G Forces - Scene From 9/11: Attack On The Pentagon

[Turbofan]

An update to Pilots For 9/11 Truth Arlington Topography and Obstacles Article.

"G FORCES", a scene from the new film "9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON" produced by professional pilots, Aeronautical Engineers and physicists analyzes the G forces required for a 757 to negotiate the Arlington region on September 11, 2001 based on flight data provided by the US Govt. For full high quality film and detailed description, please visit:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5732289044586758033&hl=en

[jsfisher]

So, they still didn't fix any of their errors from the original?

[Bobert]

An update to Pilots For 9/11 Truth Arlington Topography and Obstacles Article.

"G FORCES", a scene from the new film "9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON" produced by professional pilots, Aeronautical Engineers and physicists analyzes the G forces required for a 757 to negotiate the Arlington region on September 11, 2001 based on flight data provided by the US Govt. For full high quality film and detailed description, please visit:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5732289044586758033&hl=en[/quote]

This doesnt even seem like a conspiracy discussion but rather PFT just trying to pimp their "movie".
Maybe this annoucement should go into Movies, TV, Music, Computer Gaming, and other Entertainment (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=21) (1

[Horatius]

Why don't you PfTers just write up an article, with a little math? I can read a hell of a lot faster than that guy narrates, and I don't have to put up with crappy quality video while I do it.



Oh, wait, I know why.....

[WildCat]

That's exactly how Woodward and Bernstein did it!

:dl:

[Pinch]

...professional pilots, Aeronautical Engineers and physicists...

Is there a reason why Aeronautical Engineers is capitalized and the others aren't? Is there something special about Aeronautical Engineers that renders professional pilots and physicists impotent with regards to capitalizing? Are Aeronautical Engineers the fruit of your bounty while professional pilots and physicists are mere toads?

In any event, I've no interest to watch some cartoon made up of unverified, unvalidated and unaccredited aeronautical (lower case) data created by a bunch of people who don't even understand departure plates or flight clearances.

[Turbofan]

That's too bad that you're too lazy to watch because it exposes Myriad,
R. Mackey and other 'pros', or "Pros" on this board.

Is there a reason why many of your pick on the most rediculous points of
a post?

[jsfisher]

That's too bad that you're too lazy to watch because it exposes Myriad,
R. Mackey and other 'pros', or "Pros" on this board.

Is there a reason why many of your pick on the most rediculous points of
a post?


(a) I did watch. It is garbage.
(b) The movie, via vigorous use of straw men, attempts to deflect attention from the bogus calculations upon which it was based.
(c) Myriad, R. Mackey, et al., remain better at math, and physics, etc., than PFT.
(d) Why is it so difficult to correctly spell 'ridiculous'? It seems to be a systemic problem, not just an affliction of Turbofan.

[Turbofan]

a. That's your opinion.

b. That's your perception

c. Myriad, Mackey et al continue to form calculations that are not
based on flight data provided by the NTSB. I don't see how their
math is above PFT when they are producing values not even listed
in the data file.

d. Thanks for catching my spelling error. I'll be sure to look for yours
and point them out as well. I've caught a few too many from your
JREF buddies. I guess you didn't see those?

[applecorped]

a. That's your opinion.

b. That's your perception

c. Myriad, Mackey et al continue to form calculations that are not
based on flight data provided by the NTSB. I don't see how their
math is above PFT when they are producing values not even listed
in the data file.

d. Thanks for catching my spelling error. I'll be sure to look for yours
and point them out as well. I've caught a few too many from your
JREF buddies. I guess you didn't see those?

All thru' the day I me mine, I me mine, I me mine.
All thru' the night I me mine, I me mine, I me mine.
Now they're frightened of leaving it
Ev'ryone's weaving it,
Coming on strong all the time,
All thru' the day I me mine.

Please post on topic.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Why is it so difficult to correctly spell 'ridiculous'? It seems to be a systemic problem, not just an affliction of Turbofan.
Why is it so difficult to not be so immaturely legalistic? It seems to be a systemic problem, not just an affliction of jsfisher.

[bje]

An update to Pilots For 9/11 Truth Arlington Topography and Obstacles Article.

No eyewitnesses to a flyover there, either.

It's really simple: P4T still has no eyewitnesses to a flyover. No eyewitnesses, no flyover.

Any questions, Turbofan?

[Turbofan]

As a matter of fact yes.

What hit the light poles if the NTSB, FAA and PFT data shows too high,
or off course from the OGCT?

[Bobert]

Why is it so difficult to not be so immaturely legalistic? It seems to be a systemic problem, not just an affliction of jsfisher.


Wow and now you have demonstrated you cannot use a word in its correct context.

[Myriad]

Hi Turbofan,

I have a question about the clip. Please refer to 8:02, where a side-on diagram depicts a pull-up arc about 370 feet wide, with a radius (the narration later claims) of 2085 feet.

Note that this arc is intersected by three radii, which I'll call the left, center, and right radii.

The right radius is vertical, indicating that the tangent of the arc at that point which is perpendicular to the radius is horizontal. In other words, the plane has leveled off at that point; the trajectory has become horizontal.

The left radius should similarly be perpendicular to the tangent of the arc, that is to the trajectory of the plane at that point, which is at or near where it hit the first light pole.

You are assuming in this scenario that the plane's trajectory is a straight line intersecting the top of the VDOT and the top of the first struck light pole (that is, that it does not begin to pull up until reaching the light pole, which is an unwarranted and unjustified assumption that makes this whole exercise pointless, but bear with me). So at that point the plane has been descending, up to that point, in a straight line from 304 ASL to 80 ASL over a distance of 2400 feet. That's a descent angle of 4.07 degrees from horizontal.

Why, then, is the left radius not 4.07 degrees from vertical? It's more than twice that. Where did the angle at which the left radius is drawn come from? How can that radius have an angle other than perpendicular to the tangent of the trajectory? It makes no sense.

It's wrong.

If you draw the left radius at the correct angle, perpendicular to the trajectory just before the pull-up, the radius ends up being about 3980 feet.

That radius gives you about 4.4g of centripetal acceleration, plus 1g = 5.4g total.

Of course, if the plane starts pulling up sooner, the necessary g forces go way down, exactly as R.Mackey and I calculated before. Whether you approximate the trajectory as a parabola or as an arc of a circle will make little difference. What makes the result in the clip so high, besides the geometry error, is the assumption that the plane flies in a straight line from the tower to the pole and then does its entire pull-out within a 370-foot ground distance.

(Note that in the other thread, my figures are a little different because I used a rougher approximation, 400 feet instead of 370, for the ground distance covered by the arc.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[bje]

As a matter of fact yes.

What hit the light poles if the NTSB, FAA and PFT data shows too high,
or off course from the OGCT?

As you already know, the physical evidence, that physical evidence you cannot refute.

Now, answer the question, Turbofan. Where are the eyewitnesses to your flyover? Why won't you present any?

[Bobert]

Sheesh they cant even get a friggin preview clip right.

[Jonnyclueless]

As a matter of fact yes.

What hit the light poles if the NTSB, FAA and PFT data shows too high,
or off course from the OGCT?


But they don't. The NTSB and FAA seem to agree that flight 77 hit the light poles. Can you tell us according to your conspiracy thoeries what hit the light poles?

[Turbofan]

As you already know, the physical evidence, that physical evidence you cannot refute.

Now, answer the question, Turbofan. Where are the eyewitnesses to your flyover? Why won't you present any?


Stay on topic please. This is about the calculations.

Physical evidence? pfff! LMAO! The magic Pentagon walls, and lack of debris found? Lack of photos...yeah. Carry on.

Back on flight data and Myriad's questions. I'll have to ask PFT about
some of those questions, however how do you justify the new values
against the NTSB flight data?

[jaydeehess]

I will watch when I have the time and I won't be bugging my wife with the sound on.

However, can you tell me that it arrives at any conclusion other than that on the ridiculous 11.2 G page?

Do you still divide feet by the acceleration due to gravity to obtain something you claim would be the 'G forces'?

Since we are pointing out bad grammatical form, I should mention that the nominal acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth is written in lower case, 'g'.
Upper case, 'G' is the gravitational constant, 6.674 X 10-11 N(m/kg)2

[Pinch]

That's too bad that you're too lazy to watch because it exposes Myriad,
R. Mackey and other 'pros', or "Pros" on this board.

Is there a reason why many of your pick on the most rediculous points of
a post?

What I'm "lazy" about is, as I mentioned before, not being interested in a cartoon that attempts to push a specific theory that is made up with data that is unverified, unvalidated and unaccredited.

I work in the field of modeling and simulation, specifically in the Verification, Validation and Accreditation field. Any simulation or model that is used in training, acquisition, test or evaluation or any other discipline needs to be verified that it accurately represents the developer’s conceptual description, validated to determine the degree to which a model is an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses of the model and it must be accredited by an independent authority as official certification that the model or simulation is acceptable for use for a specific purpose.

Anything else is a cartoon - it might look slick and neat and cool, but it is a presentation that lacks all the above criteria to make it meaningful and truthful.

Last I heard, the FDR data was from a "working copy", meaning it was by no means a final, validated and verified data set. Building your little cartoon from a "working copy" of a data set and not verifying the results and validating the data it produces makes it worthless from a technological and practical perspective.

Even if the FDR data set is indeed a finalized copy, the development of your little cartoon is still not worth anything more than a warm bucket of spit until you spend the time and effort to go through a VV&A process.

Go read up on the first launch of the Ariane 5 launch vehicle or the Mars Climate Orbiter to see what happens when you don't pay attention to VV&A in the design process of a model or simulation. You get data and results that can trash a multi-billion dollar program. And Captain Bob's penchant for arithmetical errors does not bode well for a quality product.

This is pretty much par for the PffT course, though. Make something look pretty and snazzy and cool - and forget the math problems, we'll fix those later! - and you'll get those people who don't know about accuracy and verification and validation to say "Wow!". Those of us who know, though, just sit back and laugh.

Like I'm doing now.

And work on your spelling, please. The poor use of grammar and poor spelling makes you look foolish when you try to talk about graduate-level issues. But go ahead and rub your hands together and giggle with Captain Bob and the Sky Kings about your little cartoon. Serious people know what tripe it is.

[Jonnyclueless]

What was magical about the Pentagon walls and what was the problem with the wreckage o flight 77 which was found at the Pentagon along with the FDR which Turbo is trying to use to claim that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon?

[Pinch]

That's too bad that you're too lazy to watch because it exposes Myriad,
R. Mackey and other 'pros', or "Pros" on this board.

Is there a reason why many of your pick on the most rediculous points of
a post?

What I'm "lazy" about is, as I mentioned before, not being interested in a cartoon that attempts to push a specific theory that is made up with data that is unverified, unvalidated and unaccredited.

I work in the field of modeling and simulation, specifically in the Verification, Validation and Accreditation field. Any simulation or model that is used in training, acquisition, test or evaluation or any other discipline needs to be verified that it accurately represents the developer’s conceptual description, validated to determine the degree to which a model is an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses of the model and it must be accredited by an independent authority as official certification that the model or simulation is acceptable for use for a specific purpose.

Anything else is a cartoon - it might look slick and neat and cool, but it is a presentation that lacks all the above criteria to make it meaningful and truthful.

Last I heard, the FDR data was from a "working copy", meaning it was by no means a final, validated and verified data set. Building your little cartoon from a "working copy" of a data set and not verifying the results and validating the data it produces makes it worthless from a technological and practical perspective.

Even if the FDR data set is indeed a finalized copy, the development of your little cartoon is still not worth anything more than a warm bucket of spit until you spend the time and effort to go through a VV&A process.

Go read up on the first launch of the Ariane 5 launch vehicle or the Mars Climate Orbiter to see what happens when you don't pay attention to VV&A in the design process of a model or simulation. You get data and results that can trash a multi-billion dollar program. And Captain Bob's penchant for arithmetical errors does not bode well for a quality product.

This is pretty much par for the PffT course, though. Make something look pretty and snazzy and cool - and forget the math problems, we'll fix those later! - and you'll get those people who don't know about accuracy and verification and validation to say "Wow!". Those of us who know, though, just sit back and laugh.

Like I'm doing now.

And work on your spelling, please. The poor use of grammar and poor spelling makes you look foolish when you try to talk about graduate-level issues. But go ahead and rub your hands together and giggle with Captain Bob and the Sky Kings about your little cartoon. Serious people know what tripe it is.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

That's too bad that you're too lazy to watch [...]


I'd just like to point out that given watching a video or reading a mathematically-supported paper, watching the video is actually the lazier of the two options.

[bje]

Stay on topic please. This is about the calculations.

Yes, the topic always concerns AA77 hitting the Pentagon or not. It would be helpful for you to stay focused.

Physical evidence? pfff! LMAO! The magic Pentagon walls, and lack of debris found? Lack of photos...yeah. Carry on.Quite right, the physical evidence you can't refute. Let's not forget those widely separated, completely disconnected eyewitnesses who witnessed the impact and the over 1,000 people who saw or recovered the wreckage that your leader Bubba Balsamo said were "irrelevant."

Yet not a single witness to AA77, or any other low-flying twin-engine jet, overflying the Pentagon. How can you continue to claim an "overflight" without a stitch of evidence???

Such is the nature of your denial, Turbofan.

Back on flight data and Myriad's questions. I'll have to ask PFT about some of those questions, however how do you justify the new values
against the NTSB flight data?Actually, the topic is about AA77. Tell us about those eyewitnesses to a 'flyover" you claim exist, Turbofan. Why won't you give us their statements? Just like you won't give us the testimony of the 1,000 people who saw or recovered the wreckage.

Turbofan, why won't you deal with actual evidence? Really, give us some - any - good reasons why you and P4T are so bloody afraid of presenting evidence.

Are you SO afraid of being WRONG?

[R.Mackey]

Am I to assume that, despite the claims of the Pilots For Truth, I have yet to be "exposed?"

Shocking.

[MarkyX]

I'm still trying to figure these guys out.

There is light pole damage, numerous witnesses, and the damage done to the generator (pointing towards the Pentagon), pieces of the plane's fuelsage, pieces of the engine, the FDR, and bodies found in the Pentagon. There is even books written by the fire fighters and first responders describing the wreckage.

Yet they still buy into the whole "flyover" theory which has as much evidence as Godzilla destroying the Pentagon.

And these morons wonder why I call them "9/11 Deniers"

[Turbofan]

What I'm "lazy" about is, as I mentioned before, not being interested in a cartoon that attempts to push a specific theory that is made up with data that is unverified, unvalidated and unaccredited.

I work in the field of modeling and simulation, specifically in the Verification, Validation and Accreditation field. Any simulation or model that is used in training, acquisition, test or evaluation or any other discipline needs to be verified that it accurately represents the developer’s conceptual description, validated to determine the degree to which a model is an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses of the model and it must be accredited by an independent authority as official certification that the model or simulation is acceptable for use for a specific purpose.

Anything else is a cartoon - it might look slick and neat and cool, but it is a presentation that lacks all the above criteria to make it meaningful and truthful.

Last I heard, the FDR data was from a "working copy", meaning it was by no means a final, validated and verified data set. Building your little cartoon from a "working copy" of a data set and not verifying the results and validating the data it produces makes it worthless from a technological and practical perspective.

Even if the FDR data set is indeed a finalized copy, the development of your little cartoon is still not worth anything more than a warm bucket of spit until you spend the time and effort to go through a VV&A process.

Go read up on the first launch of the Ariane 5 launch vehicle or the Mars Climate Orbiter to see what happens when you don't pay attention to VV&A in the design process of a model or simulation. You get data and results that can trash a multi-billion dollar program. And Captain Bob's penchant for arithmetical errors does not bode well for a quality product.

This is pretty much par for the PffT course, though. Make something look pretty and snazzy and cool - and forget the math problems, we'll fix those later! - and you'll get those people who don't know about accuracy and verification and validation to say "Wow!". Those of us who know, though, just sit back and laugh.

Like I'm doing now.

And work on your spelling, please. The poor use of grammar and poor spelling makes you look foolish when you try to talk about graduate-level issues. But go ahead and rub your hands together and giggle with Captain Bob and the Sky Kings about your little cartoon. Serious people know what tripe it is.


Grammar and spelling? Is JREF full of English masters? Let's see how many
errors I can find in your post:

1. Your first paragraph contains a 'run on' sentence.

2. The second paragraph is another example of 'run on'. Try using a period,
or two.

3. Paragraph three is an incomplete thought; read by itself, it makes no sense.

4. The fourth paragraph is missing some punctuation.

5. The fifth contains an acronym which is not referenced. You should define
your acronym prior to using it.

6. It's poor practice to start a sentence with a conjunction such as "AND".

7. "Like I'm doing now." is an incomplete sentence.


:rolleyes:

The video does not contain any mathematical errors. The data has been
verified. It was released by the NTSB. PFT based their calculations on
the DATA, not the animation. The Data is NOT a 'working copy'. Please
learn the difference.

[beachnut]

a. That's your opinion.

b. That's your perception

c. Myriad, Mackey et al continue to form calculations that are not
based on flight data provided by the NTSB. I don't see how their
math is above PFT when they are producing values not even listed
in the data file.

d. Thanks for catching my spelling error. I'll be sure to look for yours
and point them out as well. I've caught a few too many from your
JREF buddies. I guess you didn't see those?
How can you get everything wrong with ease?
11.2 g, 256 w/s, everything wrong.

The lawn is not level, it is going down to the Pentagon. LOL BUSTED

Balsamo does not understand physics. Still flawed. How can he be this bad. One dimensional, the p4t ideas. That video is worse than 11.2 Gs.
Balsamo is wrong again!!!! Seems nuts.

[CHF]

So what happened, Turbofan? Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon and then agents ran around knocking down light poles?

(And since when has P4T been teamed up with CIT?)

[Turbofan]

11.2 g's has been updated.

When are you going to fix your errors?

256 wps was an oversight and corrected. It works in my favour, so have
a nice day.

I hope you liked the video and the corrections made to all of the myths
produced by you and your 'experts'.

[jsfisher]

Grammar and spelling? Is JREF full of English masters? Let's see how many
errors I can find in your post:...

You may want to double check your work. You didn't do so well.


The video does not contain any mathematical errors. The data has been
verified. It was released by the NTSB. PFT based their calculations on
the DATA, not the animation. The Data is NOT a 'working copy'. Please
learn the difference.

Ok, for the sake of discussion, let's assume all that is true. When can we expect a written version of the analysis? That's nothing specific in the cartoon worth reviewing.

[Myriad]

To continue, here's what happens with a pull-up on a circular arc when you don't assume the plane waits until reaching the first light pole before pulling up.

For this, I'll define the origin as sea level at the base of the VDOT tower. The light pole is 2400 feet away and the wall is 3416 feet away.

We have a trajectory that is a circular arc passing through three points:

(0, 304) -- the top of the VDOT tower

(2400, 80) -- the top of the first pole

(3416, 45) -- impact

We must find the center and radius of the circle that passes through these three points. We must also make sure the arc between the three points does not intersect the ground.

To find the center by hand is a lot of tedious algebra. Instead I use this circle solver applet (http://home.att.net/~srschmitt/script_circle_solver.html). The source code and the methodology used are available at the site, and anyone not trusting the results can check them by calculating the distance from each of the three points to the calculated center, to verify that each distance equals the calculated radius.

The center of our pull-up arc ends up at (3914, 29274) and has radius 29233.

The center's x is farther from the origin than the pentagon wall's x, meaning that the lowest point in the circle is past the impact point. So the plane is descending the entire time, and reaches no point lower than the impact point. The arc does not intersect the ground.

The g force generated by this maneuver (at v=781 ft/sec) is v2/r = 0.65g. With gravity, 1.65g.

As with R.Mackey's previous analysis with parabolic trajectories, the parameters can be adjusted for more conservative cases such as clearing the VDOT tower by larger distances, resulting in a range of higher, but still tolerable, g forces.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Shalamar]

I keep telling you all. The lightpoles were brought down by rogue Canadian Lumberjacks!

Sheesh.

[jaydeehess]

Grammar and spelling? Is JREF full of English masters? Let's see how many
errors I can find in your post:

1. Your first paragraph contains a 'run on' sentence.
Not true. It is a long sentence but not a run on sentence.

2. The second paragraph is another example of 'run on'. Try using a period,
or two.

Actually a few comas would suffice

3. Paragraph three is an incomplete thought; read by itself, it makes no sense.
Bot true, it follows from the previous paragraph so there is no requirement to repeat the thoughts contained in the previous paragraph.

4. The fourth paragraph is missing some punctuation.

Not true, it contains one more comma than necessary.

5. The fifth contains an acronym which is not referenced. You should define
your acronym prior to using it.

Try reading the second paragraph again, it is obvious what VV&A stands for even if he did not include the acronym in the second paragraph.

6. It's poor practice to start a sentence with a conjunction such as "AND".

True, he could have eliminated the word "and".

7. "Like I'm doing now." is an incomplete sentence.

True, he could have tried a comma to join it with the previous sentence. His usage indicates that he is typing a conversation rather than a docuement.



The video does not contain any mathematical errors.

So say you and PfT. However, given the history of PfT this is by no means a given simply because you claim it is so.

The data has beenverified. It was released by the NTSB. PFT based their calculations on
the DATA, not the animation. The Data is NOT a 'working copy'. Please
learn the difference.

You based it on your interpretation of the data and where it puts the plane over ground objects. those ground objects obviously do not get referenced at all in the FDR data. If you used the NTSB animation to determine what the plane was flying over then you used a 'working copy' that was never intended as a forensic tool and which has been shown to erroneously position the ground under the aircraft.

[Turbofan]

Why, then, is the left radius not 4.07 degrees from vertical? It's more than twice that. Where did the angle at which the left radius is drawn come from? How can that radius have an angle other than perpendicular to the tangent of the trajectory? It makes no sense.

It's wrong.

No, it's not wrong. It's based on flight data trends. Please watch the video
again.

If you draw the left radius at the correct angle, perpendicular to the trajectory just before the pull-up, the radius ends up being about 3980 feet.
That radius gives you about 4.4g of centripetal acceleration, plus 1g = 5.4g total.

Where might I find 5.4 g in the data file (averaged, or single point data)?

Why haven't you accounted for horizontal velocity in your previous calculation?
You did not correct your equation to include horizontal distance.

You should contact members of PFT for a more detailed explanation of how
to properly compute the values. It might make more sense if a professional
explains the procedure rather than myself.

At the ~6:00 minute marker, you can find an overlay of your arc in question
(the red line).

Once again, where are these 4.0, and 5.4 values found in the CSV file?

These data files are NOT working copies.

[jaydeehess]

11.2 g's has been updated.

.

Not on the web page.

It remains unchanged other than including a promo for the new cheese produced by PfT.

.

[Jonnyclueless]

Perhaps spontaneous combustion would explain the downed light poles. Or perhaps Magic? I guess we'll never know if we rely on people who are "just asking questions dude".

[Turbofan]

To continue, here's what happens with a pull-up on a circular arc when you don't assume the plane waits until reaching the first light pole before pulling up.

For this, I'll define the origin as sea level at the base of the VDOT tower. The light pole is 2400 feet away and the wall is 3416 feet away.

We have a trajectory that is a circular arc passing through three points:

(0, 304) -- the top of the VDOT tower

(2400, 80) -- the top of the first pole

(3416, 45) -- impact

We must find the center and radius of the circle that passes through these three points. We must also make sure the arc between the three points does not intersect the ground.

To find the center by hand is a lot of tedious algebra. Instead I use this circle solver applet (http://home.att.net/~srschmitt/script_circle_solver.html). The source code and the methodology used are available at the site, and anyone not trusting the results can check them by calculating the distance from each of the three points to the calculated center, to verify that each distance equals the calculated radius.

The center of our pull-up arc ends up at (3914, 29274) and has radius 29233.

The center's x is farther from the origin than the pentagon wall's x, meaning that the lowest point in the circle is past the impact point. So the plane is descending the entire time, and reaches no point lower than the impact point. The arc does not intersect the ground.

The g force generated by this maneuver (at v=781 ft/sec) is v2/r = 0.65g. With gravity, 1.65g.

As with R.Mackey's previous analysis with parabolic trajectories, the parameters can be adjusted for more conservative cases such as clearing the VDOT tower by larger distances, resulting in a range of higher, but still tolerable, g forces.

Respectfully,
Myriad

You see the problem with your calculation and R. Mackey's math is that
the values don't appear in the CSV file!

How do you arrive at 1.65 g when averaging the values in the data file
over the duration needed to complete the pull up?

EDIT:
I can't find 4.0 g, or 5.4 g for even an eight of a second; forget a full four
second duration as stated in your case. Furthermore, that is figured from
the top of the VDOT antenna!

Once again, the data files are extracted from the FDR, they are not
some sort of 'working copy'.

[jaydeehess]

Perhaps spontaneous combustion would explain the downed light poles. Or perhaps Magic? I guess we'll never know if we rely on people who are "just asking questions dude".

Its magic! CiT assures us that the reason no one at all saw a low,fast over-flight is due to the misdirection by the plotters of this charade, thus its all just a big ol' magic trick.

[jaydeehess]

You see the problem with your calculation and R. Mackey's math is that
the values don't appear in the CSV file!

How do you arrive at 1.65 g when averaging the values in the data file
over the duration needed to complete the pull up?

Once again, the data files are extracted from the FDR, they are not
some sort of 'working copy'.

You based it on your interpretation of the data and where it puts the plane over ground objects. those ground objects obviously do not get referenced at all in the FDR data. If you used the NTSB animation to determine what the plane was flying over then you used a 'working copy' that was never intended as a forensic tool and which has been shown to erroneously position the ground under the aircraft.

You cannot even be assured that the aircraft flew directly over the VDOT tower. In fact the physical evidence suggests it flew beside it close enough to clip a rung off the ladder.

[beachnut]

Where might I find 5.4 g in the data file (averaged, or single point data)?

Where is 77? You don't know! In the video the position of 77 is never plotted from the FDR! Your video is flawed and Balsamo is wrong again.

Fact, 77 is 7 seconds away and only 360 feet above impact. This means the VOT junk video is based only on Balsamo's terrorist apology fantasy delusion, devised to sale DVDs of false information.

Where does the video prove the witnesses who saw 77 hit the lamppost wrong?

Where does the video prove the witnesses who saw 77 hit the Pentagon false?

Where does the video provide proof the DNA is wrong?

Where does the video prove the FDR, which clearly shows 77 is over 6 seconds away at 360 feet above impact is wrong? Or even show where 77 is?
Sad you leap to say 77 did not hit the Pentagon and offer talk as your evidence. Is that what Balsamo "flawed fysics" p4t co-founder says?

What happen to 1.5 DME? Was it dropped? How much is the DVD?

Did Latas, another p4t terrorist apologist, correct p4t failed fysics before 16 March? When Balsamo posted his "IDES" of March post on the 13th of March, I was expecting flawed fysics from the get go! They did not let me down major errors! Who was the first to correct the failed physics of p4t terrorist apologist? The video does not put a dent in any work JREF posters corrected in days after the "ides of march" failed physics flopped.

[chillzero]

Let's keep it impersonal, please. There are a few posts breaching rules 11 and 12.

[Myriad]

You see the problem with your calculation and R. Mackey's math is that
the values don't appear in the CSV file!

How do you arrive at 1.65 g when averaging the values in the data file
over the duration needed to complete the pull up?

EDIT:
I can't find 4.0 g, or 5.4 g for even an eight of a second; forget a full four
second duration as stated in your case. Furthermore, that is figured from
the top of the VDOT antenna!

Once again, the data files are extracted from the FDR, they are not
some sort of 'working copy'.


There is no evidence there were any 4.0g or 5.4g maneuvers. Those forces would only occur in PfT's fantasy scenario that says the plane had to sustain a 5+-degree dive all the way to the highway and then pull up within 370 feet.

The CSV data shows the plane reaching a point in space, at which the data ends. There is some debate about what real point in space is represented by the numbers in the data when all relevant offsets and errors are taken into account, but we all agree that the point where the data ends is not the Pentagon wall. There are only three possibilities for what happened to the plane shortly after it reached the point in space of the final CSV data:

1. It crashed into the Pentagon (or elsewhere in the immediate vicinity).

2. It continued flying, and flew away.

3. It froze in position where it was (and presumably is still there).

The CSV data does not show the plane crashing into the Pentagon.

The CSV data does not show the plane flying away.

The CSV data does not show the plane hanging motionless in space.

Therefore the CSV data does not support or refute any conceivable theory of how the plane maneuvered once it reached the point at which the data ends.

Unfortunately, there is plenty of other evidence that tells us what happened to the plane in the subsequent seconds.

Rob Balsamo is arguing that the plane could not have performed the maneuvers necessary to fly from (his opinion of) the true spatial location of the last position in the CSV data to the crash location. But unwarranted assumptions (extrapolation of past "flight data trends" all the way to the light pole; pull-up in 370 feet) invalidate his argument.

Why haven't you accounted for horizontal velocity in your previous calculation? You did not correct your equation to include horizontal distance.


I did not correct my previous calculation because it is not wrong. Horizontal velocity is accounted for. (One way to explain it is, I shifted the problem into an inertial reference frame moving at 781f/s along the plane's path. Doing so is completely legitimate in Newtonian physics. That calculation was of a parabolic curve just as R.Mackey's was but the inertial frame shift makes the x axis time instead of position, which conveniently yields accelerations directly. My results were slightly different only because we each used slightly different flight path scenarios.)

Each time you repeat your repeat your request for me to correct a calculation that you have not shown is in error, you reduce your own credibility, I'm afraid.


Respectfully,
Myriad

[Corsair 115]

I keep telling you all. The lightpoles were brought down by rogue Canadian Lumberjacks!Wait, I though it was beavers with bionic jaws and steel teeth.

[Caustic Logic]

non-hotlinked image (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/cgi%20povs/VDOT_Pent_Alt_a.jpg)
oops it was two separate pics (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/cgi%20povs/FDR_Pent_Alt_a.jpg)

This dive and leveling was brought to you by the letter L. Thanks for watching Sesame Street. Any more educated comments?

[nicepants]

An update to Pilots For 9/11 Truth Arlington Topography and Obstacles Article.

"G FORCES", a scene from the new film...

I just want to know why the calculations on that article STILL have not been corrected? I have no desire to watch another PFT video unless the creators can assure me that they actually know how to do simple math problems.

[Caustic Logic]

Alright, re: my post above - the "lowest hypothetical altitude" as mapped yields 10.14 Gs. First, can anyone specificaly disprove that calc for the line shown?

Second, if that proves accurate, why the line shown? Myriad pointed out the sudden change at the end problem being the major source of high numbers. Can Turbofan or anyone explain why they think the best case scenario has the plane leveling suddenly at the end after a steady steep dive? Should they have looked for sponsorship from J rather than L?

Third: This is not the lowest hypothetical altitude. John farmer has new evidence the antenna was clipped, which puts it a few feet lower, and I think that too might be wrong and it was lower yet, passing about 50 feet above the Annex roof just north of the antenna. About 2/3 up its height.

And also, it didn't level at a sharp angle. I'm going out on a limb here and guessing a plane's correction would be curved.

Fourth: Should this thread be merged with the obstacles one?

[beachnut]

The CSV data shows the plane reaching a point in space, at which the data ends.

Rob Balsamo is arguing that the plane could not have performed the maneuvers necessary to fly from (his opinion of) the true spatial location of the last position in the CSV data to the crash location. But unwarranted assumptions (extrapolation of past "flight data trends" all the way to the light pole; pull-up in 370 feet) invalidate his argument.

Respectfully,
Myriad
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/774datapath.jpg
The last data point in the FDR is the 13:37:44 yellow dot.

The last RADAR point in blue shows 77 at 13:37:47.

The actual position of 77 is near the blue dot on the right if you correlate the FDR to the RADAR data. John Farmer collected the data and made this image.

Balsamo has no clue where 77 is; he makes up where he wants to put it just like he decides how 77 pulls out to make up his 10 G junk, as bad as his 11.2 G error. Why is he so bad at this?

[beachnut]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/774datapath.jpg
The last data point in the FDR is the 13:37:44 yellow dot.

The last RADAR point in blue shows 77 at 13:37:47.

The actual position of 77 is near the blue dot on the right if you correlate the FDR to the RADAR data. John Farmer collected the data and made this image.

Balsamo has no clue where 77 is; he makes up where he wants to put it just like he decides how 77 pulls out to make up his 10 G junk, as bad as his 11.2 G error. Why is he so bad at this?
TC put your failed new math project here!

You guys have to spend less time in the private p4t forum secret room plotting, and learn how to be real with math.

You have not mastered math TC, until you can figure out accuracy issues, resolution issues on DME, which Balsamo does not understand, fails to use all the evidence and places 77 in the wrong position.

[GregoryUrich]

Beachnut,

There seems to be some question as to where the data ends in the FDR. If I understand correctly, PFT maintains the DME data continues after the lat/long for inertial guidance stops. Can you give us an idea when/where the last data was recorded and which parameters were valid at that point?

[uruk]

Ok, for the sake of discussion, let's assume all that is true. When can we expect a written version of the analysis? That's nothing specific in the cartoon worth reviewing.
Don't expect a paper full of math from PfT. It's harder to sell a paper of math errors that it is to sell a DVD of a badly researched animation.

Remember thier target demographics is the gulible who like nice pretty pictures not paper full of strange scribbles that hurt brain.

[beachnut]

Beachnut,

There seems to be some question as to where the data ends in the FDR. If I understand correctly, PFT maintains the DME data continues after the lat/long for inertial guidance stops. Can you give us an idea when/where the last data was recorded and which parameters were valid at that point?

The data stops here! At the yellow dot, based INS accurate to 1500 feet. Data stops the same time for DME.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77lastpointfarmer.jpg
Final DME stored 1.5 DME from DCA. The actual plane position could be 3000 feet away.

The DME used by 77 has this characteristic:
With the appropriate DME geometry a position accuracy better than 0.5 nautical miles (3000 ft) can be easily achieved.
Actual studies, the best accuracy flying 77 at O DME to 8 DME ranges is 0.23 NM, and studying the DME overall on 77 on 9/11, ½ NM accuracy is common.

0.23 is good based on actual studies, you can use up to ½ mile and be okay.

The FDR DME is stored at a resolution of 0.25 NM, seen as x.0, x.2, x.5, and x.8. The required FAR storage resolution is 1.0 NM. No big deal, but indicative of 3000 foot accuracy.

Take the resolution, and accuracy, 77 can be at 1.854 NM from DCA, and the FDR can store 1.5 DME! This is giving 0.23 accuracy to 77, which could be as high as 3000 feet close in.

DME ends with the final data, same for lat and long.

If you take the yellow dot and move it forward 1500 feet, you are at 1.74 DME from DCA, that value can be stored as 1.5 DME with the 0.23 accuracy of DME and the storage resolution of 0.25.

The blue dot above is a RADAR position of 77 at 13:37:47.

The true track 61.2 degrees is very accurate, +- 1 degree. If looking for something to line up 77. This is why the INS data tracks nice on the end, it is lined up; on take off the INS was tracking parallel to the runway. IE, no matter where the INS thinks 77 is, the tracking/heading is accurate.


77 is over 6 second from the Pentagon when the data stops, confirmed by RADAR and backed up by witness statements of altitude near the VDOT tower. The altitude at over 6 seconds to go is 400 to 440 MSL. VDOT tower is 307 MSL.

2 seconds to go to VDOT tower, would place 77 at 280 to 320 MSL next to VDOT tower, or over the VDOT tower. Witnesses confirm these kinds of altitudes.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77fdrstopsterroristsees.jpg
Balsamo is using DME literally, as he has to say the INS crashed since it confirms 77 is over 6 seconds away from the Pentagon.

Balsamo then comes up with 10 to 34 Gs to prove 77 can't do something; but using 27,320 feet radius, I get 1.6977 Gs for the same set of condition.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77terroristsees.jpg

[GregoryUrich]

Didn't you post G force data that runs right up until 1 second before impact on the other thread? Is there altitude data too?

[OneShotKi11]

Ok, ok, ok, so what exactly are the JREF'ians saying is wrong with the Twoofers Math on this one?

(Serious question)

[beachnut]

Didn't you post G force data that runs right up until 1 second before impact on the other thread? Is there altitude data too?
Why did the NTSB decode the FDR and the data is available for you.

NO, the data stops 6 seconds or more prior to impact.

The last data point for altitude.
Yes, the altitude is 173 feet PA. Pressure altitude at 29.92. You have to add about 260 feet or so based on local altimeter setting. I may be talking pilot terms, let me get you the local altimeter for 9/11 near the Pentagon.

The PA can be off +-40 feet and more. The high speed, 463 KIAS was over the normal top speed of 350 KCAS, so there may be unknown errors in altitude not modeled in the FDC.

So the altitude PA at :44 was 173, :43 it was 239 PA
The RADAR Alt at :43 was 273 feet. RADALT is a microwave freq bouncing off the ground it reads 0 at landing, and is the height above the Ground.

From nearby, at DCA
METAR KDCA 111251Z 35005KT 10SM CLR 21/14 A3021
SPECI KDCA 111341Z 33010KT 10SM CLR 23/14 A3022
METAR KDCA 111351Z 34009KT 10SM CLR 23/14 A3023
METAR KDCA 111451Z 32008KT 4SM HZ CLR 24/14 A3022
METAR KDCA 111551Z 33009G15KT 7SM CLR 26/14 A3021

Local altimeter was 30.21 to 30.23. The PA, pressure altitude has to be corrected, it is referenced to a standard day, 29.92 inches of mercury.

[Myriad]

Ok, ok, ok, so what exactly are the JREF'ians saying is wrong with the Twoofers Math on this one?

(Serious question)


See posts 15 and 33. Their actual arithmetic is correct. The problems are (1) the value for the radius of the pull-up arc used in the video clip is not justified and cannot be correct for the flight path given, and (2) the "hockey stick" flight path that assumes the plane flies a straight line from the VDOT tower to the edge of the highway and only then even begins to pull up is an absurd scenario in the first place.

Note that there is nothing inherently wrong with using a circular arc (constant acceleration toward a fixed point above the plane on the plane's own yaw axis) as the flight path for pulling out of a dive, instead of a parabola (constant acceleration straight upward). Both are approximations that are reasonable and will yield G force results that agree with one another within a few percent, as long as the dive was not extremely steep to begin with.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[jaydeehess]

Note that there is nothing inherently wrong with using a circular arc (constant acceleration toward a fixed point above the plane on the plane's own yaw axis) as the flight path for pulling out of a dive, instead of a parabola (constant acceleration straight upward). Both are approximations that are reasonable and will yield G force results that agree with one another within a few percent, as long as the dive was not extremely steep to begin with.

Respectfully,
Myriad


I see that now, a parabolic path would put the plane in a shallow part of the parabolic curve, far from the vertex of the extrapolated curve and thus , for a short section of a parabola it would approixmate a portion of a circle with only a small error.

Still stands though that PfT cannot justify how they determined that the lines they drew are perpendicular to the arc they drew. In the context of the video it would appear that they merely 'eyeballed' it on a piece of graph paper.

[Turbofan]

Hey Greg, don't like certain people steer you wrong.

The 'overpass' is really an 'underpass'. The lower roadway dips below
the bridge.

http://procision-auto.com/911/PFT_underpass.jpg

Here's another shot showing the landscape of the roadway and Pentalawn.
(highway almost level with lawn)

The black line was drawn by a Pentagon police officer. Notice the North approach.

http://procision-auto.com/911/pft_underpass2.jpg

Also let it be known that the FDR recorded parameters after the last
DME value (up to 2 seconds worth). Therefore, all data did not stop
where certain lia...people want you to believe.

A quick check of the CSV file will reveal this.

[Caustic Logic]

under, over... blahblahblah. the altitude/elevation is known, no one is wrong on that by more than a few feet, the pole heights are known, the numbers are all plausible when not warped, the evidence all fits together. Last FDR data, last radar returns, known aircraft performance, known topography, known physics, eyewitness accounts, physical damage. The gaps, the unknowns, are tiny if any.

NTSB reported impact time wrong, echoed by the 9/11 Comm et al. So what?

ETA: So it looks like Tino and me are on for tomorrow evening, on the phone. Correct TF?

[Turbofan]

YOu got it Adam! I'll give you a call a bit later to work with your schedule.

I like how Llyod was able to stop on a dime and fishtale while the pole was
sticking out of his windshield. Not a scrath on the hood, or seats.
Amazing car!

ETA: Last time I checked the CSV file showed up to :45, so the NTSB impact
would be correct (as per flight study on their site).

[beachnut]

Hey Greg, don't like certain people steer you wrong.

The 'overpass' is really an 'underpass'. The lower roadway dips below
the bridge.



Here's another shot showing the landscape of the roadway and Pentalawn.
(highway almost level with lawn)

The black line was drawn by a Pentagon police officer. Notice the North approach.


Also let it be known that the FDR recorded parameters after the last
DME value (up to 2 seconds worth). Therefore, all data did not stop
where certain lia...people want you to believe.

A quick check of the CSV file will reveal this.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77pentagonOVERpasslol.jpg

At 33 feet MSL, you do not dig your underpasses down, you building the road up! You get flooded. Turbofan has no idea what he is doing, he speaks first and never looks it up! The OVER pass goes up, this is why the posts are at 100 feet MSL. Turbofan is bold enough to lie and say 77 did not hit when the very FDR he speaks was found in the Pentagon.

The DME in the p4t decode is the last data point set; last second.

The NTSB decoded one more second of data. But Turbofan has no real point, do you?

Your leaving out what you think! Balsamo must not be typing fast enough for you.

Clearly area 77 flew over is higher than the rest of the area, my analysis of terrorist flying descent rates stands! 77 hit in a dive, not level; not one p4t can provide but opinion and hearsay, and outright wrong stuff like the underpass junk we see here.

The best they can do is 10 Gs, and 34 Gs that make no sense at all! Hockey stick math!

[beachnut]

YOu got it Adam! I'll give you a call a bit later to work with your schedule.

I like how Llyod was able to stop on a dime and fishtale while the pole was
sticking out of his windshield. Not a scrath on the hood, or seats.
Amazing car!

ETA: Last time I checked the CSV file showed up to :45, so the NTSB impact
would be correct (as per flight study on their site).
Now you make fun of Llyod. Real nice of you; when are you going to call him a NWO agent and liar; oops you just called him a liar. You know your terrorists loyalist have accused him of being in on it!

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77CrashTestBreakaway.jpg

That is what you get with breakaway lamppost. That is why engineers made them. Lloyd window was broken; now what?

The p4t decode, CVS file end with :43, the p4t decode experts did not put in the proper time stamps. They put the frame time, based on the first time of the next frame. That is, :43 is listed as :45; darn.

That means the p4t decode is wrong, the times repeat 4 times for each frame; the simple algorithm must of alluded the p4t decoder, at least he has them in the proper order.

[Turbofan]

You are such a child.

I guess that car is going really fast in your comic strip. Maybe 10 fps?

It hits a pole a fraction of the size of the light poles near the Pentagon
and smashes the window and bends the roof line.

Lloyd says he was moving 45 MPH (?), the 'jet' was moving at 500+ MPH...
the pole just poked a hole in his windshield without a mark on the hood,
A pillar, or roof?

Wow! Double Wowzers Scoob!

Did you see his interview when he says he removed the pole from the
window? Gee, he's as strong as the light pole, and then some!

his story is a scam, and you believe it.

http://www.blinkx.com/video/the-first-known-accomplice-featuring-lloyd-england/BMGqGGzeEDceHLl7ApptUA

3:49 - read that BS
6:15 - total comedy
8:45 - nice...;)

[JimBenArm]

You are such a child.

I guess that car is going really fast in your comic strip. Maybe 10 fps?

It hits a pole a fraction of the size of the light poles near the Pentagon
and smashes the window and bends the roof line.

Lloyd says he was moving 45 MPH (?), the 'jet' was moving at 500+ MPH...
the pole just poked a hole in his windshield without a mark on the hood,
A pillar, or roof?

Wow! Double Wowzers Scoob!

Did you see his interview when he says he removed the pole from the
window? Gee, he's as strong as the light pole, and then some!

his story is a scam, and you believe it.

http://www.blinkx.com/video/the-first-known-accomplice-featuring-lloyd-england/BMGqGGzeEDceHLl7ApptUA

3:49 - read that BS
6:15 - total comedy
8:45 - nice...;)
Gee, he almost gets killed by a light pole, and you accuse him of being a liar and a criminal. What a special person you are. It's a pleasure to know you, really. Your morality is breathtaking to behold.

[Turbofan]

Yup...:rolleyes:

Tell me, did the car fish tail before, during, or after the light pole was sticking
out of his windshield, over the hood...:cool:

[JimBenArm]

Yup...:rolleyes:

Tell me, did the car fish tail before, during, or after the light pole was sticking
out of his windshield, over the hood...:cool:
Why are you asking us? You obviously were there and know what happened, so fill us in.

[Turbofan]

Come on! Look at the evidence available.

Look at the photos. Recall the aircraft speed and direction.

Watch Lloyd's video testimony.

Do you believe it?

[HyJinX]

Hey Turbo...you're wanted in this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124431

What say you?

[JimBenArm]

Come on! Look at the evidence available.

Look at the photos. Recall the aircraft speed and direction.

Watch Lloyd's video testimony.

Do you believe it?
I find it very believable. It's you I have trouble believing.
I have a new theory. You're actually a debunker, who's decided to discredit the Truthers by posting the most ridiculous nonsense he can think up, and argue with people who know more about a subject than you do to seem like a total idiot. It's really the only thing that makes sense.

'fess up. It's true, isn't it?

[jsfisher]

I guess that car is going really fast in your comic strip. Maybe 10 fps?


10 fps is really fast?

[beachnut]

Come on! Look at the evidence available.

Look at the photos. Recall the aircraft speed and direction.

Watch Lloyd's video testimony.

Do you believe it?

How pathetic, implying Lloyd is lying. People saw Lloyd's car as 77 flew over and impacted the Pentagon. Kind of ruins your lie. Pathetic, CIT calls Lloyd and other people liars so CIT can make up lies. I love the NoC 14 G paths; how fantasy like. With 11.2, 10.14, 34, and 14 G NoC paths, it is not surprising they can't get interview right.

Are you going to say it was staged at morning rush hour?

The video you posted, pure junk, pathetic CIT at work. Zero evidence! You can't propose one rational way it happen besides 77 hitting a lamppost, and it hits Lloyd's car. Zero story, zero evidence, pure junk.

[Boone 870]

Here are a couple of blurry photos (sorry, no tripod) that I took from the eastern edge of the Pentagon Memorial. (http://memorial.pentagon.mil/layout.htm) I aligned myself directly between the VDOT tower and the point of impact. I'm not sure if the street lamps in the photos are in the same locations as they were on September 11, 2001.

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh182/Boone870/IMG_0185.jpg

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh182/Boone870/IMG_0182.jpg

[Turbofan]

10 fps is really fast?

Sarcasm. Notice the time stamps on the sides of the pictures.

[beachnut]

Good photos

[TjW]

I'd simply like to point out that Pfffft's math skills or lack of them are irrelevant, since they're asking the wrong question.

There are a some control points that Flight 77 must have passed through, or near, to hit the Pentagon.

We don't have a continuous trace of the flight path, thus the argument.

For Pfffft's purposes of showing a conspiracy due to the impossibility of this happening, it is not enough to show that there is a flight path passing through these points which Flight 77 could not have performed.

For this, it needs to be shown that that there is NO flight path passing through these points that Flight 77 could have successfully performed.
If there is one, then by definition it isn't impossible.

Since R. Mackey has already provided a broad range of flight paths well within the aircraft's capabilities (not only the provided cases, but all the cases in between them), there isn't any way to show it's impossible.

[Mangoose]

Boone: You were allowed to take photos on Pentagon grounds? When I tried to do this a few years ago, I was made to erase the photos (well, some of them).

[Boone 870]

Boone: You were allowed to take photos on Pentagon grounds? When I tried to do this a few years ago, I was made to erase the photos (well, some of them).

I was there for the public opening of the memorial on September 11, 2008, I would guess that anyone can take photos from the memorial itself. That is why the pictures are dark, they were taken just after 7 p.m. right after the public was allowed in.

After having been there myself, I came to the realization that the people who use the Pentagon security videos to prove that Flight 77 leveled off over the lawn, are sadly mistaken. There is no way in Hades that that airplane approached the Pentagon level. Impossible!

[Turbofan]

there isn't any way to show it's impossible.


Well, not unless you look at the flight data, and check the parameters
which would show banking, accelerometers, speed, etc.

But why would you look at the data when you can make up flight paths? :rolleyes:

Wait I know why! Because the FDR shows that AA77 didn't hit the Pentacon! :eek:

OOps, silly me. So, I'll make up some flight paths, then I 'll make excuses
about the NTSB impact time, the six seconds of magical missing data, and
DME values that are too close to the beacon to be six seconds away!

Now that's a solid theory! :rolleyes:

[Bobert]

YOu got it Adam! I'll give you a call a bit later to work with your schedule.

I like how Llyod was able to stop on a dime and fishtale while the pole was
sticking out of his windshield. Not a scrath on the hood, or seats.
Amazing car!

ETA: Last time I checked the CSV file showed up to :45, so the NTSB impact
would be correct (as per flight study on their site).
Yes sometimes things happen but sane rational people look at all the available evidence and information while terrorist apologists cherry pick to support their fantasy.
Hey Turbofan here is an amazing true story of a man who fell 47 stories from a skyscraper and lived
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/health/man+lives+after+us+skyscraper+fall/1275652
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=342154
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/nyregion/03cnd-fall.html?hp
What you and the rest of the CIT frauds have done to Lloyd and his good name is really disgusting.

[bje]

Wait I know why! Because the FDR shows that AA77 didn't hit the Pentacon!

But you can't show AA77 did anything else but hit the Pentacon. Even when asked here and on ATS repeatedly.

The laugh's on you Turbobbubba.
:dl:

[beachnut]

Well, not unless you look at the flight data, and check the parameters which would show banking, accelerometers, speed, etc.
The flight data recorder stopped over 6 seconds away from the Pentagon. Many FDRs have stopped for periods of over 6 seconds, before impacts. You are not knowledgeable enough to know this, so you make up false ideas. Experience helps, Balsamo has no practical experience with math, and his flying knowledge is messed up.

Flight 77 made no banks over 10 degrees in the last 20 seconds of flight, the turn radius at 10 degrees is 17 NM. 34 mile wide turn. So there were no major turns, no more than .5 degrees per second or less made in the last 20 seconds. This is why 77 hit at close to 61.2 degrees true track. This is evidence 77 hit!

77 was also going 463 KIAS, the exact speed to match the kinetic energy the Pentagon was subjected to. Got physics?

Fireball at impact was exactly the size the fuel on 77 would make, and the firemen all found evidence of jet fuel.

So the FDR does support the impact at the Pentagon, but you have to use logic, and knowledge mixed with sound judgment. Got physics?

[beachnut]

But why would you look at the data when you can make up flight paths?
7 years and you still have nothing? What have you been doing?

No one has made up paths but Basamo who appears to be some sort of terrorist loyalist who makes up everything from 11.2 G to 10G to 34 G, which make no sense.

So you follow what has to be the person who is the most math challenge person I have seen in a long time who apologizes for terrorist making up implication of lies, "77 did not hit the pentagon", making up where the plane is, false paths, and impossible NoC paths. Proven by Physics to be impossible. Physics, not hearsay and lies, physics.

The FDR proves the NoC is a fantasy made up by Balsamo who can't do simple math and come up with a practical answer. I got 1.7 Gs when Balsamo got 10 and 34 Gs, using his method correctly. He got numbers but shows the wrong way for the radius he had.

So the FDR does support impact, but Balsamo has to manufacture lies to support his ideas. He lies when he says the INS crashed due to less stressful maneuvers than ordinary flight.

[beachnut]

Wait I know why! Because the FDR shows that AA77 didn't hit the Pentacon!
Flight path shown on the FDR supports impact. You can't explain why it does not. You can't do much of anything on this.

Your lack of flying knowledge is evident when you completely ignore the headings stored in the FDR. One of the most accurate things in the FDR. It is not like the INS with 3000 foot accuracy or worse, or the DME with 3000 foot accuracy. The DME is store in 0.25 NM increments, and you can't even acknowledge that FACT as you use DME as an absolute with it is off 2100 feet, proven by RADAR data and the FDR itself.

Of all the data in the FDR, the heading is very important. The heading of 77 stored in the FDR are cool. With the heading we can verify witness statements, RADAR tracks, and solve the financial market melt down as I day trade my way to a very small fortune. Smaller still.

The hundreds of witnesses saw 77 flying at about 61.2 degrees true track. It is confusing for you cause you have no clue what true track means, or how it related to the magnetic heading. There are four heading/tracks in the FDR. I doubt you know how to verify them and see how complicated it would be to make up data, fake paths as you and p4t due out of ignorance of flying dynamics and fraud.

The magnetic heading, direction the nose points. On 9/11 we know the winds and 77 is exactly drifting the correct degrees of the wind present. Stored the FDR is the magnetic track, corrected for wind, the last mag track is 71.4 degrees.

So we have winds supplied by the self debunking p4t web page, that verify the headings p4t say are faked. This is ironic. As you have to call all the factual evidence lies. And thus your lies are the truth based on delusional suppositions by a terrorist loyalist, Balsamo.

Long story short. The headings and tracks stored (all four of them) verify RADAR, as RADAR verify them. Multiple RADAR sites now adding hundreds of more into the cover-up and the inside job you and your group of terrorist apologist have as a fantasy made up from moronic errors and false ideas.

I can't find a single thing in the FDR to support your idea; you can't specify one thing either. zero clues, zero support.

[TjW]

Well, not unless you look at the flight data, and check the parameters
which would show banking, accelerometers, speed, etc.



But why would you look at the data when you can make up flight paths? :rolleyes:

Wait I know why! Because the FDR shows that AA77 didn't hit the Pentacon! :eek:

OOps, silly me. So, I'll make up some flight paths, then I 'll make excuses
about the NTSB impact time, the six seconds of magical missing data, and
DME values that are too close to the beacon to be six seconds away!

Now that's a solid theory! :rolleyes:

Pffft's "hockey stick" flight path, with the straight line descent to street light level, and only then beginning a pullup, does satisfy their constraints of going through their control points.

But it's not the ONLY possible flight path that satisfies those constraints.

Since there is more than one flight path possibility, you can't say that showing one flight path exceeds the aircraft limits shows that all flight paths satisfying the constraints exceed the aircraft limitations.

R. Mackey has supplied multiple examples which do not exceed the capabilities of the aircraft, using Pfffft's control points, and entirely consistent with previous accelerations recorded on the FDR.

To show it's impossible, you have to find the flight path that meets the additional constraint of being the lowest g loading possible. If that flight path is outside the performance limits of the aircraft, then maybe you have a point.
Pffft hasn't done this. That's why I said they're asking the wrong question.

The question is not: "Can I come up with a flight path that give a high g loading?" Of course you can.
The question is "What's the lowest g loading for a reasonable approximation to the flight path?"

.

[jaydeehess]

Well, not unless you look at the flight data, and check the parameters
which would show banking, accelerometers, speed, etc.



That would be a great idea IF you could determine, within acceptable inherent errors in doing so, where the plane was at the time those readings were taken and stored in the FDR.

The best way to determine where the plane is and at what time would be to corellate the data from the FDR with that of the radar sites. There will be another error involved, that of the different clocks involved, but now you have multiple recordings of the aircraft track. Now you can better determine where the plane was and when.

Then you could at least have a starting point in the vertical and horizontal and from that point you could determine the best case trajectory and worst case trajectory.

Does PfT do that? No!

Instead they decide
to calculate the worst case senario, the trajectory dubbed the "hockey stick", and drawing one other trajectory on paper and calling it the best case senario. They do not even bother to hand wave an explanation as to how they determine the placement of several lines on their drawing but use them as gospel to calculate a g loading.

They decide that
the plane impacted when the FDR record becomes corrupted. They then go on to conclude that since the recording shows the plane was not at the Pentagon and still higher than the Pentagon at that moment then the plane, that hit the Pentagon when its FDR recording became corrupted, did not hit the Pentagon.

They decide that
although the animation produced by the NTSB was never intended for forensic analysis, and that the aircraft track shown in the animation does not match that in the FDR data, they will use the animation to locate the position over the ground anyway.

They decide that,
with their conclusion that the FDR data does not match the flight path described by the physical damage on the ground, the FDR must be correct. This, they decide, despite the fact that they have to come up with a vast, wildly complicated, and wholly untenable senario of magician's misdirection and smoke and mirrors ,that fooled everyone in the vicinity (even those who say they witnessed impact), to make the physical damage and evidence that a plane with people on board crashed, incorrect.

They decide that,
having concluded that the flight paths described by the physical damage and the FDR do not match, they need not bother informing the manufacturer of the FDR that their product would be shown to be faulty by the most common interpretation of any instance in which these two flight paths do not agree.

They decide that
L3, the company that manufactured the FDR, backs their contentions even though they have never produced a technical paper outlining how they conclude that the two flight paths are grossly variant, let alone submitted such a paper to L3.