getting hit, gravity may affect it "slowly" -- there is enough force for a full rotation before it falls more than a few centimeters.

The center of gravity of some poles is above the midpoint of their length, owing to the mass of the light and crossbar. If this is the case, then even an ideal purely horizontal force can easily lead to a full rotation, before the now free end recontacts the ground.


Still, unless the plane was ascending, there is no way the pole could do a full rotation.

No. I've already explained to you that the pole will deform on contact, and it may spring away in various directions. The plane need not be ascending, that's totally stupid.

I also should remind you that you are now subtly attempting to change the subject. I don't know whether the pole would perform full rotations before recontact or not -- it might, it might not. It's too chaotic to estimate. What you actually said, boiling it down, is this:

you don't need an upward force to cause the pole to rotate. Oh, but you do.

This is wrong, plain and simple.

But the vertical force is key. You can't get it to do that without hitting the ground unless there is a vertical force.

No. See above.

Actually, I think being embarressed by errors is a major factor in helping one learn- or were you never embarressed by your errors?

It doesn't seem to be working for you, so try something else.

Take a pencil, stand it upright, lightly holding the top with your finger. Using your other hand, gently approach the pencil, and then BRISKLY give the pencil a flick with your fingers anywhere above the middle of the pencil >>p-chuwwww!>>> Off the pencil goes tumbling end over end! My first time, I got 4 revolutions! The second time, 2.5 revolutions before it hit my chair.

Exactly. This is such a remarkably simple concept, I'm just going to leave it here. If you can't understand this, you have an obligation to figure it out before claiming absurd things based on your own ignorance.

[Shalamar]

hey gumboot,

find a pic of a lightpole in the street not near lloyds cab yet?

In fact, yes. There were pictures posted of Lightpoles, on the ground, not near a lloyds cab... IN THIS THREAD.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4042374&postcount=157
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4042382&postcount=159

(Of course.. I hold they were brought down by rogue Canadian lumberjacks. It is as valid as anything the trooth movement has.)

[Jonnyclueless]

1) why are there no indications of pole strikes in the fdr data?

2) what is the white smoke trail seen in the 5 frames?

3) what is the cause of that smoke?

1) as already explained before you asked, the FDR data stops before the plane reaches the light poles. Also, the traffic light pole collision sensors may not have been working right.

2) Most likely engine damage from hitting a light pole.

3) One of the engines after striking a light pole.

[uruk]

1) why are there no indications of pole strikes in the fdr data? Two reasons. 1.The FDR dropped data before the plane reached the poles.
2.The wings have no sensors that are designed to pick up that kind of an impact, as far as I know.

2) what is the white smoke trail seen in the 5 frames? One of the engines in all probability ingested a light fixture. One of the light fixtures from the downed poles was never found.

One missing light fixture + video image of smoke coming out of planes engine = missing light fixture entered engine.

3) what is the cause of that smoke? The foreign object damage to the engine caused, in all probability, a ruptured oil or hydrolic line and the heat cause the fluid to produce smoke.


The pole impact dynamics could be simulated by computer, but like dice throws, the end results will vary depending on all the differenty factors and variables involved. You could run the simulation all week long and never get the poles to end up where they did on 9/11. You might get close though.

[Caustic Logic]

Bump for Turbofan and my debate challenge. Looking forward to some muffins.

[CurtC]

To a limited degree, the behavior will be more or less the same -- the pole will rotate when hit, and probably acquire horizontal momentum as well, probably flipping end over end a few times like a caber.

I disagree pretty strongly with that. The wing sliced through each pole, and would have done so in something like a couple of milliseconds. There was a large force required to cut through, but for just a couple of milliseconds I don't think there would be enough momentum transferred to flip it end-over-end.


Since a full rotation in the direction the plane was going requires a height higher than the height of the pole, the pole cannot possibly rotate in a "caber-like" full rotation.OMFG - who taught you physics?

[Turbofan]

Send me the money for shipping, items and time. Let's talk.

Paypal good for you? I'll get a quote ready from a courier.

The bet is on as soon as I see your cash. Quote is forthcoming.

[R.Mackey]

I disagree pretty strongly with that. The wing sliced through each pole, and would have done so in something like a couple of milliseconds. There was a large force required to cut through, but for just a couple of milliseconds I don't think there would be enough momentum transferred to flip it end-over-end.

Did the wing slice through each pole? Not from the pictures I've seen, but this detail is so minute I admit I haven't looked very hard.

Given how blunt the leading surfaces of an aircraft really are, rather than slice through, one expects a snap, with sheer inertia of the pole pieces determining whether it bends and breaks, or bends and rebounds. Could go either way. And in either case there is a pretty substantial moment transferred to the piece(s) afterwards.

[GlennB]

Ok, so the pole is in "free space". The height from the bottom of the pole to the ground is less than the height of the pole. During the brief instant of "free space" the earth's gravity pulls the pole towards the ground. Since a full rotation in the direction the plane was going requires a height higher than the height of the pole, the pole cannot possibly rotate in a "caber-like" full rotation.



It isn't that simple.
The leading edge of the wing is not 90° to the line of the flightpath. The pole will tend to be knocked sideways. So while the tip of the pole may hit the ground before the >180° "caber toss" is completed, momentum causes the pole to continue to rotate. But not parallel to the flightpath.
Or the top of the pole crumples on initial impact and the >180° rotation is achieved.
Or the shape of the wingtip gives a significant lift to the pole (golf clubs do this very effectively, despite a downwards angle of attack of the clubhead during the golf swing).
Or the passage of the plane itself overhead causes lift.
Or the landing point of the tip is somewhat lower than the "takeoff" point of the base.

There are many ways in which the pole could execute a >180° flip.

[Corsair 115]

IOMFG - who taught you physics?Bugs Bunny cartoons it would seem. Perhaps with a dash of Wile E. Coyote and The Roadrunner thrown in.

[GregoryUrich]

Send me the money for shipping, items and time. Let's talk.

Paypal good for you? I'll get a quote ready from a courier.

The bet is on as soon as I see your cash. Quote is forthcoming.

Turbo,

I would really appreciate I you would make an effort to post the calculations done by PFT especially since you are using them to support your argument. If the calculations and input parameters are correct, this is really important.

R. Mackey was good enough to check PFT's previous calculation and pointed out errors that invalidated the result. If the new PFT work is valid, I'm pretty sure you will find that many people here will accept it.

/Greg

[beachnut]

Turbo,

I would really appreciate I you would make an effort to post the calculations done by PFT especially since you are using them to support your argument. If the calculations and input parameters are correct, this is really important.

R. Mackey was good enough to check PFT's previous calculation and pointed out errors that invalidated the result. If the new PFT work is valid, I'm pretty sure you will find that many people here will accept it.

/Greg
It is ridiculous. They drive the plane to a point and level off using an instances turn radius.

Then he got the radius wrong, one of the level offs is not even perpendicular to the pivot point!

Their new work is bs, and Mackey's work still matches the most likely terrorist response to the dive.

Balsamo ignores the fact 77 hit in a dive!

The initial starting position is off! 77 is not at the VDOT tower when the FDR data stops. Anyone can see 77 is where the FDR data and RADAR data mesh! Over 6 seconds from impacting the Pentagon. The p4t, as with your petition of "ample evidence", have no clue about the facts of 9/11 or do they choose to use evidence.

I would clean up your member scholars thermite insane fantasy before trying to help the other idiot ideas in 9/11 truth.

BTW, the calculations are in the video you did not watch.

[Jonnyclueless]

Send me the money for shipping, items and time. Let's talk.

Paypal good for you? I'll get a quote ready from a courier.

The bet is on as soon as I see your cash. Quote is forthcoming.

Turbo logic - So you're running away and making excuses I see? /turbo logic

We'll address your PFT DVD as soon as you send one.

[Caustic Logic]

Send me the money for shipping, items and time. Let's talk.

Paypal good for you? I'll get a quote ready from a courier.

The bet is on as soon as I see your cash. Quote is forthcoming.

Oh yeah, I forgot you guys are all too strapped to even afford phone card minutes. That could be a hamper to the debate... tell ya what, I'm willing to waive the cranberries, and put it at one dozen, or whatever a cheap box of mix yields. I shan't pay for your time, it's quick and easy and can be done in the background while you post drivel. I will pay postage, standard USPS, paypal is a good method. I'm no richer than y'all, and don't want to send enough money you're tempted to just keep it to "support the organization."

Do you still want to debate me? I think it's the best you'll get from JREF, and I'm curious what your voice sounds like and how well you hold up.

[TC329]

In fact, yes. There were pictures posted of Lightpoles, on the ground, not near a lloyds cab... IN THIS THREAD.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4042374&postcount=157
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4042382&postcount=159

(Of course.. I hold they were brought down by rogue Canadian lumberjacks. It is as valid as anything the trooth movement has.)


those aren't in the street and the photos showing one in the street is the same one as lloyds only with the cab cropped out.

there was only 1 light pole in the road.

the 4 were laying in the grass.

you missed the original point of this argument......

[Caustic Logic]

those aren't in the street and the photos showing one in the street is the same one as lloyds only with the cab cropped out.

there was only 1 light pole in the road.

the 4 were laying in the grass.

you missed the original point of this argument......

Hey Dom, have a photo of a light pole CIT hasn't lied about? Look, it's clear you're getting at pole 2, which it seems should be in the road. Right? And that makes the scene fishy again, and so faked but faked wrong, right?

Just curious, do you have any proof this pole was never on Route 27? How do you know it was the plane that tossed it over the bank and not, say, the driver of this car? (just an example).
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Pentacar.jpg
You have no way of knowing the answer, and yet I'm sure you just know.

Consider this shot. No pole 2, to be sure. But some debris - mostly leaves I'd guess, perhaps glass. Something happened down there. http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/pole_2_area_route27.jpg

But the pole is here in all photos:
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/pole_2_montage.jpg

So this all means what, will you just get to the point?

[GregoryUrich]

Balsamo ignores the fact 77 hit in a dive!
Then what was the strange thing streaking horizontally across the lawn in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzwkOQliBHc) from the Pentagon security cameras?

[Dave Rogers]

Then what was the strange thing streaking horizontally across the lawn in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzwkOQliBHc) from the Pentagon security cameras?

Since it only appears in one frame, the only thing you can be reasonably certain of is its attitude, which appears close to horizontal. One point can't define a vector.

Dave

[GregoryUrich]

Since it only appears in one frame, the only thing you can be reasonably certain of is its attitude, which appears close to horizontal. One point can't define a vector.

Dave

Given that the little smoke trail after the plane shows a horizontal path, it's kind of hard to support the assertion the the plane was in a dive.

[Crazytimes]

Then what was the strange thing streaking horizontally across the lawn in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzwkOQliBHc) from the Pentagon security cameras?

That video was shot at 1FPS. The plane was traveling at 750FPS. The video is pointless.

[Dave Rogers]

Given that the little smoke trail after the plane shows a horizontal path, it's kind of hard to support the assertion the the plane was in a dive.

Given that the only objects visible in the video are grossly out of focus (the camera is, of course, focused on the expected position of the vehicles it's supposed to be monitoring), it's kind of hard to support the assertion that there is a smoke trail visible in the video. All I see is a white blur in the frame before impact.

Dave

[Jonnyclueless]

Consider this shot. No pole 2, to be sure. But some debris - mostly leaves I'd guess, perhaps glass. Something happened down there. http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/pole_2_area_route27.jpg


You're pointing to the remains of a snow cone machine that was knocked over by the blast of the bombs.

[beachnut]

Given that the little smoke trail after the plane shows a horizontal path, it's kind of hard to support the assertion the the plane was in a dive.

On 9/11 the lawn slopes to the Pentagon, and the lens is a crummy fish eye lens distorting the whole world. 7 years and you have "ample evidence". I have ample evidence you lack research on 9/11. 77 never leveled off. Sorry. 77 hit the first VOT camera post and the bush the engine clipped, it was all down hill. 100 feet MSL to 40 feet MSL over 790 f/s forward velocity (everyone leaves out the added acceleration gained after the FDR last data point over 6 seconds away, 77 gaining 5 knots a second) The engines were close to their max temperature limits, over normal limits. Anyone look at the EGT of 77 in the FDR?

60 feet down to impact, 1300 feet to go. This is called down. A level off would have 77 hitting higher. This is called math. 77 hit near 2700 feet per minute, over 3 times normal landing approaches! Steep, this is why we get steep for small changed in angles. Normal landing approaches are at 2.5 degree, 750 feet per minute

Math, what we used in engineering school and music school.

Lens? Study up.

Greg, study before you post stupid stuff. Do you ever study stuff before drawing conclusion and signing truth petitions, or joining a few truther groups, including thermite Jones group of non-scholars on9/11? Where is that "ample evidence" in your truth petition, this topic seems to be lacking the ample evidence? We have an animation in this thread that shows 77 hitting the Pentagon, but in a path with no relationship to the actual path. The animation was brought up by a Mr Farmer, he is playing a joke on CIT/p4t because they can't understand symbols or animations and their use. It is possible RADAR data was used to make the animation, but even trucks and smoke could result in spurious RADAR returns after 77 flies into the Pentagon. There is one return to the left and right of the real flight path; but after impact.

Flight path, you can study before you adlib your statements based on faulty analysis.

[Turbofan]

Oh yeah, I forgot you guys are all too strapped to even afford phone card minutes. That could be a hamper to the debate... tell ya what, I'm willing to waive the cranberries, and put it at one dozen, or whatever a cheap box of mix yields. I shan't pay for your time, it's quick and easy and can be done in the background while you post drivel. I will pay postage, standard USPS, paypal is a good method. I'm no richer than y'all, and don't want to send enough money you're tempted to just keep it to "support the organization."

Do you still want to debate me? I think it's the best you'll get from JREF, and I'm curious what your voice sounds like and how well you hold up.

It's OK, I can afford phone time, but I'm not paying your meal.

Send me a PM and let's work this out.

[Turbofan]

That video was shot at 1FPS. The plane was traveling at 750FPS. The video is pointless.

What's this? The camera was traveling at 1 foot per second, or was the
plane filming at 750 frames per second? :confused:

If we saw 5 frames of video, did the object require 5 seconds
to move across the lawn?

Are we expect an object moving at 750 fps with such mass
to be diving, lifting, turning within that short distance across
the lawn?

Care to clarify please?

[Jonnyclueless]

It's OK, I can afford phone time, but I'm not paying your meal.

Send me a PM and let's work this out.

Ah, so when you tell someone to buy a DVD, then you can understand now? Now you see the irony in you wanting others to pay in order to discuss, but how you yourself refuse to spend any of your own money in the process.

[Turbofan]

Ah, so when you tell someone to buy a DVD, then you can understand now? Now you see the irony in you wanting others to pay in order to discuss, but how you yourself refuse to spend any of your own money in the process.

There is no irony. We've been posting corrections to R. Mackey and Myriad's calcs. Nobody wants to listen. We gave reasons. Nobody wants to listen.

If you need a video to understand, then I've offered that as well.

CL wants to talk this out. I applaud that gesture. Let's do it!

[beachnut]

What's this? The camera was traveling at 1 foot per second, or was the
plane filming at 750 frames per second? :confused:

If we saw 5 frames of video, did the object require 5 seconds
to move across the lawn?

Are we expect an object moving at 750 fps with such mass
to be diving, lifting, turning within that short distance across
the lawn?

Care to clarify please?
77 was going faster, the FDR last data was 463 KIAS, gaining 5 knots a second. Impact is 6 seconds after that. Just thought you might want to know some more things you and p4t do not know.

Sorry, camera only caught how many frames of 77? Do you even look before you leap? 64 words/second, now you have no clue on the speed of the camera? You know as much about this as you do the FDR.

[Jonnyclueless]

There is no irony. We've been posting corrections to R. Mackey and Myriad's calcs. Nobody wants to listen. We gave reasons. Nobody wants to listen.

If you need a video to understand, then I've offered that as well.

CL wants to talk this out. I applaud that gesture. Let's do it!

Nice dodge. Hour response to many questions has been for people to go buy the DVD. It's YOU who seems to *need* it, not us. We have asked you for the calculations. you seem to think you don't need calculations but instead you only need a video.

[Turbofan]

77 was going faster, the FDR last data was 463 KIAS, gaining 5 knots a second. Impact is 6 seconds after that. Just thought you might want to know some more things you and p4t do not know.

Sorry, camera only caught how many frames of 77? Do you even look before you leap? 64 words/second, now you have no clue on the speed of the camera? You know as much about this as you do the FDR.

6 seconds? Right...

Have you made up a theory of why the FDR stopped for no apparent reason?

Do you have an excuse of how DME could be a trillion times out of tolerance? :rolleyes:

Your circular non technical BS is really get old and washed up...;)

[beachnut]

There is no irony. We've been posting corrections to R. Mackey and Myriad's calcs. Nobody wants to listen. We gave reasons. Nobody wants to listen.

If you need a video to understand, then I've offered that as well.

CL wants to talk this out. I applaud that gesture. Let's do it!
Mackey's work still stands! You never even tried to show it had errors.

It is uncanny how one of the scenarios matched G forces used by the terrorist, albeit the terrorist pilot was not a smooth curve guy like real pilots can be. Remember p4t stated they could not hit buildings in simulators, I have taken kids to simulators and they were able to fly into buildings. Kids with zero flying experience and terrorist with flying licenses are better than p4t pilots.

You and p4t have produced another false information special. Failure comes to mind, Balsamo puts a level off in that never happened. Good work being all you can be, spew the lie 77 did not hit when the FDR you want to argue about was found in the Pentagon, and the souls you disrespect were all identified by DNA with layers of oversight! You are proven a liar, p4t are proven failed physics and really bad flying false information experts who can only apologize for terrorist with implications of lies. Funny how Balsamo puts all the level off in one small area, to come up with 10 and 34 Gs and he gets it wrong. Why not level off in .01 second and get even more Gs. Funny, you have no clue on flying.

[Turbofan]

Funny you can't follow the math and corrections. I guess that's why you
wont go live and debate us.

[beachnut]

6 seconds? Right...
Here is RADAR and FDR positions! The last FDR position is the yellow dot to the right, the last RADAR is the blue on the right. This is proof of no NoC and if you take all your skills you could correlate 77 FDR to RADAR, and see 77 is over 6 seconds away. But your have only a lie to spread. You do not real research, you are lost on this topic, as Balsamo is unprepared with physics and flight dynamics. He messes up every thing, the feet in a nautical mile to the frequency of a RAR ALT.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/774datapath.jpg
You may need help to understand this, you will not get any from the math challenged p4t crew. (John Farmer did the work to get and plot the positions, unlike p4t he is doing real research and analysis)

Have you made up a theory of why the FDR stopped for no apparent reason?
It is a fact, the FDR last point is 13:37:44, impact is after 13:37:50. I used matching the radar data to FDR data; so did Farmer. Just like many times, FDR are missing data for the entire flight! FACT. 77 last point is logged over 6 seconds from impact, on a true track course of 61.2 degrees. Even the FDR shows 77 over 8 seconds away in the above diagram, but the navigation system is 1600 to 2000 feet off. You have no real skills here I can see. Why are you not knowledgeable on navigation and RADAR stuff?
Not a theory, the FDR last point is 6 seconds away, you can't figure it out, so you lie and say 77 did not hit the Pentagon.
Do you have an excuse of how DME could be a trillion times out of tolerance? ...
The DME is only stored in the FDR with values of X.2, X.5, X.8, X.0. This means the best resolution is what CLASS? Do you even have a clue? The accuracy of DME used in planes like 77 was less than 1/2 mile or 3 percent whichever is greater, from AIM. If you would research this, studies down in the terminal area show typical errors in DME to be 0.23 NM. Therefore the 1.5 DME stored in the FDR at 13:37:43 could be over 1600 feet in error.

If Balsamo uses 1.5 DME in his video, he has made a 1600 foot to 3000 foot error. Par for p4t! I have explained this and you fail to grasp, just like the 64 words per second, were you were off a factor of FOUR. I am telling the truth, or trying, you are spewing a lie and not trying.
Your circular non technical BS is really get old and washed up...

Calling math and physics circular non technical BS may be the reason you are unable to figure out 9/11. Math is not non-technical, nor are flying manuals. So I post technical specs, you call them non-technical. The NAZIs used this kind of propaganda, and Balsamo runs his web site as a truth-NAZI, like the soup-NAZI. Lol

Yes calling math, physics and posting technical specs, "non-technical", is anti-intellectual on your part as you spew the lie of 77 not hitting the Pentagon and becoming another terrorist apologist due to lack of evidence etc.

[R.Mackey]

There is no irony. We've been posting corrections to R. Mackey and Myriad's calcs. Nobody wants to listen. We gave reasons. Nobody wants to listen.

I haven't seen these alleged corrections.

It's pretty simple math, and it's been verified by others, including Gregory Urich, who is not an "OCT"er.

[Turbofan]

Yawwwn...

The NTSB has the impact time at :45

Are you trying to tell me the clock sync is 6 seconds off? :rolleyes:

Damn, I'd love to get you in a live debate.

[Turbofan]

R. Mackey based off his own calculations:
"there is no case to be made that the FDR data is inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77"

Care to show me the data trends which reflect your 4.0G calcs? Please
don't lie and tell me the recording stopped prior. :rolleyes:

We all know that's false, and we all know you are either lying or covering
up your error. Which is it?

Here's a little picture if you need it:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/cgi%20povs/FDR_Pent_Alt1_ab.jpg

[R.Mackey]

It bears pointing out, at this stage, that the 9/11 Commission Report has the impact times for WTC 1 and WTC 2 verifiably off by approximately ten seconds. An error of six seconds in the NTSB report, with far less data upon which to base a conclusion, is not at all surprising.

ETA: The FDR data did stop. Since the FDR shows the aircraft well above the impact point, there can be no doubt that it did not record all the way to impact. And if there was no impact at all (as the no-planers will argue), there's no reason for it to stop at all. Very simple.

ETAII: I'm referring to the picture linked above -- that's your picture?? I had thought it was made by someone refuting you... It clearly shows your error. If you assume the aircraft travelled in a straight dive, and performed its entire pull-up in a tiny fraction of a second, then of course you get unreasonably high g-loads. That's because it's a stupid assumption. Nobody in their right mind would propose such a flight path. The aircraft was pulling up well before that.

[16.5]

Care to show me the data trends which reflect your 4.0G calcs? Please
don't lie and tell me the recording stopped prior. :rolleyes:

We all know that's false, and we all know you are either lying or covering
up your error. Which is it?

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! Hey Turbo, you and I have a little unfinished business here Champ.

I am absolutely astonished that you are asking for support for anyone's calculations when I and numerous others have REPEATEDLY asked for the following:

"give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site."

Enough BS, Turbo, give us the support. Now. Or STFU.

[beachnut]

Maybe you should take more time researching the NTSB data then. You don't. You need to gain knowledge to understand the NTSB data, you ignore the facts and make up the lie 77 did not hit the Pentagon.
Need I remind you that the impact time is 09:37:45 according to the NTSB. If you researched the NTSB data and used the RADAR data, you can see the time of impact is 13:37:50, or very close. You are wrong, try using research. To blindly use any number is a mistake, you made a mistake.
Need I remind you that the data (which is not a working copy)shows nothing to support your calculations whether peak, average, or
'magical'. You have no clue what Mackey's work is for.
Let's not forget DME recorded 1.5 nm with an error of +/- 0.1 nm. No Beachnut, your guesstimate is WAY outside the tolerance of error. It
doesn't even fly (pun intended).
FACT 1. DME is stored at the resolution as follows X.0, X.2, X.5, X.8. This is like your car odometer storing only X.0, X.25, X.5, X.75. So as you drive the best you can tell some one how far you are from some point is 0.25 mile. Resolution even today required by FAA is 1 mile!

The DME system errors for planes in 2001 like Flight 77 were averaging 0.23 nautical miles. This is backed up by AIM (Aeronautical Information Manual), DME errors less than ½ mile or 3 percent of the distance whichever is greater. FACT 2.

Take this accuracy and storage resolution and you get 1600 to 3000 feet errors possible with DME. How can I check this for making sense. OH, yes, take the INS, it is updated with VOR and DME, the best accuracy you can expect in the INS is ¼ mile and 3000 feet. This is confirmed with actual data in the FDR, on take off the FDR shows 77 2000 feet south of the runway. Thus accuracy and resolution in the FDR combine to give us up to ½ mile uncertainty in DME. Mackey can correct my quick engineering and flight experience look, with some ideas on the resolution storage. But moreover, looking at the DME storage in 2001 for DME, leads you to use DME as a gross indicator or position. Study the data turbofan, show me based on DME were 77 is. I have studied it. You have not.

Folks, the .1 nm resolution is for the test equipment used for DME and the transmitter errors. You can see why a moving plane, and the aircraft DME receiver add more accuracy errors; if you can't understand this, you need to study more.

Altitude too high. Pressure and RADAR altitude confirm each other. 4600 fpm decent when data stops.
Too high. 77 is over 6 seconds away from impact. RADAR Alt read 273, the ground is 130 feet. We have 403 feet MSL. Over 6 seconds to go. At 4,000 feet per minute we impact in 6 seconds at sea level, 40 feet below the Pentagon. lol – good job proving you are wrong on being too high.

Nobody here has even touched the surface on a plausible explanation of why the FDR 'might have stopped' before an impact. Many FDR with missing data, 77 is too. Do you know all the reasons data stopped on all the other FDRs? No. Good job making up nothing here. The FDR and RADAR data proves 77 position is over 6 seconds from the Pentagon, you p4t guys can't put a dent in that.
I'm surprised that someone with your background can't figure this out, and would rather hide behind the screen than come forth and push for
an investigation. Slinging Balsamo type insults will not work, tell Balsamo he is a terrorist loyalist, making excuses for terrorist and spewing implication of lies.

[Turbofan]

It bears pointing out, at this stage, that the 9/11 Commission Report has the impact times for WTC 1 and WTC 2 verifiably off by approximately ten seconds. An error of six seconds in the NTSB report, with far less data upon which to base a conclusion, is not at all surprising.

Not surprising, the OMISSION REPORT is not a first line 'investigation' of
Flight Data.

Poor Analogy. Had you said the NTSB was off by 10 seconds, you'd have a
point.

ETA: The FDR data did stop. Since the FDR shows the aircraft well above the impact point, there can be no doubt that it did not record all the way to impact. And if there was no impact at all (as the no-planers will argue), there's no reason for it to stop at all. Very simple.

That would be fine for those fooled into believing the OGCT.

So, you just said...

IF there's NO IMPACT AT ALL, THERE's NO REASON FOR IT TO STOP AT ALL!

LMAO!!!

HOly COW!!!

So tell me, why did it stop 6 second back if there WAS NO IMPACT!

Got ya buddy! Explain it!



ETAII: I'm referring to the picture linked above -- that's your picture?? I had thought it was made by someone refuting you... It clearly shows your error. If you assume the aircraft travelled in a straight dive, and performed its entire pull-up in a tiny fraction of a second, then of course you get unreasonably high g-loads. That's because it's a stupid assumption. Nobody in their right mind would propose such a flight path. The aircraft was pulling up well before that.

That picture was taken from the video, or a screen shot of the video.

I'll call it mine, or a close cousin.

Thanks.

Get to the math and your point Mackey. You are swimming in your lies
and I just caught you in a BIG contradiction.

[Jonnyclueless]

Yawwwn...

The NTSB has the impact time at :45

Are you trying to tell me the clock sync is 6 seconds off? :rolleyes:

Damn, I'd love to get you in a live debate.

Could you post a link to the NTSB's statement on the impact time? Just for clarification. Thanks.

[16.5]

Get to the math and your point Mackey. You are swimming in your lies
and I just caught you in a BIG contradiction.

Uh, Turbo, what the hell?

You are asking Mackey for his math when this question has been outstanding for MONTHS???

"give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site."

C'mon, you don't want to look like a hypocritical coward who refuses to justify their positions because they can't because the CIT's entire freaking story is a con-job by morons.

Get to the math and your point Turbo. You are swimming in your lies.

[R.Mackey]

Not surprising, the OMISSION REPORT is not a first line 'investigation' of
Flight Data.

Poor Analogy. Had you said the NTSB was off by 10 seconds, you'd have a
point.

Not really. The fact that the NTSB number ends in a "5" even suggests that it's an estimate.

What were the requirements on that number, I wonder? +/- 15 seconds? +/- 5? +/- 0.1?

Simple fact is, most people do not care about split second timing. This is just another sad example of taking results out of context. Unless you can put error bars on the NTSB figure, they are better than +/- 1 second, and this can be verified, you cannot use this as evidence. This is a basic principle of experimental technique.


That would be fine for those fooled into believing the OGCT.

The "Original Gangster Conspiracy Theory?" ;) What does Dre have to do with this?

So, you just said...

IF there's NO IMPACT AT ALL, THERE's NO REASON FOR IT TO STOP AT ALL!

LMAO!!!

HOly COW!!!

I believe even you understand that the FDR stopped functioning due to physical damage, yes?

So tell me, why did it stop 6 second back if there WAS NO IMPACT!

Got ya buddy! Explain it!

There was an impact. Your question is nonsensical.

Regarding the six-second (approximate) loss of data, as I already indicated, there is a 60+ page thread that explains this in grim detail. But in brief:
Sensor polling, debounce, message packetizing, transmission, and write operations all take a non-trivial amount of time
Partial frame loss, caused by impact during a write operation, will invalidate the current frames, leaving the last bits of data "missing"
It is possible but difficult to prove that events on board prior to final impact interfered with the FDR, such as electrical system spikes caused by maneuver, ingestion of tree branches, or light pole strikes
It is also possible that the media itself was damaged, interfering with that part of the data record, but I have no way to test this

But you'll note that's not quite what I said. What I said was that losses of the last few seconds are common. There are prior examples of recovered FDRs that lose several seconds of data leading to impact.

And again, even if this "shouldn't" happen, but did, all it proves is that the FDR wasn't up to spec.

This entire argument misses the point. We need to work with the data that we do have, not complain about data that we don't. The FDR data that we have is consistent with a plausible approach and impact flight path. It is also, I must add, totally inconsistent with the graphic you threw up, and its ridiculous hockey-stick trajectory hypothesis.


That picture was taken from the video, or a screen shot of the video.

I'll call it mine, or a close cousin.

Thanks.

Get to the math and your point Mackey. You are swimming in our lies
and I just caught you in a BIG contradiction.

I am "swimming" in your lies? Disgusted by them, yes, but not swimming in them. Never mind, I see you fixed this. But whatever "lies" you're talking about are merely bare assertions of yours. I don't even know what you're talking about.

I gave you the math six months ago. I also remind you, this math was based on boundary conditions that you provided. I've also invited you, including you personally, to come up with new ones. You haven't followed up. Just lay out the constraints and we'll find a flight path that works.

[Turbofan]

Don't worry Mackey, I'm already onto your 60+ page full of lies.

Sorry to say, but you don't know how flash memoery operates. You don't
know the process of writing, reading and erasing data from an EEPROM.

Too bad nobody told you that it takes electricity and address lines to wipe
out data on flash memory IC's. You should also know the data is erased in
blocks and pages.

A couple of cells, words, or seconds is FAR from it my friend.

So now you're changing gears, and I'm going to throw this in your face
(Along with Anti).

All of your excuses are getting exposed and soon you'll have nothing left.

Do yourself a favour a read up on erasing flash memory before you waste
your time writing 60+ pages of garbage.

P.S. Why are the speeds and start of 330 deg turn in conflict with the people you SOURCE?

You do know the Omission Report sources the NTSB Flight study which
has the correct time (already linked above for Johnnyclueless).

I love bringing your lies to the forefront. Keep making excuses so I can
show everyone your poor research skills.

16.5 - I already told you I don't believe your silly flight path, and I'm not
going to calculate a single digit to play your game. THat's not what happened,
and it doesn't follow the FDR data. Period.

[R.Mackey]

Don't worry Mackey, I'm already onto your 60+ page full of lies.

Sorry to say, but you don't know how flash memoery operates. You don't
know the process of writing, reading and erasing data from an EEPROM.

All of the issues I summarized above are true regardless of the storage media used. Most of them are wholly upstream of the recording device itself.


Too bad nobody told you that it takes electricity and address lines to wipe
out data on flash memory IC's. You should also know the data is erased in
blocks and pages.

Physical damage also does a pretty good job. But that's incorrect. An individual bit may be so, but since compression and EDAC is in play here, along with rigid packet definitions, damage to part of the data record may render other parts of it unusable.


A couple of cells, words, or seconds is FAR from it my friend.

So now you're changing gears, and I'm going to throw this in your face
(Along with Anti).

All of your excuses are getting exposed and soon you'll have nothing left.

Do yourself a favour a read up on erasing flash memory before you waste
your time writing 60+ pages of garbage.

The argument would be the same if it was an SSDR, more basic Flash, digital tape, or even analogue. You're off in the weeds on something you clearly don't understand.


P.S. Why are the speeds and start of 330 deg turn in conflict with the people you SOURCE?

I have no idea where you're going with this.

You do know the Omission Report sources the NTSB Flight study which
has the correct time (already linked above for Johnnyclueless).

How do you know it's correct? To what accuracy? This is crucial to what remains of your argument.


I love bringing your lies to the forefront. Keep making excuses so I can
show everyone your poor research skills.

I still can't even identify what it is you think I've lied about. You're just going off on irrelevant tangents about (nominal) EEPROM behavior. And, I might add, ignoring questions put to you:

What is the accuracy of the NTSB impact time estimate?
What are the constraints you use for your (hockey stick) flight path?
Why does your flight path radically conflict with the FDR data?

[twinstead]

Jesus, Turbo, a little less arrogant bluster and a little more substantive debate would be nice. You DO see how patient and polite R.Mackey is being, right?

[Turbofan]

Don't even try to suggest tape and EEPROM is the same thing.

Don't even try to suggest the impact wiped out a few seconds of data.

The best thing you can do is learn how EEPROM works, then come back
with ANOTHER BS theory...because this one isn't working.

You started off with a six second data missing LIE, and now that I caught
you in a horrid contradiction, you are changing to Flash memory junk.

Funny stuff. How many holes do you have in your theories?


Clarification:
Why are the speeds and start of 330 turn in conflict with what the 9/11 Commission Sources? IE: the NTSB Flight Path Study

[Turbofan]

Jesus, Turbo, a little less arrogant bluster and a little more substantive debate would be nice. You DO see how patient and polite R.Mackey is being, right?

Sorry, Twin you are correct.

I do tend to get a little heated.

I'll be more civil as Mackey has been fairly calm.

[R.Mackey]

Don't even try to suggest tape and EEPROM is the same thing.

I didn't. Please re-read more carefully.


Don't even try to suggest the impact wiped out a few seconds of data.

Why not? There are many reasons why this could happen -- either data was still in transit, other damage cut power to the device or otherwise interfered with the DFDAU, or the memory of the FDR itself was damaged in the crash.

Do you know what happens to flash memory when you're writing to it, and you experience a spike or loss of power at that instant?


The best thing you can do is learn how EEPROM works, then come back
with ANOTHER BS theory...because this one isn't working.

As I said before, this "BS theory" has nothing to do with the FDR type itself. I'm merely explaining to you that your impact time, apparently sourced from NTSB and nowhere else, does not appear to be reliable to +/- 1 second, which is the way you're using it. I'm also explaining that the trajectory you hypothesize makes no sense, and that I've already provided a superior, and eminently plausible, alternative.

Nothing in that has anything to do with the properties of flash memory. It's quite plain that you are merely attempting to divert the conversation.


You started off with a six second data missing LIE, and now that I caught
you in a horrid contradiction, you are changing to Flash memory junk.

I still do not know what LIE or horrid contradiction you are talking about. The data is missing from the FDR logs themselves. I haven't isolated the precise cause of why, but that isn't the point, since there are numerous candidates. What matters is the data that we do have, and that data does end before impact.


Funny stuff. How many holes do you have in your theories?

I'm waiting for you to find them. To the best of my knowledge, none.


Clarification:
Why are the speeds and start of 330 turn in conflict with what the 9/11 Commission Sources? IE: the NTSB Flight Path Study

Are they actually in conflict, or are you simply applying false precision? I can't answer your question without more specifics. Give me references, page numbers, actual speeds, and maybe I can figure it out. I'm betting you're simply confused.

[Jonnyclueless]

Could you post a link to the NTSB's statement on the impact time? Just for clarification. Thanks.

Bump

[Turbofan]

Bump

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

AA77 Flight Path Study.

[funk de fino]

Don't even try to suggest tape and EEPROM is the same thing.

Don't even try to suggest the impact wiped out a few seconds of data.

The best thing you can do is learn how EEPROM works, then come back
with ANOTHER BS theory...because this one isn't working.

You started off with a six second data missing LIE, and now that I caught
you in a horrid contradiction, you are changing to Flash memory junk.

Funny stuff. How many holes do you have in your theories?

Clarification:
Why are the speeds and start of 330 turn in conflict with what the 9/11 Commission Sources? IE: the NTSB Flight Path Study

The security video proves there is data missing

The witness prove there is data missing

The physical evidence proves there is data missing

John Farmer has proved there is data missing

What you have to do is prove it is not missing, contact the NTSB and ask them

Why are there pages of parameters not recorded or verified recorded in the FDR report? This is another question you have failed to answer? What has caused this missing or not verified parameters to be missing from the data?

Got an FDR guy from your list with my experience yet? I have asked a few times and none on any list you have provided meet the grade. Do you have some hidden away?

[beachnut]

Clarification:
Why are the speeds and start of 330 turn in conflict with what the 9/11 Commission Sources? IE: the NTSB Flight Path Study
Why? You forgot to say the speeds and pages of your source for you next lack of understanding point on 9/11.

You must be specific, and more technical. Right now you are full of hearsay and your big lie.

[16.5]

16.5 - I already told you I don't believe your silly flight path, and I'm not
going to calculate a single digit to play your game. THat's not what happened,
and it doesn't follow the FDR data. Period.

Awesome!! Yeah baby! I agree, it IS a silly flight path!! It is the CIT's North of Citgo flight path. It is an impossible flight path!!!

Look up at the subject of this Thread: Why Does the FAA/NORAD animation show the NOC flightpath?

Why indeed, because as you yourself state: it is a silly flight path!!

May I quote you on that? Hell, I don't care, I am going to quote you anyway!

Pilots For Truth call the North of CITGO flight path "silly."

Hey Dom, you better get your ass back in this thread, PFT is carving your boy's "silly" flight path right the hell up!!!

[Turbofan]

Why not? There are many reasons why this could happen -- either data was still in transit

Nope. CRC, parity, etc. require the full word to be received and checked
before writing to CPM. Values stored in CPM are time stamped along
with the corresponding parameters.

, other damage cut power to the device or otherwise interfered with the DFDAU

What damage? The data written to CPM is already secure and verified.
Power to the FDAU is not lost instantly upon impact, but even then
the Alititude shows too high at :45.

, or the memory of the FDR itself was damaged in the crash.

Nope. You can't wipe out certain seconds, or words, or parameters.

The FDR is rated up to 3400 G's and temperatures well above jet fuel.

As explained, the Flash memory itself requires address lines and electricity
applied for an extended period of time to erase the contents.

Sudden impacts, or loss of power do not contribute to the erease process
of EEPROM.

Do you know what happens to flash memory when you're writing to it, and you experience a spike or loss of power at that instant?

Spikes: Regulated by circuitry usually in the form of filter capacitors, inductors and/or regulator IC's.

Loss of power while writing would reject the word/frame. Due to the fact
that the data reached CPM, was recovered, contiguous and intelligble,
the 'power loss' theory is not acceptable.

The simple fact that you held onto a theory that claimed the data was
six seconds prior to impact also contradicts your current claim of
impact vs. data written.


As I said before, this "BS theory" has nothing to do with the FDR type itself. I'm merely explaining to you that your impact time, apparently sourced from NTSB and nowhere else, does not appear to be reliable to +/- 1 second, which is the way you're using it. I'm also explaining that the trajectory you hypothesize makes no sense, and that I've already provided a superior, and eminently plausible, alternative.

No, you did not'

NTSB states impact at :45

Your theories (as explained above) do not make sense based on the information.


I still do not know what LIE or horrid contradiction you are talking about.

Remember this?

Quote:
ETA: The FDR data did stop. Since the FDR shows the aircraft well above the impact point, there can be no doubt that it did not record all the way to impact. And if there was no impact at all (as the no-planers will argue), there's no reason for it to stop at all. Very simple.
That would be fine for those fooled into believing the OGCT.

So, you just said...

IF there's NO IMPACT AT ALL, THERE's NO REASON FOR IT TO STOP AT ALL!

LMAO!!!

HOly COW!!!

So tell me, why did it stop 6 second back if there WAS NO IMPACT!

The data is missing from the FDR logs themselves. I haven't isolated the precise cause of why, but that isn't the point, since there are numerous candidates. What matters is the data that we do have, and that data does end before impact.

It DOES end before impact? But you just told us there's no reason for it? :eye-poppi

Are they actually in conflict, or are you simply applying false precision? I can't answer your question without more specifics. Give me references, page numbers, actual speeds, and maybe I can figure it out. I'm betting you're simply confused.

Here's a hint:

the turn started about 3.5 miles southwest

[Turbofan]

Awesome!! Yeah baby! I agree, it IS a silly flight path!! It is the CIT's North of Citgo flight path. It is an impossible flight path!!!

Look up at the subject of this Thread: Why Does the FAA/NORAD animation show the NOC flightpath?

Why indeed, because as you yourself state: it is a silly flight path!!

May I quote you on that? Hell, I don't care, I am going to quote you anyway!

Pilots For Truth call the North of CITGO flight path "silly."

Hey Dom, you better get your ass back in this thread, PFT is carving your boy's "silly" flight path right the hell up!!!


Hey expert post spinner.

I agree with the North flight path and our witness accounts.

I just don't like your 'dipping down below the trees crap. that's not what
the FDR says.

Maybe if you knew how to read FDR data, you wouldn't be asking for such
nonsense.

[16.5]

Maybe if you knew how to read FDR data, you wouldn't be asking for such
nonsense.

I know if CIT knew how to properly research anything, you are DAMN sure I would not be asking that question because they would NOT be coming up with this BS NoC flight path!!

Again, and I'll say it again, the dip below the tree level was taken from Craig/Lyte's discussion of Terry Morin's testimony on ATS and Loose Change.

Terry Morin is one of your witnesses. You knew that, correct?

But why argue, you already said the flight path is silly, and I agree!

Everybody watch me to do the SILLY dance of Win!

Silly Silly SIL-LEY Silly Silly SIL-LEY! N. of C. is SIL-LEY

[beachnut]

Hey expert post spinner.

I agree with the North flight path and our witness accounts.

I just don't like your 'dipping down below the trees crap. that's not what
the FDR says.

Maybe if you knew how to read FDR data, you wouldn't be asking for such
nonsense.
All the NoC paths are impossible based on CIT's own witnesses. Paik has 77 right to the side of the VDOT tower, below the tower. Oops.

Show us one path that is possible. Just one.

The bank angle and G force are also impossible for a plane to do, and based on witnesses even the ones CIT has warped, no bank angle was seen to make the high G turns. Facts are needed you came up short.

Which NoC witness? Paik is a direct impact witness; his testimony was messed with.

77 hit a tree. Oops.

Maybe if you used the FDR data you would understand. You have yet to back up anything you say with the FDR. You can't.

You sure talk a lot but no math or technical stuff comes out. Nothing. Just talk.

[R.Mackey]

Nope. CRC, parity, etc. require the full word to be received and checked
before writing to CPM. Values stored in CPM are time stamped along
with the corresponding parameters.

And what time stamp is applied? Who generates the time stamp?

This has no effect on delays upstream.

Since this has been explained to you literally dozens of times, I don't expect an acknowledgement from you at this stage, so instead, I reiterate: Losses of the last few seconds are common in FDRs. The events of AA 77 are not unusual in this respect, no matter how they happened.

What damage? The data written to CPM is already secure and verified.
Power to the FDAU is not lost instantly upon impact, but even then
the Alititude shows too high at :45.

"What Damage:"
The SSFDR was examined upon receipt. The recorder displayed evidence of impact, fire, and smoke damage. [...]

Only validated parameters are included in the plots and tabluar data in this report. A list of these parameters is in Attachments I-1 to I-4. The remaining parameters either were not recorded properly or were not confirmed to have been recorded properly, and were not included in this report.
Source (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf)

The list of unrecovered parameters outweighs the recovered parameters by about two to one. There are some reasons for this, i.e. most unrecoverable measurements are discretes and phase-specific, however there is some evidence of damage to the recording module itself. Nonetheless, this is but one possible mechanism, and one that cannot be ruled out.

Again, we know ...:45 is before impact, because, as you yourself point out, it was too high at that instant. This is consistent with my explanation.

This also suggests that the NTSB's "estimate" of impact time was merely read off from the above figure. This is quite similar to the 9/11 Commission report's (incorrect) impact times, which were taken directly from radar returns, and turn out to be off by about ten seconds.

Unless we can verify that the NTSB really meant its figure to be good to +/- 1 second, this figure is not precise enough to use it as you are using it. I've explained this to you several times today.


Nope. You can't wipe out certain seconds, or words, or parameters.

The FDR is rated up to 3400 G's and temperatures well above jet fuel.

Yes, one can. Particularly in an impact.

"Jet Fuel" is not a temperature. Also, systems do not always perform up to their rated spec...

And, once again, we must treat the data we have. There is no point arguing that we should have data that we do not.


As explained, the Flash memory itself requires address lines and electricity
applied for an extended period of time to erase the contents.

Sudden impacts, or loss of power do not contribute to the erease process
of EEPROM.

Wrong. If you are writing to an EEPROM when your voltage spikes or flatlines, you damage the EEPROM. Loss of power can lead to a latch, but a spike is the worse case. This results in excessive charging, leading to a short in the EEPROM itself. You can also get sympathetic charging in nearby cells. If an entire subframe was being written at this time, it would not be even faintly unusual for significant data damage.

And it doesn't take much. Kill a single bit in the sync words, and you've just invalidated an entire subframe.

Since the FDR records in four-second frames, and the data outage we're considering here is on the order of four to six seconds, you cannot possibly pretend that such mechanisms are impossible. Particularly since losses of similar data are, once again, seen in several other crashes as well.


Spikes: Regulated by circuitry usually in the form of filter capacitors, inductors and/or regulator IC's.

Loss of power while writing would reject the word/frame. Due to the fact
that the data reached CPM, was recovered, contiguous and intelligble,
the 'power loss' theory is not acceptable.

In a collision, you are practically guaranteed to get arcing across multiple power and data systems. All those capacitors suddenly get mashed onto their circuit boards in ways they were never intended. Batteries short. Rectifiers fail. Regulator IC's arc and short.

You're basically pretending that everything would work perfectly and then fail safe. Not a good assumption.


The simple fact that you held onto a theory that claimed the data was
six seconds prior to impact also contradicts your current claim of
impact vs. data written.

The FDR runs out before impact. This is not theory, it's fact. I'm holding on to it because that's what the data says. Again, I don't see the contradiction.


No, you did not'

NTSB states impact at :45

Your theories (as explained above) do not make sense based on the information.

Seem to make sense to me.



Remember this?

It DOES end before impact? But you just told us there's no reason for it? :eye-poppi

You're confusing yourself. The data does stop. There is data loss associated with the data stoppage, due to mechanisms as explained to you numerous times. Had there been no impact, the data would not have stopped, and there would be no loss.

No contradiction.

Here's a hint:

the turn started about 3.5 miles southwest

Not good enough. Either explain your alleged contradiction, or drop it. I can't tell how you are confused if you won't explain it.

[SlightlyAbovePar]

As said elsewhere, is not the entire 'issue' of a NOC flight path utterly moot? Unless, of course, you are suggesting the plane did not hit the building. I notice that here, and elsewhere, you deftly side-step this basic question. However, the question remains. Do you, or do you not, think the plane (FLT 77) hit the Pentagon, or not? If so, then who gives a rats butt about NOC/SOC/EOC/WOC? The darn plane ended it's flight in the building, correct? If not, then (as before) these ten questions are for you. No, they aren't for skeptics. If you're going to make assertions that challange the widely accepted narrative then you must be able to answer the implications of those assertions.

With that in mind, please answer these questions that are directly related to the existing body of accepted evidence. Once you (the royal you) can provide a plausible narrative to negate these questions, only then is it reasonable to entertain notions of a fly over. Hint: conspiracies, layered upon yet more conspiracies is not a cohesive narrative. It's unfounded speculation.

(1)What happened to flight 77?
If flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, then where is it? Where is the plane – physically? Who disposed of the aircraft? Where was it disposed? How? We are talking about 110 tons of aircraft, engines, fuel, seats, trays, avionics, luggage, etc. Where are the eyewitnesses that saw the plane physically fly over the Pentagon? Where did it land after the fly over? Were the FAA radar operators “in on it” too? Where are the airport employees who saw the 110 ton airliner land, at the undisclosed location? Were they “in on it” too, or were they killed? If so, who killed them?

(2)What happened to the passengers and crew?
Where are the passengers? Were they all “in on it”? If not, who disposed of the passengers? Where were the disposed of? How have the disposers been keep quiet? Have the disposers been killed too? How have the disposers of the disposers been kept quiet? Where were the bodies taken/buried? How was this accomplished?

(3)How do you explain the phone calls from loved ones physically on the plane, to other loved ones?
Where the calls faked? From where? How were family members duped into thinking they were talking to their wife (for example) when in you’re claiming they were talking to a computer program? How do you reconcile that some of the phone calls went through cell phone towers very close to the so-called “official” flight path? How do you reconcile that some of the calls originated from the Airphones physically on the plane in question?

(4)How do you explain the wreckage found in the building?
If it was planted, how was it planted? Who planted it? When did they plant it? Where did they get spare aircraft parts? Where were these spare aircraft parts stored? How were they transported to the scene without anyone noticing? Were the parts in question placed beforehand? If so, how? How was this accomplished without anyone noticing?

(5)How do you account for the wreckage found on the lawn?
Were the parts found in the lawn placed beforehand ? If so, where are the witnesses talking about aircraft wreckage laying around on the lawn beforehand? Or, are “they” “in on it” too? Was the wreckage on the lawn placed after the event? If so, how were “they” able to accomplish this without anyone noticing? Or are the potential witnesses, after the event “in on it” too?

(6)How do you reconcile the impact location, as it relates to the evidence?
How were the perpetrators able to judge the exact location of impact, before the event? That is, how do you reconcile that the airplane debris in question is exactly where it should be?

(7)How do you reconcile the bodies of the passengers and crew being positively identified through DNA evidence collected from within the Pentagon?
Is the DNA evidence faked? If so, by whom? Is the lab that conducted the tests and certified it’s authenticity “in on it” too?

(8)How do you reconcile personal effects, positively identified by family members as belonging to their next of kin, found within the Pentagon?
Was this evidence placed beforehand? If so, by whom? If it was placed after the event why did nobody notice? Or, are the first responders (Pentagon employees) “in on it” too? How were personal effects taken from the victims (like a drivers license) without their knowledge beforehand and planted?

(9)How do you reconcile the bodies of passengers found within the Pentagon, some still strapped into their seats?
Were the bodies placed beforehand? If so, how do you explain the bodies in question checking in at the counter at the originating airport? Were the ticketing agents “in on it” too? If the pilots were killed beforehand and then placed in the Pentagon (at some point), who flew the plane? If the bodies were placed after the event, how were the correct passengers and crew killed, then placed in the Pentagon without anyone knowing? Are the first responders, who found the first bodies, “in on it” too? Can you offer a time line that reconciles the correct passengers/crew checking in at the airport, being led off and executed and then their bodies being transported to the crash site?

(10)How do you explain the impact zone damage being completely in-line with a fast moving commercial airliner?
Was it a controlled demolition? If so, where are the blasting caps? Wiring? How was the area wired without anyone noticing? How long would this take? How would the employees who were killed at their desks not notice demolition experts wiring their office with demolitions and not complain, notice, or ask questions? Or, were the employees killed at their desk “in on it” too? If there were no employees at their desks, were the bodies planted before the event? If so, how? By whom? How have the planters been kept quiet? Were the planters killed too? By whom? Were the bodies planted after the event? If so, by whom? Where are the eyewitness reports of dead employees being brought in, after the fact? Or, were/are these potential witnesses “in on it” too?

[beachnut]

Here's a hint:

the turn started about 3.5 miles southwest
9/11 commission says (page 9?),
"77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon… began a 330-degree turn"

You don't understand west-southwest, and when a plane starts as turn. The 9/11 commission is correct! Next. But the turn gets within 3.5 NM (so when the flight path study says "about", they are correct too; darn), but the turn does start at 5 miles. Darn you lack flying knowledge. Good job, you and p4t are doing a bang up job.

Do you get anything right?

Not really; the flight path study on page 2 says about 3.5 miles west-southwest. "About" being the key word, because the turn path was within 3.5 miles of the Pentagon. But if you take the lead in bank to the turn, 5 miles can be used. Darn. Are you always unable to connect the dots? You don't understand DME and keep using the wrong accuracy!

What other thing do you mess up?


Turbofan, "teacher you said recess ends in about 10 minutes, you called us in at 7 minutes", "waaaaaaaaaaaaa". Teacher, "yes turbofan, 7 minutes is about 10!, cry if you must but you don't have a clue how to understand things. Will you one day?"
About, parallel, perpendicular, and other issues like 64 words per second; could be a perception problem of p4t, CIT and, you too turbo?
Like higher math may take an epiphany, a moment of revelation to understand; one day you may gain understanding, a moment of enlightenment, illumination, on 9/11; hurry please.

[Jonnyclueless]

Slightly

According to the FDR and Turbo, the plane came to a complete stop and suspended in the air just above the Pentagon. In other words he uses the FDR to show that the plane did not reach the Pentagon. But the FDR does not show the plane flying over and beyond the Pentagon.

So therefore the only conclusion that can be reached using Turbo's argument is that the plane was suspended in the air near the Pentagon.We can rule out a fly over using Turbo's evidence which is the FDR and the eyewitness testimony. Since the FDR does not show a fly over and no witnesses report a fly-over, we can only conclude that the plain stopped in mid air.

[Caustic Logic]

To get back to the OP question - why? Celestrin had the best guess so far.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4041925&postcount=147

I looked at it a bit last night and did these graphics. Thses maps from NTSB's FPS and the final map of the animation are near perfectly aligned. Note the offset in rotation and location of the loop cross point.
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/NORAD_NTSB_comp_1.jpg

It almost looks like the squarish loop was based on taking every other 84 RADES return (pink dots) as anchor points, and replaced the intervening ones with straight lines or full curves, depending.
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/NORAD_animation_loop_2.jpg

Consider this pattern and the rotation in light of these final three points of RADES data. The last two are not real 77 returns, BTW. Does this answer the question? http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/AA77RADES.jpg

[TheLoneBedouin]

Wrong, because as the top end of the pole strikes the ground, the pole still has angular momentum. If the turning moment produced by the fact that the pole's centre of gravity is offset from the point of impact (and hence the line of action of the reaction force) is insufficient to reduce that angular momentum to zero by the time the pole has reached the vertical, then the pole will continue to rotate. It's trivial to demonstrate that this will be the case for any sufficiently large angular velocity of the pole. In layman's terms, if the pole is spinning fast enough, it won't stop spinning just because one end hits the ground.

TLB, I think you need to check your simple mechanics again. This is high school stuff.

Dave
Pay attention JREFlings- I said "caber-like" rotation. Can you guess why this is impossible?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2618448d418e44e92c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13864)
There is no vertical force vector.

[Caustic Logic]

I don't know if the policy has changed, but I'm able to read the PfffT forum, every link I've tried so far. Interesting dynamic going on the between Craig and Rob. I know, directing to other forums and so on, but it's an interesting read.
Rob's thread (starter 9/13) is all about how cool it is the data shows NoC, gets quite a few responses, half of it arguing with Craig over whether to "embrace" or "ignore" this.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=14629
Craig's thread required more thought, and went up 9/15. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=14671 - zero responses still. And he's being so sophisiticated in his apprehension!

[GregoryUrich]

On 9/11 the lawn slopes to the Pentagon, and the lens is a crummy fish eye lens distorting the whole world. 7 years and you have "ample evidence". I have ample evidence you lack research on 9/11. 77 never leveled off. Sorry. 77 hit the first VOT camera post and the bush the engine clipped, it was all down hill. 100 feet MSL to 40 feet MSL over 790 f/s forward velocity (everyone leaves out the added acceleration gained after the FDR last data point over 6 seconds away, 77 gaining 5 knots a second) The engines were close to their max temperature limits, over normal limits. Anyone look at the EGT of 77 in the FDR?

60 feet down to impact, 1300 feet to go. This is called down. A level off would have 77 hitting higher. This is called math. 77 hit near 2700 feet per minute, over 3 times normal landing approaches! Steep, this is why we get steep for small changed in angles. Normal landing approaches are at 2.5 degree, 750 feet per minute

Math, what we used in engineering school and music school.

Lens? Study up.

Greg, study before you post stupid stuff. Do you ever study stuff before drawing conclusion and signing truth petitions, or joining a few truther groups, including thermite Jones group of non-scholars on9/11? Where is that "ample evidence" in your truth petition, this topic seems to be lacking the ample evidence? We have an animation in this thread that shows 77 hitting the Pentagon, but in a path with no relationship to the actual path. The animation was brought up by a Mr Farmer, he is playing a joke on CIT/p4t because they can't understand symbols or animations and their use. It is possible RADAR data was used to make the animation, but even trucks and smoke could result in spurious RADAR returns after 77 flies into the Pentagon. There is one return to the left and right of the real flight path; but after impact.

Flight path, you can study before you adlib your statements based on faulty analysis.

Are you saying that the altitude went from 100 ft MSL to 40 ft MSL in the last 1-2 seconds? Even if the descent rate is 60 ft/sec, that's hardly a dive. Maybe you meant a gradual descent?

[16.5]

Pay attention JREFlings- I said "caber-like" rotation. Can you guess why this is impossible?


Uhhhh, did you try the pencil thing like I told you?

My record is FIVE rotations!!

[TheGrunion]

Pay attention JREFlings- I said "caber-like" rotation. Can you guess why this is impossible?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2618448d418e44e92c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13864)
There is no vertical force vector.


You are wrong! You didn't read the information contained in the link that I provided, did you?

The pole is going to hit the ground anyway due to gravity, which is a vertical force.

In addition the pole will be subjected to a significant moment force that will cause it to rotate.

This explains moment forces very well. Unfortunately, I suspect that its a bit over your comprehension level. There is a couple of sentences in section 4.4 that you might be able to understand though.

http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en3/notes/Statics/moments/moments.htm (http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en3/notes/Statics/moments/moments.htm)

You are actually wrong twice! You don't need a vertical force vector because of the moment force. However, there is a vertical force vector acting on the pole. It is called gravity.

[beachnut]

Consider this pattern and the rotation in light of these final three points of RADES data. The last two are not real 77 returns, BTW. Does this answer the question? http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/AA77RADES.jpg
If RADAR data was used, the radar data late return on the left set up the animation for the impossible turn. CIT, not smart enough to see, not smart enough to throw out the non-77 returns.

[GregoryUrich]

Pay attention JREFlings- I said "caber-like" rotation. Can you guess why this is impossible?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2618448d418e44e92c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13864)
There is no vertical force vector.

TLB, Dave is correct about this. Take a broom stick and balance it on one end and then whack the other end near the top with a baseball bat. You will be able to see the "caber-like" motion for yourself.

Dave, in the US (at least in the 70's) most high school students didn't get this far in physics.

/Greg

[JimBenArm]

Pay attention JREFlings- I said "caber-like" rotation. Can you guess why this is impossible?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2618448d418e44e92c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13864)
There is no vertical force vector.
I'm guessing you think because you say so. This is about the most pathetic thing I've seen since Lyte Bryte's stupid diagram.

:dl::dl::dl:

Yeah. An MS Paint diagram is definitely superior to any other argument one could put forth.

[Tbone]

"My caber analogy renders the need for calculations moot."

[Turbofan]

And what time stamp is applied? Who generates the time stamp?

This has no effect on delays upstream.

The time stamp and associated parameter data does not get any 'delay'
added to it..."upstream", "downstream", "midstream", or "dreamstream".

Since this has been explained to you literally dozens of times, I don't expect an acknowledgement from you at this stage, so instead, I reiterate: Losses of the last few seconds are common in FDRs. The events of AA 77 are not unusual in this respect, no matter how they happened.

I don't expect you to pick up on this either since you've contradicted yourself
a dozen times.

First you say that FDR shouldn't stop recording if there is not impact.

Then you say the data stopped six seconds back.

I caught you on this.

Now you complain about delays, but there are no delays because of time
stamps.

NTSB states the impact time at :45

There is data written with time stamps at :45

There's no way in hell you're going to convince caveman Joe that the
clock is out of sync by six seconds. Maybe six milliseconds! LMAO...laughing
my donkey off.

R. Mackey, which theory do you want to push?

1. The stop record before impact

2. The six second clock sync issue

3. The NTSB impact time

4. Other...insert excuse here

Please, please, please look up Flash memory operation. Please don't make
me link you to how data is erased and how many bytes are erased per
block/page.

When you come back, make sure you have a theory that accounts for
all the info...otherwise you have 'holy holes'...'holies spamolies'...or "BS"
for lack of a better term.

[Jonnyclueless]

Pay attention JREFlings- I said "caber-like" rotation. Can you guess why this is impossible?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2618448d418e44e92c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13864)
There is no vertical force vector.

The problem with your example is that the light poles don't change size as they rotate.

[Turbofan]

Slightly

According to the FDR and Turbo, the plane came to a complete stop and suspended in the air just above the Pentagon. In other words he uses the FDR to show that the plane did not reach the Pentagon. But the FDR does not show the plane flying over and beyond the Pentagon.

So therefore the only conclusion that can be reached using Turbo's argument is that the plane was suspended in the air near the Pentagon.We can rule out a fly over using Turbo's evidence which is the FDR and the eyewitness testimony. Since the FDR does not show a fly over and no witnesses report a fly-over, we can only conclude that the plain stopped in mid air.

ORRRRRRRRRRRRRR....

Someone is messing with the data by truncating?

Hmmm...

DO you think the plane is still suspending over the Pentagon right now?

Quick, go and check for me!

[beachnut]

Are you saying that the altitude went from 100 ft MSL to 40 ft MSL in the last 1-2 seconds? Even if the descent rate is 60 ft/sec, that's hardly a dive. Maybe you meant a gradual descent?
Oh my. Climb, dive or level. So 100 MSL to 40 MSL at 2600 feet to you is a gradual decent? Funny stuff. Flying is not your field. You should study some.

There will usually be damage to plane hitting at 2600 feet per minute your gradual decent (dive), and you will fail your flight if you live to fly again.

Greg, you have to pick one. A climb, a dive, or level flight. 77 hit a VOT camera post, and then impacted the Pentagon in 1.33 second. 77 goes from 100 MSL to 40 MSL in 1.33 second, this is a dive of 2600 feet per minute, which is 3.5 times the decent (dive) rate of a landing plane as it approaches the runway. So our 77 dive into the Pentagon is 3.5 times more dive than approach to landing.

Accident report, with only 12 to 14 feet per second impact, oops, fire and damage! Are you really an engineer?
http://www.cad.gov.hk/reports/main1.pdf ... previous 750-800 feet per minute
(fpm). Although an attempt was made to flare the aircraft, the high rate of
descent was not arrested, resulting in an extremely hard impact with the
runway in a slightly right wing down attitude (less than 4º), prior to the normal
touchdown zone. The right mainwheels contacted the runway first, followed
by the underside of the right engine cowling. The right main landing gear
collapsed outward, causing damage to the right wing assembly, resulting in its
failure. As the right wing separated, spilled fuel was ignited and the aircraft
rolled inverted and came to rest upside-down alongside the runway facing in
the direction of the approach. Now imagine a 60 foot per second impact.
You slight decent comment is an uneducated effort, like "ample evidence"! The truth movement saw you coming!
bcgJYTQ7YFY
You should join p4t, they lack knowledge in flying too, just like you. I am not an expert pilot, I am the expert pilot, after reheat, pinch, and a few thousands others. But the best pilots and best people I know died before their time; they were better than i.

Did you say 60 feet per second was a gradual decent? High rate is 12 to 15 feet per second. Turbofan is off by a factor of four sometimes; is this truth trait?

Did you study the lens stuff? You have confirmed what I knew the first day you showed up as a member of multiple truth groups, you talk first and find out later. Use some research first, or ask one of the pilots on these issues.

60 feet per second is gear breaking stuff, and compared to landing at .5 to 1 feet per second, 60 feet per second is a crash. Stop diving at the runway, you will not be a pilot! lol Pinch lands at higher rates, but he has extra strength.

[Jonnyclueless]

The time stamp and associated parameter data does not get any 'delay'
added to it..."upstream", "downstream", "midstream", or "dreamstream".



I don't expect you to pick up on this either since you've contradicted yourself
a dozen times.

First you say that FDR shouldn't stop recording if there is not impact.

Then you say the data stopped six seconds back.

I caught you on this.

Now you complain about delays, but there are no delays because of time
stamps.

NTSB states the impact time at :45

There is data written with time stamps at :45

There's no way in hell you're going to convince caveman Joe that the
clock is out of sync by six seconds. Maybe six milliseconds! LMAO...laughing
my donkey off.

R. Mackey, which theory do you want to push?

1. The stop record before impact

2. The six second clock sync issue

3. The NTSB impact time

4. Other...insert excuse here

Please, please, please look up Flash memory operation. Please don't make
me link you to how data is erased and how many bytes are erased per
block/page.

When you come back, make sure you have a theory that accounts for
all the info...otherwise you have 'holy holes'...'holies spamolies'...or "BS"
for lack of a better term.

if you go back and re-read you will see where he did not contradict himself. You simply did not understand or bother to read his explanation. Yes he said it stopped 6 minuts prior, but he did not say there wasn't an impact and he did not imply that the impact had nothing to do with the data stopping 6 seconds prior. He explained in great detail of why this could happen and even cited that it has happened often in the past.

[Jonnyclueless]

ORRRRRRRRRRRRRR....

Someone is messing with the data by truncating?

Hmmm...

DO you think the plane is still suspending over the Pentagon right now?

Quick, go and check for me!

Your source is the FDR. The FDR does not show any evidence that it was truncated. So you're just using conjecture to assume that. We're talking about evidence here. And your witnesses do not support the plane flying over. There is no evidence of a fly over and everything contradicts a fly over so we can rule that out.

So if we'reruled out a ly over using YOUR evidence and claims, and you've ruled out the plane impacting the pentagon by ignoring 99% of the evidence, then we can only conclude that the plane stopped mid air.


Though I am amused at your implication that the people who manipulated the FDR (which you cannot back up) would use it as evidence of the plane crashing. I suppose they couldn't be bothered to simply make it show the plane hitting the building eh? This is the problem when your research involves making stuff up.

[beachnut]

Now you complain about delays, but there are no delays because of time
stamps.

NTSB states the impact time at :45

There is data written with time stamps at :45

There's no way in hell you're going to convince caveman Joe that the
clock is out of sync by six seconds. Maybe six milliseconds! LMAO...laughing
my donkey off.

R. Mackey, which theory do you want to push?

1. The stop record before impact

2. The six second clock sync issue

3. The NTSB impact time

4. Other...insert excuse here

Please, please, please look up Flash memory operation. Please don't make
me link you to how data is erased and how many bytes are erased per
block/page.

When you come back, make sure you have a theory that accounts for
all the info...otherwise you have 'holy holes'...'holies spamolies'...or "BS"
for lack of a better term.
13:37:46 last time stamp! Why did NTSB decode an extra second and the expert p4t decode is missing it?
The real problem, you never address, you have zero clue where 77 in last data point stored in the FDR! You can't tell anyone!
Where is 77 at 13:37:44?

Look were 77 is at 13:37:47 - the blue dot on the right! Darn, that is not the Pentagon! Why do you ignore facts to make up lies? You have to.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/774datapath.jpg
Turbofan can not tell us; unable to tell, with all the p4t expert to tell us where 77 is at 13:37:44. Using his own numbers from the FDR, he has no clue where 77 is. zip

[R.Mackey]

The time stamp and associated parameter data does not get any 'delay'
added to it..."upstream", "downstream", "midstream", or "dreamstream".

You didn't answer my question.

When is the timestamp applied? Is it an input to the FDR, or is it applied by the FDR?

Once you figure that one out, it should all be very simple.


I don't expect you to pick up on this either since you've contradicted yourself
a dozen times.

First you say that FDR shouldn't stop recording if there is not impact.

Then you say the data stopped six seconds back.

I caught you on this.

No. You simply don't get it. Willfully, I hope.

When the aircraft crashes, the FDR stops working. And any data currently in the pipeline is lost. Furthermore, the crash itself can and probably will damage the data currently being written.

The crash therefore both stops recording and interferes with or corrupts the data six seconds or so back.

Again, there is no contradiction.


Now you complain about delays, but there are no delays because of time
stamps.

There is no way to prevent loss of this data.


NTSB states the impact time at :45

There is data written with time stamps at :45

The two are probably correlated. I suspect NTSB states impact at :45 because that's the last valid timestamp. But, again, as you yourself note, the FDR is showing the aircraft still in flight and still well above impact at :45. Therefore, the FDR proves impact did not occur at :45. Assuming the FDR clock is correctly calibrated, of course.


There's no way in hell you're going to convince caveman Joe that the
clock is out of sync by six seconds. Maybe six milliseconds! LMAO...laughing
my donkey off.

There is no reason to suspect either the FDR or the NTSB impact time is accurate to +/- 6 seconds, let alone six milliseconds. You're handwaving, and I don't know "caveman Joe."


R. Mackey, which theory do you want to push?

1. The stop record before impact

2. The six second clock sync issue

3. The NTSB impact time

4. Other...insert excuse here

Please, please, please look up Flash memory operation. Please don't make
me link you to how data is erased and how many bytes are erased per
block/page.

This, again, is nominal Flash operation. This does not describe behavior during a crash, during a broken write cycle, during disruption of power supplies and data lines. You are not even participating in the discussion at this point.


When you come back, make sure you have a theory that accounts for
all the info...otherwise you have 'holy holes'...'holies spamolies'...or "BS"
for lack of a better term.

You not only don't understand what happened, you also don't understand what I'm saying. Furthermore, you have yet to provide your own explanation. Nice trifecta you've got there.

[Wolrab]

The game is a blowout and ticking down to the final seconds and we still have the first string playing? Dammit Mackey, hit the showers!

[stateofgrace]

As said elsewhere, is not the entire 'issue' of a NOC flight path utterly moot? Unless, of course, you are suggesting the plane did not hit the building. I notice that here, and elsewhere, you deftly side-step this basic question. However, the question remains. Do you, or do you not, think the plane (FLT 77) hit the Pentagon, or not? If so, then who gives a rats butt about NOC/SOC/EOC/WOC? The darn plane ended it's flight in the building, correct? If not, then (as before) these ten questions are for you. No, they aren't for skeptics. If you're going to make assertions that challange the widely accepted narrative then you must be able to answer the implications of those assertions.

With that in mind, please answer these questions that are directly related to the existing body of accepted evidence. Once you (the royal you) can provide a plausible narrative to negate these questions, only then is it reasonable to entertain notions of a fly over. Hint: conspiracies, layered upon yet more conspiracies is not a cohesive narrative. It's unfounded speculation.

(1)What happened to flight 77?
If flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, then where is it? Where is the plane – physically? Who disposed of the aircraft? Where was it disposed? How? We are talking about 110 tons of aircraft, engines, fuel, seats, trays, avionics, luggage, etc. Where are the eyewitnesses that saw the plane physically fly over the Pentagon? Where did it land after the fly over? Were the FAA radar operators “in on it” too? Where are the airport employees who saw the 110 ton airliner land, at the undisclosed location? Were they “in on it” too, or were they killed? If so, who killed them?

(2)What happened to the passengers and crew?
Where are the passengers? Were they all “in on it”? If not, who disposed of the passengers? Where were the disposed of? How have the disposers been keep quiet? Have the disposers been killed too? How have the disposers of the disposers been kept quiet? Where were the bodies taken/buried? How was this accomplished?

(3)How do you explain the phone calls from loved ones physically on the plane, to other loved ones?
Where the calls faked? From where? How were family members duped into thinking they were talking to their wife (for example) when in you’re claiming they were talking to a computer program? How do you reconcile that some of the phone calls went through cell phone towers very close to the so-called “official” flight path? How do you reconcile that some of the calls originated from the Airphones physically on the plane in question?

(4)How do you explain the wreckage found in the building?
If it was planted, how was it planted? Who planted it? When did they plant it? Where did they get spare aircraft parts? Where were these spare aircraft parts stored? How were they transported to the scene without anyone noticing? Were the parts in question placed beforehand? If so, how? How was this accomplished without anyone noticing?

(5)How do you account for the wreckage found on the lawn?
Were the parts found in the lawn placed beforehand ? If so, where are the witnesses talking about aircraft wreckage laying around on the lawn beforehand? Or, are “they” “in on it” too? Was the wreckage on the lawn placed after the event? If so, how were “they” able to accomplish this without anyone noticing? Or are the potential witnesses, after the event “in on it” too?

(6)How do you reconcile the impact location, as it relates to the evidence?
How were the perpetrators able to judge the exact location of impact, before the event? That is, how do you reconcile that the airplane debris in question is exactly where it should be?

(7)How do you reconcile the bodies of the passengers and crew being positively identified through DNA evidence collected from within the Pentagon?
Is the DNA evidence faked? If so, by whom? Is the lab that conducted the tests and certified it’s authenticity “in on it” too?

(8)How do you reconcile personal effects, positively identified by family members as belonging to their next of kin, found within the Pentagon?
Was this evidence placed beforehand? If so, by whom? If it was placed after the event why did nobody notice? Or, are the first responders (Pentagon employees) “in on it” too? How were personal effects taken from the victims (like a drivers license) without their knowledge beforehand and planted?

(9)How do you reconcile the bodies of passengers found within the Pentagon, some still strapped into their seats?
Were the bodies placed beforehand? If so, how do you explain the bodies in question checking in at the counter at the originating airport? Were the ticketing agents “in on it” too? If the pilots were killed beforehand and then placed in the Pentagon (at some point), who flew the plane? If the bodies were placed after the event, how were the correct passengers and crew killed, then placed in the Pentagon without anyone knowing? Are the first responders, who found the first bodies, “in on it” too? Can you offer a time line that reconciles the correct passengers/crew checking in at the airport, being led off and executed and then their bodies being transported to the crash site?

(10)How do you explain the impact zone damage being completely in-line with a fast moving commercial airliner?
Was it a controlled demolition? If so, where are the blasting caps? Wiring? How was the area wired without anyone noticing? How long would this take? How would the employees who were killed at their desks not notice demolition experts wiring their office with demolitions and not complain, notice, or ask questions? Or, were the employees killed at their desk “in on it” too? If there were no employees at their desks, were the bodies planted before the event? If so, how? By whom? How have the planters been kept quiet? Were the planters killed too? By whom? Were the bodies planted after the event? If so, by whom? Where are the eyewitness reports of dead employees being brought in, after the fact? Or, were/are these potential witnesses “in on it” too?

It is extremely unlikely you will get any answers to your questions (thruthers don't answer questions, they just ask them and demand that you answer them). With this in mind I have bumped your post.

There are two possible outcomes to your questions.

1. They will be ignored.
2. Standard truther response " that is why we need a new investigation , to answer your questions".

Must be great to be a truther, eh ?

[TheLoneBedouin]

TLB, Dave is correct about this. Take a broom stick and balance it on one end and then whack the other end near the top with a baseball bat. You will be able to see the "caber-like" motion for yourself.

/Greg
Are you saying that a cabar-throw and an object horizontally impacting a pole have no distingushing features?

[R.Mackey]

The game is a blowout and ticking down to the final seconds and we still have the first string playing? Dammit Mackey, hit the showers!

It certainly does appear we've reached that point where the only people left in the Truth Movement are simply incapable of understanding the explanations...

Note I don't consider people like Gregory Urich in that list -- he does understand, and concordantly his opinions are quite different from folks like the "Pilots for Truth."

[Bobert]

ORRRRRRRRRRRRRR....

Someone is messing with the data by truncating?

Hmmm...

DO you think the plane is still suspending over the Pentagon right now?

Quick, go and check for me!
So where is flight 77 and all the passengers/crew?

[Turbofan]

The clock is pre FDAU, you should know the FDR is just a storage device.

All words are formed in the frame and clocked out of the FDAU.

FDR data shows up to :45, therefore it was recorded and not 'lost'

How many times do I need to go over this?

See, you didn't come back with all of the info covered. Now you still
need to explain how the clock sync can be SIX SECONDS off! LMAO.

Oops, I mean... LOL

or whatever Internet laughing acronym you kids use.

[bje]

As said elsewhere, is not the entire 'issue' of a NOC flight path utterly moot? Unless, of course, you are suggesting the plane did not hit the building. I notice that here, and elsewhere, you deftly side-step this basic question. However, the question remains. Do you, or do you not, think the plane (FLT 77) hit the Pentagon, or not? If so, then who gives a rats butt about NOC/SOC/EOC/WOC? The darn plane ended it's flight in the building, correct? If not, then (as before) these ten questions are for you. No, they aren't for skeptics. If you're going to make assertions that challange the widely accepted narrative then you must be able to answer the implications of those assertions.

No, they always refuse. And they will always continue to refuse to answer any questions about the implications of their claims and the evidence inconvenient to them.

For instance, Ranke, Marquis, and Balsamo are on record for refusing to interview, or provide any statement from, the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage inside the Pentagon, those who either saw it, handled it, or openly sorted through it outside of the Pentagon. I hounded them for two years on that question and they won't touch it.

They won't touch it because Ranke, Marquis, and Balsamo know full well they are lying through their teeth about AA77.

Period.

[bje]

How many times do I need to go over this?

You never had to, knowing full well it's all irrelevant.

[Jonnyclueless]

The clock is pre FDAU, you should know the FDR is just a storage device.

All words are formed in the frame and clocked out of the FDAU.

FDR data shows up to :45, therefore it was recorded and not 'lost'

How many times do I need to go over this?

See, you didn't come back with all of the info covered. Now you still
need to explain how the clock sync can be SIX SECONDS off! LMAO.

Oops, I mean... LOL

or whatever Internet laughing acronym you kids use.

I'll give you a hint. It wasn't clock sync he was talking about. It's pretty clear in his post the many options he gave.

[R.Mackey]

The clock is pre FDAU, you should know the FDR is just a storage device.

All words are formed in the frame and clocked out of the FDAU.

FDR data shows up to :45, therefore it was recorded and not 'lost'

How many times do I need to go over this?

See, you didn't come back with all of the info covered. Now you still
need to explain how the clock sync can be SIX SECONDS off! LMAO.

Oops, I mean... LOL

or whatever Internet laughing acronym you kids use.

Yes, "us kids."

Think about it this way: Why does it matter whether the clock comes from the FDR or pre-FDAU?

If there's no potential for lost data, either one should give you the same thing. Timestamps are, in fact, essential because there is a delay. Otherwise, it would make no difference.

[beachnut]

The clock is pre FDAU, you should know the FDR is just a storage device.

All words are formed in the frame and clocked out of the FDAU.

FDR data shows up to :45, therefore it was recorded and not 'lost'

How many times do I need to go over this?

See, you didn't come back with all of the info covered. Now you still
need to explain how the clock sync can be SIX SECONDS off! LMAO.

Oops, I mean... LOL

or whatever Internet laughing acronym you kids use.
P4t have no data in :45. The last data point decoded by p4t was :43; NTSB has :44 with data. There was smoke and impact damage to the secure data storage unit.

You have no idea where 77 is at 13:37:44.

FDR have missing data, data not recorded for many reasons; some of them have nothing to do with the FDR itself. But then you have little system knowledge on a 757.

last time stamp on NTSB data, :46.

[GregoryUrich]

Oh my. Climb, dive or level. So 100 MSL to 40 MSL at 2600 feet to you is a gradual decent? Funny stuff. Flying is not your field. You should study some.

There will usually be damage to plane hitting at 2600 feet per minute your gradual decent (dive), and you will fail your flight if you live to fly again.

Greg, you have to pick one. A climb, a dive, or level flight. 77 hit a VOT camera post, and then impacted the Pentagon in 1.33 second. 77 goes from 100 MSL to 40 MSL in 1.33 second, this is a dive of 2600 feet per minute, which is 3.5 times the decent (dive) rate of a landing plane as it approaches the runway. So our 77 dive into the Pentagon is 3.5 times more dive than approach to landing.

Accident report, with only 12 to 14 feet per second impact, oops, fire and damage! Are you really an engineer?
Now imagine a 60 foot per second impact.
You slight decent comment is an uneducated effort, like "ample evidence"! The truth movement saw you coming!
bcgJYTQ7YFY
You should join p4t, they lack knowledge in flying too, just like you. I am not an expert pilot, I am the expert pilot, after reheat, pinch, and a few thousands others. But the best pilots and best people I know died before their time; they were better than i.

Did you say 60 feet per second was a gradual decent? High rate is 12 to 15 feet per second. Turbofan is off by a factor of four sometimes; is this truth trait?

Did you study the lens stuff? You have confirmed what I knew the first day you showed up as a member of multiple truth groups, you talk first and find out later. Use some research first, or ask one of the pilots on these issues.

60 feet per second is gear breaking stuff, and compared to landing at .5 to 1 feet per second, 60 feet per second is a crash. Stop diving at the runway, you will not be a pilot! lol Pinch lands at higher rates, but he has extra strength.

What G forces are created when pulling out of a 3600 ft/min "dive" in 2 seconds?

[R.Mackey]

What G forces are created when pulling out of a 3600 ft/min "dive" in 2 seconds?

This question basically answers itself -- 3600 ft/min / 2 seconds = 60 ft/sec / 2 sec = 30 ft/sec2 = 0.96 g. Add that to 1 g for flat and level flight, and you have a g load of 1.97. Not a remarkable maneuver.

Also, for what it's worth, my derivation predicts that the flight path was basically flat for the last thousand feet or so. I can't tell if that's a smoke plume or not in the photo, but I expect the smoke trail to be almost horizontal if there was one.

[beachnut]

What G forces are created when pulling out of a 3600 ft/min "dive" in 2 seconds?
about 2 Gs. Why do you ask.

Do you understand the landing gear is designed for about 12 feet per second at max weight? So your slight decent rate is 5 times the design of landing. 12 feet per second is also near the normal final approach descent rate, then we flare to land.

77 hit the Pentagon at 2600 feet per minute or so. So the G loading for pulling out of steeper dives is less because the feet per second at impact are not zero VVI, more like 44 feet per second. Not level. fisheye


did you see the fire?
The cause of the accident was the commander’s inability to arrest the
high rate of descent existing at 50 ft RA.
And that plane above was only at 750 feet per minute. 12.5 or so feet per second

[GregoryUrich]

Are you saying that a cabar-throw and an object horizontally impacting a pole have no distingushing features?

It depends. The caber-throw is low velocity with a slight upward component in the force. A low velocity impact with the top end of a pole will cause the behavior you are describing and would look different. On other hand, a high velocity impact as would occur in an airplane hitting a pole near the top can actually give the center of mass of the pole an slight upward trajectory due to the rebound of the flexing of the pole. My understanding is that this would look more like the caber throw and the pole would likely go end over end a few times.

[GregoryUrich]

about 2 Gs. Why do you ask.

Do you understand the landing gear is designed for about 12 feet per second at max weight? So your slight decent rate is 5 times the design of landing. 12 feet per second is also near the normal final approach descent rate, then we flare to land.

77 hit the Pentagon at 2600 feet per minute or so. So the G loading for pulling out of steeper dives is less because the feet per second at impact are not zero VVI, more like 44 feet per second. Not level. fisheye

2 Gs. Would that would mean 4 Gs for a flyover if they started pulling up 4 sec in advance? Can a 757 do that? Rest assured I'm no flyover fan.

I'd like to see your analysis of the distortion caused by the fisheye lens. Is the visible protion of the lawn actually curved and only looks flat in the video?

[beachnut]

2 Gs. Would that would mean 4 Gs for a flyover if they started pulling up 4 sec in advance? Can a 757 do that? Rest assured I'm no flyover fan.

I'd like to see your analysis of the distortion caused by the fisheye lens. Is the visible protion of the lawn actually curved and only looks flat in the video?

The 777 was tested and I think the wing cracked near 7 Gs. Tested on a test rig in a hanger. 77 was 757, I expect it could handle 6 Gs for a one time event; may be broke for the next flight.

Any rolling moment and pulling lots of Gs, more than 4 would be more Gs on the rolling up wing. Complications set in when you are really flying. So pilots try not to roll and pull too much depending on their plane, but airliners would not even think of it unless you knew someone was trying to shoot you down, then what the heck throw in a roll, a loop and try to get away, you would be surprised at what a big jet can do with the right crazy pilot behind the wheel.

A 4 g pull-up is possible, but you have to have the right speed and enough space for a big plane to move to 4 Gs.

The lawn slopes down to the Pentagon. The lens is distorted, the distance horizon is above the Pentagon. The lamppost hit can all be done at an angle consistent with 2600 feet per minute descent. I think Mackey is saying his calculation give p4t a flat approach and his numbers are still possible by the terrorist albeit the terrorist is not smooth, his stick inputs are terrible, but if you shake the plane it still flies some what straight.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1179945243e7b733e1.jpg
If you want to level off, fine, but where? The overpass is in the way. I don't care if you level off, it is still possible to hit the Pentagon. If you level off at 60 feet you hit too high and hit cars on the overpass. Based on the terrorist flying and hitting the one post, a decent of 2600 feet per minute is possible and most the energy of impact will not make a big hole in the foundation, which is p4t excuse for saying 77 was level. As seen with Mackey G profile, a level off is possible, and still fits the rates the terrorist could do.

Show me why they have to level off, and gee, the lens is not useful for altitude at all.

[16.5]

My understanding is that this would look more like the caber throw and the pole would likely go end over end a few times.

Ugh, why are we caught up in comparing the poles to a caber?

Take a pencil
flick it out
and you are doing the
Pentagon Rag!!!

[uruk]

IF there's NO IMPACT AT ALL, THERE's NO REASON FOR IT TO STOP AT ALL!


look up the definition of data drop on this pdf: http://www.casa.gov.au/download/CAAPs/Airworth/42L_4.pdf

Data could have been recorded but if there is corruption in the data frame (such as the header) the data frame becomes unreadable or recoverable.


The best thing you can do is learn how EEPROM works, then come back
with ANOTHER BS theory...because this one isn't working. Data corruption can happen before the data reached the EEprom.

The EEprom itself can also corrupt data. all you need is a power loss during the write cycle.
http://support.atmel.no/bin/customer?=&action=viewKbEntry&id=4

NTSB reports also show that data loss happens more often than you think.

[uruk]

Nope. CRC, parity, etc. require the full word to be received and checked
before writing to CPM. Values stored in CPM are time stamped along
with the corresponding parameters. You do know that when you are recording data in real time there is is no data resend cycle. Kinda like a UDP data packet. If the data frame is corrupted coming in the data is not resent. The corrupted data is either recorded as is or it is dumped. Either way the data is lost.




As explained, the Flash memory itself requires address lines and electricity
applied for an extended period of time to erase the contents.

Sudden impacts, or loss of power do not contribute to the erease process
of EEPROM.
This article here shows how voltage noise can corrupt data already stored in memory on an EEPROM. So your claim that data already stored on a chip can't be erased is bunk.

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=EP1991000550&wo=1992019046&DISPLAY=DESC
"Factors which can cause a corruption of stored data include subjecting the semi-conductor devices of the system to extreme temperatures and electrical noise causing erratic or unpredictable behaviour."


Spikes: Regulated by circuitry usually in the form of filter capacitors, inductors and/or regulator IC's. These protection measures are not indestructable. If the voltage spike is high enough or fast enough it can actually destroy the filter caps or fry the voltage regulators. I've replaced many a motherboard that had popped filter caps ue to voltage spikes.

[Caustic Logic]

bump for the answer to the OP's question.
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/NORAD_Radar_FDR_RADES_comp_1.jpg
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/NORAD_Radar_FDR_RADES_comp_2.jpg
Rebuttals? TC, you have this and the light poles question (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4051734&postcount=290) pending from me.

[Caustic Logic]

2 Gs. Would that would mean 4 Gs for a flyover if they started pulling up 4 sec in advance? Can a 757 do that? Rest assured I'm no flyover fan.

As a non-expert - perhaps. No one saw anything like that happen of course.

I'd like to see your analysis of the distortion caused by the fisheye lens. Is the visible protion of the lawn actually curved and only looks flat in the video?

FWIW I looked at that once (http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/02/pentagon-camera-fisheye-correction.html), I found two passes with the spherize filter on Photoshop, set to -100% applied twice corrects it. Is that double-fisheye? Lens and a second lens? The white blur still, if anything, looks more level.
http://bp2.blogger.com/_zFE66pJgycY/RdG3ZgthEqI/AAAAAAAAAGU/Tpbx31UQRAM/s400/Fisheye_Correction_X0_X1_X2_Plane.jpg

Also, in case it affects things, do consider the white "smoke trail" may well be the plane, given that a silver 757 in sunlight would not be dark in color or invisible, like the plane ahead of the "white smoke" as seen above. Smoke is probably gray in color, like this:
http://s133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/0832-2687.jpg

From that white blur, I agree it appears essentially level, there at app. the position of pole #5. A pitch down of perhaps 3 or even 4 degrees can't be ruled out. Back at poles 3&4, 1&2, at the Citgo, etc., the pitch was almost certainly steeper. Beachnut's graphic is a good visualization. Also consider ground effect. That forces the nose up, doesn't it? So a plane descending at 2-4 degrees may actually appear completely level? Thoughts?

[gumboot]

I found two passes with the spherize filter on Photoshop, set to -100% applied twice corrects it. Is that double-fisheye? Lens and a second lens?


Just so you're aware, this will not "fix" wide angle distortion. It might look like you've corrected it, but you haven't.

[Caustic Logic]

Just so you're aware, this will not "fix" wide angle distortion. It might look like you've corrected it, but you haven't.

I freely admit I don't really know what I'm doing. :D It's all just FWIW.

[X]

2 Gs. Would that would mean 4 Gs for a flyover if they started pulling up 4 sec in advance? Can a 757 do that? Rest assured I'm no flyover fan.

I'd like to see your analysis of the distortion caused by the fisheye lens. Is the visible protion of the lawn actually curved and only looks flat in the video?


Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I think a pull-up time of 4 seconds would result in (60 ft/sec)/(4 sec) = 15 ft/s2, or 0.5 g.
Added to the Earth's gravity, this gives a total force of 1.5 g.

More time = less acceleration.

One second of pullup would resuly in 2 g + gravity = 3 g.
One=half second of pullup would result in 4 g + gravity = 5 g of pullup.

etc etc.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

;4055393']Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I think a pull-up time of 4 seconds would result in (60 ft/sec)/(4 sec) = 15 ft/s2, or 0.5 g.
Added to the Earth's gravity, this gives a total force of 1.5 g.

More time = less acceleration.

One second of pullup would resuly in 2 g + gravity = 3 g.
One=half second of pullup would result in 4 g + gravity = 5 g of pullup.

etc etc.


He's assuming a dive. Two seconds to level out; two more seconds to pull back up.

[X]

He's assuming a dive. Two seconds to level out; two more seconds to pull back up.


Ah.
In that case, just pretend I never posted.

[R.Mackey]

He's assuming a dive. Two seconds to level out; two more seconds to pull back up.

I was confused about that myself, but I get it now.

In that case, to get the flyover track, the aircraft has to double its vertical acceleration. But this doesn't double the g load.

Before we had 2 g, or 1 g to keep flying plus 1 g of true acceleration. To fly over, we'd need 3 g, since we don't double the amount needed to keep flying.

3 g is well within the limits of a 757, as this Iceland Air (http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/icelandair757.html) incident demonstrates irrrefutably.

[beachnut]

I freely admit I don't really know what I'm doing. :D It's all just FWIW.
The lens is junk, and your demo helps understand that.

[PhantomWolf]

given that a silver 757 in sunlight would not be dark in color or invisible, like the plane ahead of the "white smoke" as seen above.

However AA planes aren't actually painted silver, they are polished aluminium, so they have a mirror-like finish. Mirrors reflect things. The top of the plane would have been reflecting what was above it, the bottom of the plane would have been reflecting what was below it. Thus instead of a "silver plane" try looking for a blurred (from high speed) plane that is blue on top, green on the bottom, and has a red stripe between those colours. You might actually surprise yourself by finding it.

[TheLoneBedouin]

It depends. The caber-throw is low velocity with a slight upward component in the force. A low velocity impact with the top end of a pole will cause the behavior you are describing and would look different. On other hand, a high velocity impact as would occur in an airplane hitting a pole near the top can actually give the center of mass of the pole an slight upward trajectory due to the rebound of the flexing of the pole. My understanding is that this would look more like the caber throw and the pole would likely go end over end a few times.
Consider the angle of the pole as the top hits the ground- there is no way the angle is even close to 90 degrees, and certainly 90 degrees or greater is impossible for a completely horizontal collision on level ground. I guess the difference is just a matter of degree. The reason I asked was to put to rest the idiotic notion that the poles could fly like javelins with no downward velocity.

[Jonnyclueless]

TLB, I think you keep thinking of the bottom being the pivot point instead of the center. Your drawing which also shows the pole changing size as it turns seems to demonstrate this misunderstanding.

[Slayhamlet]

Pay attention JREFlings- I said "caber-like" rotation. Can you guess why this is impossible?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2618448d418e44e92c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13864)
There is no vertical force vector.

Wait, so in your world the pole pivots at its lowest point and not around the center of mass? Really?

[16.5]

Anyhow, Hey TC, I notice your silly pal Craig made the incredible error of posting a thread over at LC talking about how PFT "has the math" to contradict the "official flight path."

Uh OH CIT!

Put aside the silly errors in CIT/PFT's math, Craig's mistake is that he has now conceded that flight paths can be calculated!!

I expect the CIT/PFT math for CIT's North of Citgo flight path immediately.

[bje]

Anyhow, Hey TC, I notice your silly pal Craig made the incredible error of posting a thread over at LC talking about how PFT "has the math" to contradict the "official flight path."

Uh OH CIT!

Put aside the silly errors in CIT/PFT's math, Craig's mistake is that he has now conceded that flight paths can be calculated!!

I expect the CIT/PFT math for CIT's North of Citgo flight path immediately.

And Craig, don't forget to show the flight path extending beyond the Pentagon so you can find all those eyewitnesses to the flyover and tell us what they saw.

[GregoryUrich]

Anyhow, Hey TC, I notice your silly pal Craig made the incredible error of posting a thread over at LC talking about how PFT "has the math" to contradict the "official flight path."

Uh OH CIT!

Put aside the silly errors in CIT/PFT's math, Craig's mistake is that he has now conceded that flight paths can be calculated!!

I expect the CIT/PFT math for CIT's North of Citgo flight path immediately.

Craig may have posted this already, but I haven't seen it. Here is PFT's new math (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/g-force-calcs-prove-pentagon-attack-flight-path-impossible-t59.html). I haven't checked their math yet, but assuming their interpretation of the FDR data is correct, their arguments seem compelling.

[PhantomWolf]

Craig may have posted this already, but I haven't seen it. Here is PFT's new math (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/g-force-calcs-prove-pentagon-attack-flight-path-impossible-t59.html). I haven't checked their math yet, but assuming their interpretation of the FDR data is correct, their arguments seem compelling.

I didn't see any math there, just pictures and invalid assumptions.

[16.5]

Craig may have posted this already, but I haven't seen it. Here is PFT's new math (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/g-force-calcs-prove-pentagon-attack-flight-path-impossible-t59.html). I haven't checked their math yet, but assuming their interpretation of the FDR data is correct, their arguments seem compelling.

Hmm, when said you were posting to Pffffttt's new math, I expected an article outlining the calculations. Did you link to the correct site? That one has Craig pimping Pfft's video, which has been systematically debunked elsewhere.

I do note that old Craig has stuck his neck out through. If he thinks that pulling up to flat and level piles on the G's, I can't wait to see what they come up with the pull up over the Pentagon!

[R.Mackey]

Craig may have posted this already, but I haven't seen it. Here is PFT's new math (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/g-force-calcs-prove-pentagon-attack-flight-path-impossible-t59.html). I haven't checked their math yet, but assuming their interpretation of the FDR data is correct, their arguments seem compelling.

I'd agree with that statement, as far as it goes. :D The problem is that their interpretation of the FDR data is just plain stupid.

They're assuming the aircraft travels in a straight line from the VDOT tower to the final light pole, and only pulls up in a fraction of a second. (This is the "hockey stick," as I can think of no better way to describe this hypothetical trajectory.) No pilot in their right mind would do that, and that certainly isn't what the FDR shows.

If you relax this restriction, and let the aircraft pull up over a period of a couple of seconds, the g load drops to as low as 1.62, as I've shown before. This is doable by the worst pilot in the world, flying the flimsiest aircraft.

Why do they draw a straight line from VDOT tower to light poles? There's no reason to expect this whatsoever. That assumption alone is responsible for their idiotic conclusion.

[GregoryUrich]

I'd agree with that statement, as far as it goes. :D The problem is that their interpretation of the FDR data is just plain stupid.

They're assuming the aircraft travels in a straight line from the VDOT tower to the final light pole, and only pulls up in a fraction of a second. (This is the "hockey stick," as I can think of no better way to describe this hypothetical trajectory.) No pilot in their right mind would do that, and that certainly isn't what the FDR shows.

If you relax this restriction, and let the aircraft pull up over a period of a couple of seconds, the g load drops to as low as 1.62, as I've shown before. This is doable by the worst pilot in the world, flying the flimsiest aircraft.

Why do they draw a straight line from VDOT tower to light poles? There's no reason to expect this whatsoever. That assumption alone is responsible for their idiotic conclusion.

If I have understood Beachnut's post on the other thread, the FDR data ends roughly 7 seconds prior to impact and prior to passing over the VDOT tower. That would mean that any path from the last FDR reading would be possible as long as it passes above the tower and is low enough to clip the poles. However a steeper dive would be required for a parabolic path. Does the G measurements go < 1 just prior to the end of the FDR data?

[jaydeehess]

It is PfT's assumption that the aircraft even flew above the tower in the first place. One could not position the aircraft with enough precision to determine if it indeed was directly above the tower or to one side of it.
Furthermore, they assume that the end of data equals the time of impact in some renditions of their contentions. In others they assume that the end of data is over the first lamp post to be hit. At any rate they then view the data as indicating that when the plane was over the tower it was several hundred feet above it. They only use the idea of it just passing over the tower as a thought experiment and define a trajectory after that which suits their own purposes, the one that MacKey describes as 'hockey stick'.

Mackey and others have pointed out that if one looks at the general situation of the plane passing just over the tower and assumes a desent rate at that time then there are many possible easy trajectories for the aircraft to take. It is PfT's lack of physics and mathematical skill that requires them to limit themselves to the trajectory they use.

[beachnut]

If I have understood Beachnut's post on the other thread, the FDR data ends roughly 7 seconds prior to impact and prior to passing over the VDOT tower. That would mean that any path from the last FDR reading would be possible as long as it passes above the tower and is low enough to clip the poles. However a steeper dive would be required for a parabolic path. Does the G measurements go < 1 just prior to the end of the FDR data?
Last 20 seconds of G or so, at 8 hertz
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77g.jpg
The last twenty six descents. Take your pick for the terrorist to hit the Pentagon.

30, 24, 48, 54, 58, 58, 48, 44, 50, 52, 50, 62, 70, 100, 104, 110, 94, 86, 82, 102, 92, 96, 98, 92, 68, 65.
Gs at 8 samples per second last data on the right at 13:37:44, with 65 fps the last descent.

You do not have to pass over the tower, and you don't have to level off.

What is useful with the fps stuff. Look at the difference in seconds, that rate of change is possible, you can piece possible vertical paths using these changes the terrorist provides.

With the 8 hertz G, you could refine values for decent, and piece in a backward descent.

[GregoryUrich]

Last 20 seconds of G or so, at 8 hertz
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77g.jpg
The last twenty six descents. Take your pick for the terrorist to hit the Pentagon.

30, 24, 48, 54, 58, 58, 48, 44, 50, 52, 50, 62, 70, 100, 104, 110, 94, 86, 82, 102, 92, 96, 98, 92, 68, 65.
Gs at 8 samples per second last data on the right at 13:37:44, with 65 fps the last descent.

You do not have to pass over the tower, and you don't have to level off.

What is useful with the fps stuff. Look at the difference in seconds, that rate of change is possible, you can piece possible vertical paths using these changes the terrorist provides.

With the gs you can reefing it!

Thanks. But even using the VDOT height or the last FDR altitude as a constraint, it would appear there is no problem.

[R.Mackey]

No, the "problem" is the kink in their hypothesis. Obviously no aircraft flies like that.

Again, I refer you to my derivation (forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109066). This takes all possible altitudes at the VDOT tower into account. The only difference is that (a) we make no explicit assumption about the aircraft rate of descent, and (b) we allow it to pull up the whole time. The rate of descent we wind up requiring is also not remarkable.

And the trajectory we get is quite ordinary.

[beachnut]

Thanks. But even using the VDOT height or the last FDR altitude as a constraint, it would appear there is no problem.
you are right. That is possible, 77 could go right by or over, at the VDOT height.

[GregoryUrich]

On 9/11 the lawn slopes to the Pentagon, and the lens is a crummy fish eye lens distorting the whole world.

Did they change the lawn? Today the lawn is nearly perfectly flat at 9m elev. The highway is at 10m elev. Did they move the highway?

Here are some images from GoogleEarth:

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/lawn1.jpg

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/lawn2.jpg

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/lawn3.jpg

[GregoryUrich]

According to Mackey the VDOT tower is 3400 ft from impact. At 781 ft/sec that gives us 4.35 seconds. The range you have given for the altitude at that point is 400-440 ASL. At the lower bound, the average fps (based on the impact point, 39 ASL) would be 82. At the upper bound the average fps would be 91.2. What does the FDR fps data average out to over the last 3.5-4.5 seconds? I get 70 fps from the data you posted on the other thread, but that's not the entire time interval.

[dudalb]

The sad thing is there is enough to blast the Bush Adminsitration for without having to resort to crackpot Conspiracy theories. If anything, I could make the case that the Truthers have helped Bush last as long as he did in terms of popularity because they made his critics look like a bunch of crackpots.

[beachnut]

According to Mackey the VDOT tower is 3400 ft from impact. At 781 ft/sec that gives us 4.35 seconds. The range you have given for the altitude at that point is 400-440 ASL. At the lower bound, the average fps (based on the impact point, 39 ASL) would be 82. At the upper bound the average fps would be 91.2. What does the FDR fps data average out to over the last 3.5-4.5 seconds? I get 70 fps from the data you posted on the other thread, but that's not the entire time interval.
Those values are over 6 seconds from impact.

The terrorist were at 400 MSL to 440 MSL over 6 seconds from the VDOT tower, and 77 was see at the level of the VDOT tower or lower. Someone thought 77 hit the VDOT tower.

If you want you can make up 400 feet from VDOT tower, but it is not true.

I posted the last 26 second on the FDR, then the data stops at :44, I showed a RADAR fix of 77 at :47.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77lastpointfarmer.jpg


There is no data after the FDR stops within 1500 feet of the YELLOW Dot. FDR time 13:37:44. The best you can get is 2 seconds to the VDOT tower when the FDR stops. The altitude at the yellow dot is 400 to 440 feet MSL.

The last twenty six descents. Take your pick for the terrorist to hit the Pentagon.

30, 24, 48, 54, 58, 58, 48, 44, 50, 52, 50, 62, 70, 100, 104, 110, 94, 86, 82, 102, 92, 96, 98, 92, 68, 65. feet per second. In order to the last data point at 13:37:44 FDR time.

[GregoryUrich]

Those values are over 6 seconds from impact.

The terrorist were at 400 MSL to 440 MSL over 6 seconds from the VDOT tower, and 77 was see at the level of the VDOT tower or lower. Someone thought 77 hit the VDOT tower.

If you want you can make up 400 feet from VDOT tower, but it is not true.

I posted the last 26 second on the FDR, then the data stops at :44, I showed a RADAR fix of 77 at :47.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77lastpointfarmer.jpg


There is no data after the FDR stops within 1500 feet of the YELLOW Dot. FDR time 13:37:44. The best you can get is 2 seconds to the VDOT tower when the FDR stops. The altitude at the yellow dot is 400 to 440 feet MSL.

The last twenty six descents. Take your pick for the terrorist to hit the Pentagon.

30, 24, 48, 54, 58, 58, 48, 44, 50, 52, 50, 62, 70, 100, 104, 110, 94, 86, 82, 102, 92, 96, 98, 92, 68, 65. feet per second. In order to the last data point at 13:37:44 FDR time.

Sorry, I misquoted you on the altitude at the VDOT. Doesn't the NTSB say the impact occured at 13:37:45?

[beachnut]

Did they change the lawn? Today the lawn is nearly perfectly flat at 9m elev. The highway is at 10m elev. Did they move the highway?

Here are some images from GoogleEarth:

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/lawn1.jpg

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/lawn2.jpg

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/lawn3.jpg

yes the lawn has changed. The lens is bad, the plane was in a descent, everyone saw a steep approach, the VDOT camera tower clipped slight at 100 MSL supports an average of 2600 feet per minute to impact.

you are using Google earth for TERCOM data?

The grass sloped towards the Pentagon. The overpass has to be higher than the Pentagon area so trucks can get under the road and this is why 40 foot post are at 100 feet MSL due to the elevation rising to the road.

Show me how the plane levels off with the stupid overpass in the way. Large planes go very straight at 463 KIAS, you can't do a box maneuver to level off on the grass, it is impossible.

Are you arguing about what you called a slight descent at 60 fps, when I am talking about 43 fps? With the TERRIBLE lens 43 fps would and did look level; you are one funny guy.

It is highly unlikely 77 leveled off, unless by accident, the trajectory dynamics do not support rapid changes. Show me a change grater than 40 fps by the terrorist?

Where 77 really is gives about 66 fps to impact the Pentagon. This rate is reflected in the last data, and I cheated, the terrorist just inputted the biggest down stick ever, may be the big dive some witnesses saw. So to get to the mark on the VDOT camera tower, you have to beat 66 fps. The next values after 68 and 65 will be near 90 or 100 fps.

If we clip the VDOT tower we need 65 fps to hit the Pentagon. If 77 levels off at the overpass, 77 hits too high. 77 has to descend past the 100 foot MSL tap of the VDOT camera tower with 1.3 second to go. 77 also has to go 60 more feet to the impact point. Please humor me and show me the level off.

Just do it. 60 feet to go down, and only 1.3 second, and in the prior 30 seconds the terrorist best change in fps was 30 feet! We are missing .7 second to complete the level flight maneuver as the terrorist has been flying.

If we are level at the overpass tapping the VDOT camera post at 100 MSL, we must push over to impact at 40 MSL and again we are unable to justify with terrorist dynamics making the 60 feet down.

The last twenty six descents. Show me a 40 fps change in any second to second.

30, 24, 48, 54, 58, 58, 48, 44, 50, 52, 50, 62, 70, 100, 104, 110, 94, 86, 82, 102, 92, 96, 98, 92, 68, 65. These are second by second descent rates the terrorist is making. Not one supports a 40 fps pull out to make level fight by impact.

Go ahead make my day. ...

I missed this, this is funny stuff. The road allows 1 m tall trucks to pass under the infinitesimally thin overpass bridge. Google earth. Little trucks 1 m tall. neat It is true, google earth does not have the correct data for terrain. So even on my Google trucks are 3 feet tall. Or paper thin.

[Caustic Logic]

Great analysis, Beachnut. Just so I've got this right, fps here means feet per second, meaning of descent/ascent, correct? And the 26 numbers are the feet descended for those 26 seconds?

So, does anyone have a problem with the number of feet needed to drop from that last frame to the tower in app. 2 sec? That's low enough to perhaps hit the tower, below its top, near it and the roof of the FoB says Paik, 30-50 feet over the roof says Morin. Then we agree it'd have to be like 4 sec to impact from there, with so many feet to allocate according towitnesses and damage... shouldn't be too hard.

Hint to all - I think giving ranges is more useful here than exact numbers

GU: Sorry, I misquoted you on the altitude at the VDOT. Doesn't the NTSB say the impact occured at 13:37:45?
Yes, they also say what it did at that second is crash into the pentagon, at least 1/2 mile from where the FDR shows it, 400 feet below where its at, with a slightly different headin, different bank, different pitch.

They didn't actually say this, but it's implied. ;) So they also cite 9:37:44. Hmmm... what to conclude?

[beachnut]

Great analysis, Beachnut. Just so I've got this right, fps here means feet per second, meaning of descent/ascent, correct? And the 26 numbers are the feet descended for those 26 seconds?

So, does anyone have a problem with the number of feet needed to drop from that last frame to the tower in app. 2 sec? That's low enough to perhaps hit the tower, below its top, near it and the roof of the FoB says Paik, 30-50 feet over the roof says Morin. Then we agree it'd have to be like 4 sec to impact from there, with so many feet to allocate according towitnesses and damage... shouldn't be too hard.

Hint to all - I think giving ranges is more useful here than exact numbers


Yes, they also say what it did at that second is crash into the pentagon, at least 1/2 mile from where the FDR shows it, 400 feet below where its at, with a slightly different headin, different bank, different pitch.

They didn't actually say this, but it's implied. ;) So they also cite 9:37:44. Hmmm... what to conclude?
Feet per second, fps, yes. Feet lost per second.

[bje]

Here's a reference using GIS software. It's the line of sight view from the top of the VDOT tower, 169 feet above ground level, 303.8 feet above MSL, to the impact point at the Pentagon using 10 feet MSL at the target point.

The data is derived from the United States Elevation Data (NED) with 30 meter resolution. The green area is the terrain height along the path without structures.

If it's useful I can do other profiles.

[GregoryUrich]

Here's a reference using GIS software. It's the line of sight view from the top of the VDOT tower, 169 feet above ground level, 303.8 feet above MSL, to the impact point at the Pentagon using 10 feet MSL at the target point.

The data is derived from the United States Elevation Data (NED) with 30 meter resolution. The green area is the terrain height along the path without structures.

If it's useful I can do other profiles.

What's the best resolution you can do? I would interested in the part closest to the pentagon.

[beachnut]

What's the best resolution you can do? I would interested in the part closest to the pentagon.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77pentagonOVERpasslol.jpg
The lawn area and added hills will not be in the data base. In reality the road is not 36 feet and the lawn at 33 feet, with 3 foot cars in that underpass.

77 would never hit some of the posts if the posts were not up on a raise area.

Why do truthers fail to look before they leap to the "ample evidence"?

I don't care if the lawn is flat; 77 hit in a dive; there is proof; it involves geometry, a tool not in the truther bag. It also takes interpretation of witness statements, another tool absent from the truther tool box.

Wish the truth movement would use facts, evidence, math, geometry, physics, engineering, and other disciplines, instead of hearsay, lies, and junk science, based on what Einstein said; ""Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

It will take a couple of months, if not years part-time, to understand 77 and the Pentagon as you wade through the ignorance of the truth movement many lies on 77 and the Pentagon. Hundreds of witnesses, thousands of pieces of evidence are ignored. Witnesses are call government agents as the paranoid terrorist apologist spew implications of lies. Why are truthers apologizing for terrorist who take credit freely?

[bje]

What's the best resolution you can do? I would interested in the part closest to the pentagon.

This has 10 meter resolution:

11958

[GregoryUrich]

This has 10 meter resolution:

11958

Thanks.

[beachnut]

This has 10 meter resolution:

11958

Looks like 2600 feet per minute will hack it.

[Caustic Logic]

Thanks for the graphs, bje. They look not far off from my earlier analysis, using various sources and photos, but probably more accurate. I'll keep these around in case I ever look at topography again.

As far as the OP, it looks like radar is the base source, some odd system of lines and cirves between alternating returns responsible for the anomalies, is the best guess.

As for WHY it matches CIT's assembled path almost to a "T", coincidence is only one possibility.

Craig's statements regarding it, to spur renewed discussion:

But the precise north side banking maneuver depicted can not simply be an accident or coincidence given all the independent evidence proving a general approach of this nature.

This was clearly created for a reason.

It may simply be an obfuscation effort to make it seem like there is a large enough margin of error between north or south of the citgo that it would be an easy "mistake" to make.

Didn't work on me! I'm aware that a radar-based animation and on-the-ground witnesses do not suffer the same types of errors!


What's actually comical about this is how hard the pseudo-skeptics tried to claim this flight path is "impossible"!

Would the FAA really go out of their way to animate something so precise and deliberate with such a drastic bank if it was "impossible"?

I think not.

There ya go... if it can happen in a cartoon...

Ok.....what this data means is that people who DO accept government data as valid evidence are now forced to move towards believing the north side approach.

If you put the evidence in a "statistical process control" chart it would be off the hook in favor of north side.

But WE do not have to embrace it since the witnesses already prove the north side approach anyway.

So in essence it gives us more fire to throw in their faces while we can remain as non-committal on it as we want.

Yeah! I like the sounds of that!

Sure he would. I have seen the plane north of the Citgo in two different cartoons now, and must obey the evidence

[Caustic Logic]

Why does FAA/Norad animation show NoC flightpath?

Just found an interesting clue at the Pilots for Truth Forum: a presentation by AGI President and CEO Paul Graziani, regarding their 9/11 animations. http://www.informs-cs.org/wsc02papers/001.pdf
Actual FAA radar data was used to accurately recreate the events and model the flight paths of hijacked airlines as well as the responding military aircraft.

Of interest is the line:
Complex problems that once took weeks or months to complete, now take only seconds or minutes when employing software capabilities.
Maybe they should have at least spent hours on this one. :rolleyes:

Dang, this truther person offers something useful:
they have a forum, if anyone wants to ask some questions,
though of course,
there is no guarantee that they will or are able to respond,
but perhaps worth a try none the less?


http://www.stk.com/agiforum/
https://www.stk.com/MyAccount/index.cfm


Eh?

[16.5]

Craig's statements regarding it, to spur renewed discussion:

There ya go... if it can happen in a cartoon...

Sure he would. I have seen the plane north of the Citgo in two different cartoons now, and must obey the evidence

What baffles me about Craig and his band of merry tricksters is that they are talking about a cartoon that shows it hitting the freaking pentagon! C'mon Craig, you psuedo-Truther, lets see the math that levels that bank out and takes that plane up and over the impact site at the Pentagon

[Caustic Logic]

Re: presentation cited above -this is definitely it. Check the Powerpoint presentation, page 5.
http://www.agi.com/downloads/events/usersConference/2002/presentations/at_060302_1130_NORAD_9-11.ppt

[Caustic Logic]

I've formalized my thesis in the proper and professional format for peer review - an online video. Not youtube, just to be different from everyone else I use veoh. I think it looks better, but it does have these annoying ads at times. http://www.veoh.com/videos/v16173694JAyGmyrE

Essentially, the explanation is the thing i posted earlier about the loop made of alternating returns filled in with curves and lines seems to extend to the final loop, although the usual pattern of every second as anchor seems to be thrown a bit off at the end, or it'd have an even steeper north trend (the last on-track return seems a bit off-track, actually). Obviously after the last real return, it was too low to see, and anything from there would have to be improvised. The final curve seems to be framed by the aberrant final "returns" (??whatever these are???) flanking the Pentagon.
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/agi_pins_85.jpg
On closer inspection, it seems that the path is from one of the final real returns straight towards the north pin, until it enters a certain orbit of the south one, then arcs right, is straightened again at about route 27, and impacts, of course too high due to the steep wing bank. I think that's the technical reason, anyway.
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/agi_pins_zoomedback_7.jpg

A change of tune from the northy cartoon proponents at PfffT - Rob and the others were quite excited about it over at their forum, and had dug up all kinds of info, hoping to contact its creator, Sheri Gott, to find out how it was made, and what data this was that seemed to support NoC, or obfuscate it, or whatever... At some point around when I posted these findings, they sorta dropped off the issue and the thread got sidetracked into FAA FOIA stuff that seemed to show Flight 93 landing at Reagan nat'l at 10:28.

Now that is interesting, indirectly anyway. Anyone want to check that out? Is it worth a thread?
PfT forum post (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=14629&view=findpost&p=10754094)

[16.5]

Caustic: Very nice.

What do the CIT and Pfffft boys claim those "aberrant returns" are?

Say, the CIT boys have been awful quiet lately. Maybe they are upset that their latest video dropped like a rock, never to be heard from again?

[R.Mackey]

I've formalized my thesis in the proper and professional format for peer review - an online video. Not youtube, just to be different from everyone else I use veoh. I think it looks better, but it does have these annoying ads at times. http://www.veoh.com/videos/v16173694JAyGmyrE

Good summary.

I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that the last two bizarre radar returns, apparently from after impact, are false echoes induced by the impact itself. Upon collision, a huge thermal plume laden with shredded aluminum and other reflective debris was thrown up, and this is quite likely to produce a confusing radar return.

We appear to see something similar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3680989#post3680989) in the final moments of AA 11, and this erroneous reading seems to have led the 9/11 Commission to overestimate the impact time at WTC 1 by several seconds.

I could be wrong, of course, but this would certainly explain this last anomaly.

Regardless, the only conflict here is that some people (guess who) are extracting an accuracy from this animation that it was never designed to have. Most people, especially early in the investigation, did not care about the aircraft trajectory to within a few meters. They were after a general timeline. The animation was probably as accurate as it needed to be, even though it clearly has shortcomings, e.g. the squared-off loop.

The problem only arises when conspiracy theorists ignorantly push beyond those limits of accuracy. Remember, they're not after answers, they're after "anomalies." Well, if you exceed the limits of accuracy, you will always get experimental errors, and to the deluded those are all "anomalies." SOP for those guys.

[Caustic Logic]

Caustic: Very nice.

What do the CIT and Pfffft boys claim those "aberrant returns" are?

Say, the CIT boys have been awful quiet lately. Maybe they are upset that their latest video dropped like a rock, never to be heard from again?
Thanks! I'm not sure of their overall takes, and I forget if Farmer had a thought, but CIT tried once to use them to say radar supported NoC. I had to explain how it couldn't be the plane as it had gone well below coverage. (ATS thread (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread337618/pg1))

There's some good debate in the comments under my two latest FF posts. ;) If ya need a fix.

Good summary.

I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that the last two bizarre radar returns, apparently from after impact, are false echoes induced by the impact itself. Upon collision, a huge thermal plume laden with shredded aluminum and other reflective debris was thrown up, and this is quite likely to produce a confusing radar return.

We appear to see something similar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3680989#post3680989) in the final moments of AA 11, and this erroneous reading seems to have led the 9/11 Commission to overestimate the impact time at WTC 1 by several seconds.

Good research over there. You say "I speculate that the final return wasn't from the aircraft at all, but instead from the huge cloud of debris that emerged after impact -- pieces of aircraft, aluminum cladding from WTC 1, and the thermal bubble, all spreading to create a much larger and brighter radar reflector than the aircraft itself." That makes more sense at WTC since the plume originated at nearly 1000 feet up or so, so nut much below radar coverage. At the pentagon, it came from the ground. I can't say if this is right, but something I thought of was how they frame the Pentagon west area N and South, perhaps some inserted markers to say "it ended somewhere between here." Can/would they do that?

Good summation as well on the anomaly-philes. We've seen the depths they'll go to even pretending to have found holes in the narrative.