What JohnDoeX thinks we are afraid to post

[T.A.M.]

Posted on LC Forum by JohnDoeX on October 2nd 2006:

Still waiting for a JREFer to post this on their site or challenge it... It makes a fool out of Billzilla and his supposed "analysis".

It seems the JREFer's dont want to post this on their site and debate the facts. Mainly because it shows how one JREFer's Calculations have blown up in his face working back from the impact hole. I have asked many JREF'ers to post this on their site and they refuse. I wonder why... hmmm...

Alternate Analysis working back from impact hole Final Draft: New Elevations/Calculations from the USGS (also posted on pilotsfor911truth.org)

user posted image


Pole 1 - 43'MSL ground elevation + 31.5 pole impact height = 74.5 MSL Total height above sea level.
Pole 1 aircraft height - 87'+38'ground elevation of pentagon+10.38' imapct hole height = 135.38 MSL.
Aircraft was 60.88 feet above Pole #1.

(not sure of exact reported impact height so i'll use the full 40' for pole length)
Pole 2 - 43'+ 40' = 83' MSL Pole Height
Pole 2 Aircraft Height - 74' + 48.38 = 122.38 MSL
Aircraft was 39.38' above pole #2

Pole 3 - 42'+ 40 = 82' MSL pole height
Pole 3 Aircraft Height - 60' + 50.38 = 110.38 MSL
Aircraft was 28.38' above Pole #3

Pole 4 - 42' + 40 = 82' MSL
Pole 4 Aircraft Height - 50' + 50.38 = 100.38 MSL
Aircraft was 18.38' above Pole # 4

Pole 5 - 41' + 40 = 81' MSL
Pole 5 Aircraft Height - 39' + 50.38 = 89.38
Aircraft was 8.38' above Pole #5

Numbers in black bold above represent the height above impact hole at pentagon based on descent rate of 66 ft/sec and distance from impact hole at pentagon to pole with a forward speed of 784 ft/sec.

To draw your own line.. go here... USGS Seamless Data Distribution

As a reminder, the above an alternate analysis based on working back from the pentagon impact hole. For a more accurate Aircraft height, please visit here for the Flight Data Recorder analysis mid page.
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=15306


For the image referenced in the quote, go to the bottom of the page on the LC Forum link below:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15691

Just for you Johnny Boy...happy trails.

TAM

[jhunter1163]

Let the demolition begin! *blows whistle*

[Gravy]

Damn, he's right! Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon! Why wasn't this posted earlier? Now I have to redo my whole Loose Change Guide Pentagon section!

[Alareth]

Alternate Analysis working back from impact hole

Science: Observe evidence, draw conclusion.

CT Science: Draw conclusion, look for evidence.

[WildCat]

So the altitude data on the FDR is accurate to roughly 1/8 inch at the rate of descent Flight 77 was travelling according to D'oh?

What an idiot.

eta: He's also assuming Google Earth is just as accurate.

[Anti-sophist]

Maybe I'm just daft, but that post doesn't really ever specify the purpose... so I'm not really sure what the numbers are supposed to show. My assumption is he used some US geological thing to extrapolation the elevation, and from there is calculating some numbers that disprove, something.

If someone could explain to me the signifance of these calculations, I'd appreciate it.

Also, I don't know if this helps, but from the website of the USGS website, on that specific tool he is referring to:


Q. What is the vertical accuracy of NED data?
A. The vertical accuracy is basically +/- 7 to 15 meters. It alls depends on the original source DEM and if it was level 1, level 2, or 10m resolution.





He doesn't seem to be accounting for error intervals. My first start, always, in a situation like this is to examine the acceptable precision, so I instantly wanted to find the type of error we are dealing with.

But, like I said, I don't even understand the signifance of these calculations, so I may be missing the point. I'll read some more and see if I can figure out what he's trying to say.

[Qubit]

Unfortunately I can't find the link, but someone on LC actually took the FDR data provided by DohBoy and worked forward. He stated his flight path and other parameter did not match JDX's.

Secondly, I am interested on where he obtained the FDR information. The only link to the CSV file was from his website.

[TheGrunion]

Bah! This is old news. Nothing to see here. According to JDX the FDR data is suspect anyway.


If this aircraft was modified for remote guidance, there no telling what else was modified, right down to the FDR.


In other words, if they took the time to modify the aircraft... everthing surrounding the pentagon and the aircraft could have been modified/fabricated.


As for the FDR itself.. there is already a plain as day cover-up shown clearly between the animation and csv file... there is NO WAY to explain that one away.. its a cover-up.. period. The animation was made to make the aircraft appear lower than it was... deception was used.


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15805&view=findpost&p=7536827

[Alareth]

My assumption is he used some US geological thing to extrapolation the elevation, and from there is calculating some numbers that disprove, something.

JDX uses Google Earth. One of the first big JDX/Russell argument I noticed was when Russell called Google Earths accuracy into question.

[Brainache]

Well I can see why us JREF shills wouldn't want to post that.

Explain again what it was that knocked those poles over.

A Zig Zag missile?

Explosive bolts in the bases?

A team of Gubmint weight lifters?

Leprechauns?

[WildCat]

JDX uses Google Earth. One of the first big JDX/Russell argument I noticed was when Russell called Google Earths accuracy into question.
Yeah, Google Earth has the viaduct over the highway lower than the highway. But D'oh is too stupid to understand such things.

[Anti-sophist]

What is he using google earth for? Elevation numbers?

Is the purpose that he assuming a constant descent, a constant velocity, and a point (the impact hole) and working backwards to estimate the plane height at each location, and the pole height at each location, and showing that the plane was too high?

Where does he get his estimate from the descent speed and velocity?

[TheGrunion]

Well I can see why us JREF shills wouldn't want to post that.

Explain again what it was that knocked those poles over.

A Zig Zag missile?

Explosive bolts in the bases?

A team of Gubmint weight lifters?

Leprechauns?

LC'er's figured this one out awhile ago.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=13385

[T.A.M.]

Leprachauns...see I told you it was them.:)

As for the "Lamp Post Planters" in the LC link above, can I ask, is that an "Official" job title.

LOL

TAM

[stateofgrace]

Let me just get this straight, so I can have some grasp on Johnny boys theory.

Clearly he believes that Flight 77 flew over the pentagon and has based this on calculated heights of an aircraft that "passed” over lamp posts.

It did not hit them but according to Johnny. Missed them by

Post 1. 60.88 feet
Post 2. 39.38 feet
post 3. 28.38 feet
Post 4. 18.38 feet
Post 5. 8.38 feet.

Again I am no pilot but just looking at these figures two things strike me.

1. They are very accurate, I mean judging a planes height and position at a precise moment in time down to two decimal places is going some.
2. The plane, even looking at these figures clearly was descending and according to Johnny passed over the last post by some 8.38 feet.

So really it begs the questions. Can the data recovered be this accurate?
Also if a plane was descending at this rate and considerable speed would it be even possible to pull it up out of this dive to fly over the Pentagon?

Hey just asking.

[CptColumbo]

It doesn't look like he is taking all the variables (i.e. wing wobbling) into consideration. It appears he is assuming a straight line descent.

You know what happens when you make an assumption, you make an @$$ out of u and ...mption.

[Anti-sophist]

Well, there is very obviously a precision issue in play here. Using a single height and calculating things to 2 decimal points is obviously a false precision statstical fallacy. But, the issue isn't the second decimal place. These elevation data sources, presumably, have a network of sample points, and it uses interpolation to get elevations in between. A correct calculation would take into account the data, the interpolative assumptions used by each of the data sources, and the margin for error of the data sources, and come up with a best-case/worse-case elevation for each point.

Secondly, we'd need to examine the assumption of a constant decent at a particular angle. This seems to be a continuation by extrapolating the FDR data. I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but that seems to be a fair assumption, but it's certainly not a required assumption. The next question would be to see that if the linear model is impossible, what kind of non-linear path would be necessary.

[qarnos]

I am also concerned with the accuracy of the impact time with relation to the FDR data.

For an aircraft travelling at ~500mph an error of 1/10 of a second equals ~22 meters (~72 feet) of travel through the air.

[CptColumbo]

Here's a simulation:

YVDdjLQkUV8

and a story about it:

aVaRtZnrgNE&NR

simulation created by:

http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/

[The Mad Hatter]

I don't quite understand - what's so significant about JohnDoe's data anyway? Wouldn't we expect the plane to descend before hitting the pentagon? Didn't he just give evidence that there was a plane?

Or am I missing something that's supposed to be obvious?

[Brainache]

As someone else pointed out, he is using the FDR of flight 77 which was recovered from the wreckage of the pentagon to prove that flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon.
So I say; stupid or crazy- take your pick.

[T.A.M.]

I am guessing, based on the only actual leg work the LTW guys did, with their trip to washington, combined with the JDX calcs, that LC:FC will state that they think a mysterious warplane flew over the pentagon, releasing a missile as it did, causing the Pentagon "Crash".

We'll see.

TAM

[Obviousman]

I contacted a professional engineer who analyses FDR data for a living, and got him in touch with with DOH!

He looked at the data (.csv file) and said that because the altitude data was taken above Vmo, we don't know if it is accurate or not. He's had that pointed out time & time again, but he's won't give up his pet project.

Also, you are using pressure altitude data for something that requires RADALT data (which was not a valid parameter on the DFDR).

He hasn't looked at the DFDR itself, how it gained its inputs, what those senors were, what their tolerences were, what factors could affect the data, etc, etc.

He simply see what he wants to.

I mean, really - if this is such a "smoking gun" then:

1. Why did the government release the DFDR data showing that it did not match the government claim, when they had 5 years to "fix" the data; and

2. Why hasn't it been picked up by news agencies ALL around the world?

Because it's crud, but those losers (that's not a typo) can't see that.

Also makes me wonder - why hasn't DOH! advertised his (Palm)Pilots for Truth(fulness if it suits Doh) forum on PPrune? Thousands of professional pilots, aircrew, engineers, etc from around the world. Civil, military, tech heads, phling wing phlyers, trash haulers, fisheads, knuckleheads, buggys, flappys, ginger beers, etc, from all around the globe.

I think he's afraid what will happen if some real pilots start inhabiting the forum; he'll be too busy banning to actually type a reply to anything. After all, look at the pasting he got when he went to PPrune the first time.

[stateofgrace]

I'm also guessing here, but as anybody read a statement from a single witness that saw Flight 77 fly over the Pentagon? No, neither have I.

This crackpot theory just gets more and more credible with every passing moment.:rolleyes:

[Oliver]

*snip*LC:FC .... We'll see.

TAM

When? Did anyone hear about it?

[jhunter1163]

Last I heard, it wasn't going to be out till 2007.

[Gravy]

I contacted a professional engineer who analyses FDR data for a living, and got him in touch with with DOH!

He looked at the data (.csv file) and said that because the altitude data was taken above Vmo, we don't know if it is accurate or not. He's had that pointed out time & time again, but he's won't give up his pet project.

Also, you are using pressure altitude data for something that requires RADALT data (which was not a valid parameter on the DFDR).

He hasn't looked at the DFDR itself, how it gained its inputs, what those senors were, what their tolerences were, what factors could affect the data, etc, etc.

He simply see what he wants to.

I mean, really - if this is such a "smoking gun" then:

1. Why did the government release the DFDR data showing that it did not match the government claim, when they had 5 years to "fix" the data; and

2. Why hasn't it been picked up by news agencies ALL around the world?

Because it's crud, but those losers (that's not a typo) can't see that.

Also makes me wonder - why hasn't DOH! advertised his (Palm)Pilots for Truth(fulness if it suits Doh) forum on PPrune? Thousands of professional pilots, aircrew, engineers, etc from around the world. Civil, military, tech heads, phling wing phlyers, trash haulers, fisheads, knuckleheads, buggys, flappys, ginger beers, etc, from all around the globe.

I think he's afraid what will happen if some real pilots start inhabiting the forum; he'll be too busy banning to actually type a reply to anything. After all, look at the pasting he got when he went to PPrune the first time.
Well done, Obviousman!

[Alareth]

I contacted a professional engineer who analyses FDR data for a living, and got him in touch with with DOH!

He looked at the data (.csv file) and said that because the altitude data was taken above Vmo, we don't know if it is accurate or not. He's had that pointed out time & time again, but he's won't give up his pet project.

Also, you are using pressure altitude data for something that requires RADALT data (which was not a valid parameter on the DFDR).

He hasn't looked at the DFDR itself, how it gained its inputs, what those senors were, what their tolerences were, what factors could affect the data, etc, etc.

He simply see what he wants to.

I mean, really - if this is such a "smoking gun" then:

1. Why did the government release the DFDR data showing that it did not match the government claim, when they had 5 years to "fix" the data; and

2. Why hasn't it been picked up by news agencies ALL around the world?

Because it's crud, but those losers (that's not a typo) can't see that.

Also makes me wonder - why hasn't DOH! advertised his (Palm)Pilots for Truth(fulness if it suits Doh) forum on PPrune? Thousands of professional pilots, aircrew, engineers, etc from around the world. Civil, military, tech heads, phling wing phlyers, trash haulers, fisheads, knuckleheads, buggys, flappys, ginger beers, etc, from all around the globe.

I think he's afraid what will happen if some real pilots start inhabiting the forum; he'll be too busy banning to actually type a reply to anything. After all, look at the pasting he got when he went to PPrune the first time.

JDX did sign up for pprune and tried mocking Billzillia's marker dots on the windscreen argument. He didn't make much headway and abandoned pprune like a rat on a sinking ship.

[WildCat]

JDX did sign up for pprune and tried mocking Billzillia's marker dots on the windscreen argument. He didn't make much headway and abandoned pprune like a rat on a sinking ship.
More like a rat that gnawed its way into a room of starving cats.

[CptColumbo]

Any link to this?

[Bell]

Any link to this?

Liek this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_%28computer_science%29) ?

[CptColumbo]

Liek this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_%28computer_science%29) ?

With spelling like that, you're being a smart@$$?:)

[Bell]

With spelling like that, you're being a smart@$$?:)

:p

[apathoid]

I contacted a professional engineer who analyses FDR data for a living, and got him in touch with with DOH!

He looked at the data (.csv file) and said that because the altitude data was taken above Vmo, we don't know if it is accurate or not. He's had that pointed out time & time again, but he's won't give up his pet project.

Also, you are using pressure altitude data for something that requires RADALT data (which was not a valid parameter on the DFDR).

He hasn't looked at the DFDR itself, how it gained its inputs, what those senors were, what their tolerences were, what factors could affect the data, etc, etc.

He simply see what he wants to.


That was your doing? Great work! :)

Another thing that stands out is that the plot times are recorded in 1 second intervals. Unless AA77 hit at exactly 0937:44.000000, the last recorded data may have occured as much as 800 ft from impact. The vertical path likely flattened out(ground effect right back atcha D'oh!) a touch in the final second. That would change both the pitch angle and the rate of descent(using Do'hs crude method of interpolating RoD from the difference in altitude{that likely isnt accurate anyway} between samples).

:solved1

[Alareth]

Any link to this?

JDX posting at pprune as AluminumDrvr (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2746202&posted=1#post2746202)

[Mince]

Also makes me wonder - why hasn't DOH! advertised his (Palm)Pilots for Truth(fulness if it suits Doh) forum on PPrune? Thousands of professional pilots, aircrew, engineers, etc from around the world. Civil, military, tech heads, phling wing phlyers, trash haulers, fisheads, knuckleheads, buggys, flappys, ginger beers, etc, from all around the globe.


Maybe somebody should drop JDX's forum URL in a thread over at PPrune. That should entice at least a few actual pilots to go there.

[WildCat]

Maybe somebody should drop JDX's forum URL in a thread over at PPrune. That should entice at least a few actual pilots to go there.
Or anyone besides's D'oh to post there. There's only been a few posts besides his in the past week. Poor D'oh boy, nobody wants to play w/ him.

[Mince]

JDX posting at pprune as AluminumDrvr (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2746202&posted=1#post2746202)


by AluminumDrvr

I hate internet posers.. dont you?


Yes, johndoeX, I do hate internet posers.

[apathoid]

I hate internet posers.. dont you?

:id:

D'oh destroys yet another Iron-o-meter.

[CptColumbo]

JDX posting at pprune as AluminumDrvr (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2746202&posted=1#post2746202)

A mod there (john_tullamarine) seems to have eliminated many of the posts in that thread.

[TjW]

Ouch. They JDX down hard on the dot and the beard claim...

[Mince]

Take a gander at this thread over at PPrune, http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=245955 , for a comparison. This illustrates how actual pilots discuss technical issues and professionally debate even when they disagree. Only seven smilies are used in the whole thread. Seven smilies is a short post by JDX. It occurred to me that JDX has 43 posts per day at LC, and only 26 total posts since July at PPrune. After reading a few threads over there, it is now clear why.

[R.Mackey]

I contacted a professional engineer who analyses FDR data for a living, and got him in touch with with DOH!

He looked at the data (.csv file) and said that because the altitude data was taken above Vmo, we don't know if it is accurate or not. He's had that pointed out time & time again, but he's won't give up his pet project.

Also, you are using pressure altitude data for something that requires RADALT data (which was not a valid parameter on the DFDR).

He hasn't looked at the DFDR itself, how it gained its inputs, what those senors were, what their tolerences were, what factors could affect the data, etc, etc.

He simply see what he wants to.
Yup.

Alleged pilot Mr. DoeX's claim that this "makes a fool" out of Billzilla's analysis is entirely premature. Mr. DoeX is chickening out just when this gets interesting. In a real investigation, when two different analyses don't match, you have the potential to learn something useful. You tear apart both of them, examine their methods and assumptions, because somewhere somebody has made a mistake. If both approaches are reasonable on the surface, that means when you figure it out, everybody is about to learn something important.

Mr. DoeX's analysis, however, is not going to make that standard. Plainly missing from his work is any notion of calibration.

This is growing more and more common in CT's attempted derivations. We saw virtually the same mistake in the Ross and Furlong seismic paper. Their entire derivation was based on time records that they assumed were accurate to the second, and they showed "suspicious" discrepancies of up to 17 seconds. As it turned out, instead of reading event times, they were reading record start times. Since the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia presents the events centered in 40-second windows to show background prior and following the events, there was a variable offset to the start of the event, varying from 0 to 20 seconds. This offset was their so-called "anomaly." Ross and Furlong never bothered to understand this, and Furlong got quite combative when this was pointed out to him. No calibration, no error estimation, thus no results.

Now we see Mr. DoeX making the same mistake. His tools are Flight Data Recorder records and positioning information from Google Earth. Are those sources calibrated? How accurate are they? He never even asks the question. The FDR is operating outside its range, so no, it's not calibrated, though some correction might be possible for someone much more technically minded. Google Earth? Don't make me laugh. That's not what it's designed to do. Errors of a few meters are not only possible, they're expected.

This is universal in science. It is possible to construct scientific experiments of mind-boggling precision, but only if you reciprocate with scientific rigor. One example that I have personally replicated as part of my training was devised by Millikan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Millikan), one of the guiding fathers of my alma mater, and allows one to see with her own eyes the effect of a single electron. High-precision measurements require exceptional care.

The conspiracy set are almost doomed to fail in this regard. These legions of would-be Jupiter Joneses are so fixated on finding any anomaly, no matter how slight, that they'll challenge world governments upon finding a few seconds of error, or hearing a single unusual idiom ("Pull It"), or measuring a few meters -- as Mr. DoeX has done here.

While it may be possible to reduce the error of measurement in this flight path to a few meters, it cannot be done in such a haphazard fashion. It is simply impossible. Mr. DoeX has not estimated his error, and I doubt he has the first clue how to start. Or if he'd have any interest in doing proper work, work that might force him to change his mind.

Dear Conspiracy Theorists and budding writers of whitepapers, if you want to impress us, prepare an honest analysis. Estimate all sources of error, eliminate the ones that you can, declare the rest, and make your process transparent. Propagate your errors. Reference your work. If you don't know what I'm talking about, go to school until you do. If you actually do all this, then I promise you an honest response and genuine interest. If you don't, you're just another hack with delusions of grandeur and too many hours spent watching CSI.

You too, Mr. DoeX.

[Redtail]

If you don't, you're just another hack with delusions of grandeur and too many hours spent watching CSI.

I like CSI. :(

[CptColumbo]

I like CSI. :(
Which one?

[R.Mackey]

I like CSI. :(
As long as you don't think that's how a real crime lab operates, no worries! :D

[CptColumbo]

As long as you don't think that's how a real crime lab operates, no worries! :D

As long as the women who work there are hot. They are right?

[R.Mackey]

As long as the women who work there are hot. They are right?
Beats me, I don't work in a crime lab... Always did like a woman in uniform, myself...

[Anti-sophist]

Estimate all sources of error, eliminate the ones that you can, declare the rest, and make your process transparent. Propagate your errors. Reference your work.


It's so correct that it bears repeating. You have to model your error if you are going to base calculations on estimated numbers. You have to show that your answer (deviation from expectation) is statistically significant.

[bignickel]

A mod there (john_tullamarine) seems to have eliminated many of the posts in that thread.

Any possibility that this stuff was archived somewhere on the net?

Love this bit:
Guys and gals .. Tech Log is not for this sort of infantile nonsense ... plenty of places elsewhere where folks can let their hair down a bit if that's the sort of thing which revs you up a tad .

It's only in the very last post that we have an indication that the P finally came up in the conversation. Would REALLY love to read the posts when it finally did.

[Anti-sophist]

Well, I did some work. I was expecting to either find outright lies and fabrications in his numbers, or excepting a major precision error. I decided to reproduce his results, and then properly account for any error from the USGS, and see what I got.

These are HIS numbers (I have not checked them, I did look at the USGS, and the elevations match pretty closely with what they say, although i'd argue he tweaked it a few feet in his favor, but no big deal)

Pentagon at 38 feet above sea level.
Impact at 10 feet above that.
Base of LP#5 at 41 ft above sea level
Base of LP#4 at 42 ft above sea level
Base of LP#3 at 42 ft above sea level
Base of LP#2 at 45+20 ft above sea level (it's on an overpass)
Base of LP#1 at 45+20 ft above sea level (it's on an overpass)
Plane going 66ft/sec down, and 784 ft/sec. atan(66/784) = 4.8 degrees descent
Lightpoles are 40 feet high.

He didn't show his math for calculating the planes height, he just gave a number, so I decided to calculate this myself using google maps. In order to calculate you distance, the important factor is where the plane is, when it hits the lightpole so that is why I plotted the plane trajectory as a line, and measured along that line (using the normals given by the lightpoles).

Here is the image I used:

http://img137.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pentuy7.jpg

Here is a screen shot of my excel file, and my plot, including all the intermediete numbers. I'd upload the excel file if I had space, maybe at some later date.

http://img228.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pent3hu9.jpg

Here is the final plot, feel free to check my math...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1179945234bdb1d0c8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1764)

Considering we both used the same inputs, the only reasonable conclusion is that one of us is bad at math. If it's me, I'll happily fix it.

[qarnos]

Yup.

Alleged pilot Mr. DoeX's claim that this "makes a fool" out of Billzilla's analysis is entirely premature. Mr. DoeX is chickening out just when this gets interesting. In a real investigation, when two different analyses don't match, you have the potential to learn something useful. You tear apart both of them, examine their methods and assumptions, because somewhere somebody has made a mistake. If both approaches are reasonable on the surface, that means when you figure it out, everybody is about to learn something important.

[snipped remainder]

Nominated. You can expect the Men in Black to pay you a visit real soon.

[R.Mackey]

Well, I did some work. I was expecting to either find outright lies and fabrications in his numbers, or excepting a major precision error. I decided to reproduce his results, and then properly account for any error from the USGS, and see what I got.

[...]

Considering we both used the same inputs, the only reasonable conclusion is that one of us is bad at math. If it's me, I'll happily fix it.
Cool, a graph! And, more importantly, an attempt at reproducibility.

Do I understand from your writeup that you extrapolated trajectory from (a) point of impact and (b) the aircraft speed and rate of descent? Is it possible that the aircraft did not descend at a constant rate? How did you use the altimetry data?

I've argued in the other thread that the altimetry data error bars are large (I'm guessing ~ 40 m unless we can define the pressure altitude offset, in which case still ~ 20 m, but uncharacterized), but I haven't dug into it any further than that.

[apathoid]

Cool, a graph! And, more importantly, an attempt at reproducibility.

Do I understand from your writeup that you extrapolated trajectory from (a) point of impact and (b) the aircraft speed and rate of descent? Is it possible that the aircraft did not descend at a constant rate? How did you use the altimetry data?

I've argued in the other thread that the altimetry data error bars are large (I'm guessing ~ 40 m unless we can define the pressure altitude offset, in which case still ~ 20 m, but uncharacterized), but I haven't dug into it any further than that.

I wouldn't trust the altitude data either for a variety of reasons(pneumatic lag, errors induced from exceeding Vmo)

On the other hand, Bill assures me that, at the speed AA77 was flying, the angle of attack to maintain level flight(deck angle) would be close to zero. Since we know the AoA(-4.9), couldnt we just use the sine of 4.9 degrees and multiply it by the distance the airplane travels in a second, at 463 kts - to get a rate of descent, then work backwards with the known lamp pole elevations and their distances from impact. This would eliminate the suspected bad variable - the pressure altitude.....

[Anti-sophist]

Yes, these calculations ignore the altimeter data (other than to compute the initial angle of descent). It works from the point of impact, assuming a linear trajectory. The final FDR blip, it should be noted, happened relatively close to pole #1.

I think I've found an error in my calculation that lets me repeat his numbers a little better, given all his data and assumptions. I'll post the corrections when I get home from work (Although, tonight is LOST and southpark, so it might be late).

Also, yes, he is assuming a constant rate of decent.
Some of the other undealt with issues;
1) Error in the elevation data (the site says +/- 7 to 15m)
2) Assumption of linear path (no acceleration)
3) Error in the final angle of attack (he finds this by assuming the average angle between the final two points of the FDR, and then using that angle for the last second).

The angle-of-descent error is pretty large, IF WE ASSUME A LINEAR trajectory. I got a standard deviation of 1.5 degrees.

If we don't assume a linear trajectory, it should be pretty easy to calculate an initial and final angle of descent, calculate the G forces, and the starting point (it's a quadratic). I'll probably do this later with a variety of reasonable numbers and see what happens.

[boloboffin]

As someone else pointed out, he is using the FDR of flight 77 which was recovered from the wreckage of the pentagon to prove that flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon.
So I say; stupid or crazy- take your pick.

To be consistent, he should say the flight data was faked, since he believes Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.

But then we are left with the odd puzzle of why the conspirators faked flight infomation that proved the opposite of what they wanted people to believe, and then released it to the public.

[CurtC]

To be consistent, he should say the flight data was faked, since he believes Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.
To bend over backwards to be fair to JDX, he does say that the pressure altitude data proves that the FDR data was faked. He then refuses to put together a coherent scenario that explains the evidence he thinks he has, but falls back on the "hey, I'm just asking questions" schtick.

[twinstead]

To be consistent, he should say the flight data was faked, since he believes Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.

But then we are left with the odd puzzle of why the conspirators faked flight infomation that proved the opposite of what they wanted people to believe, and then released it to the public.

Which brings us back to the typical CT notion that "They" are idiot savants. Omnipotent when it comes to fooling experts from around the world, yet so stupid that amateur sleuths on the internet can foil their plans.

[weedwacker]

Well, I did some work. I was expecting to either find outright lies and fabrications in his numbers, or excepting a major precision error. I decided to reproduce his results, and then properly account for any error from the USGS, and see what I got.

These are HIS numbers (I have not checked them, I did look at the USGS, and the elevations match pretty closely with what they say, although i'd argue he tweaked it a few feet in his favor, but no big deal)

Pentagon at 38 feet above sea level.
Impact at 10 feet above that.
Base of LP#5 at 41 ft above sea level
Base of LP#4 at 42 ft above sea level
Base of LP#3 at 42 ft above sea level
Base of LP#2 at 45+20 ft above sea level (it's on an overpass)
Base of LP#1 at 45+20 ft above sea level (it's on an overpass)
Plane going 66ft/sec down, and 784 ft/sec. atan(66/784) = 4.8 degrees descent
Lightpoles are 40 feet high.

He didn't show his math for calculating the planes height, he just gave a number, so I decided to calculate this myself using google maps. In order to calculate you distance, the important factor is where the plane is, when it hits the lightpole so that is why I plotted the plane trajectory as a line, and measured along that line (using the normals given by the lightpoles).


Considering we both used the same inputs, the only reasonable conclusion is that one of us is bad at math. If it's me, I'll happily fix it.

Quickly looking over your chart. It doesnt look to scale. Your Xaxis for 200 feet is the same as the Y for 20 feet. Might have to back up those poles a bit?

Also, if you are using 66ft/sec and 784 ft/sec for the speed. If pole 1 was at 1050 feet away (roughly by looking at your chart), that would put the aircraft at over 1 second away. So about 85 feet above the impact hole at the pentagon? So we have 38 feet pentagon height, plus 10 feet impact hole height, plus 85 feet equals 133MSL when at pole 1. Is pole 1 higher than 133MSL?

Just some quick math I did based on your chart. I could be off a bit here and there.

I think I used to work with JDX, trying to find out. Im also checking over his work.

[sleahead]

Weedwacker, JDX has flight 77 at 89 feet and descending at lightpole 5, which is approximately 500 feet from the Pentagon. At this point, given that the Pentagon is 77 feet' high and impact is approximately 0.64 seconds away, is it possible to do a flyover?

[weedwacker]

I havent seen anythnig suggesting a flyover by JDX yet. I do see him saying the FDR doesnt get low enough to hit the poles. Has he said it didnt hit the pentagon? If so, is it on his site?

I'm just starting to look over his work. I also have some calls out to see if it's the same guy.

[sleahead]

I don't know exactly what he thinks. I just looked at his figures and wondered if, in your opinion, a flyover is possible or not.

[DavidJames]

I havent seen anythnig suggesting a flyover by JDX yet. I do see him saying the FDR doesnt get low enough to hit the poles. Has he said it didnt hit the pentagon? If so, is it on his site?

I'm just starting to look over his work. I also have some calls out to see if it's the same guy.Not sure if you saw my comment in the other thread. "his site" is a morgue, he posts at a record pace on the Loose Change forums and is by quite a margin, their most prolific poster.

[weedwacker]

Not sure if you saw my comment in the other thread. "his site" is a morgue, he posts at a record pace on the Loose Change forums and is by quite a margin, their most prolific poster.

yeah, I saw that. He is their top poster. But, if he is in a hospital bed at home or something, it may explain why he is always online. I'm going to give this guy some slack till i find out if its the same guy. I'd be going out of my mind if I still had a good few years in me to fly professionally but couldn't due to health problems. If it is him, at least he has found a way to keep his mind occupied. I'm still going over his work.

[negativ]

Hang on a second.

I admit I've not been following this very closely, as in my mind the "oh noez it wuz teh cr00z missels wut hit teh pintogonne bayybeeee!!" is the most idiotic pillar of the LC faith.

But am I to understand that JDX is using...
the flight data recorder...
from flight 77...
recovered from the Pentagon...
to prove that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon?

:wackyconfused:

[chipmunk stew]

Hang on a second.

I admit I've not been following this very closely, as in my mind the "oh noez it wuz teh cr00z missels wut hit teh pintogonne bayybeeee!!" is the most idiotic pillar of the LC faith.

But am I to understand that JDX is using...
the flight data recorder...
from flight 77...
recovered from the Pentagon...
to prove that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon?

:wackyconfused:
Well, weedwacker just pointed out that he never claims it didn't hit the Pentagon...just not the lightpoles. Incriminating, no?

[WildCat]

Hang on a second.

I admit I've not been following this very closely, as in my mind the "oh noez it wuz teh cr00z missels wut hit teh pintogonne bayybeeee!!" is the most idiotic pillar of the LC faith.

But am I to understand that JDX is using...
the flight data recorder...
from flight 77...
recovered from the Pentagon...
to prove that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon?

:wackyconfused:
Oh it was planted there, w/ incorrect data apparently. :rolleyes:

[DavidJames]

Hang on a second.

I admit I've not been following this very closely, as in my mind the "oh noez it wuz teh cr00z missels wut hit teh pintogonne bayybeeee!!" is the most idiotic pillar of the LC faith.

But am I to understand that JDX is using...
the flight data recorder...
from flight 77...
recovered from the Pentagon...
to prove that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon?

:wackyconfused:
I could be wrong about this, but I think he believes a whistleblower released the FDR data. I'm not sure what his point is though. Maybe he feels they hadn't completed mocking up the data to support the OCT, or maybe it's legit and he feels wasn't officially released because it "proves" the OCT is wrong, or heck knows what he thinks, cause he's only asking questions :rolleyes:

[CurtC]

I have seen JDX suggest that Flight 77 did a flyover of the Pentagon. The search function at the LC Forum is pretty much useless, so I can't provide a link, but I have seen him suggest that.

[bignickel]

I tried to find the missing posts here
http://www.archive.org/index.php
but it doesnt' seem to have anything archived 2006. Maybe it's at a different location.

[apathoid]

Awww cripes. I guess somebody will have to go "over there" and find him talking about a flyover. I couldve sworn that was the whole point of his FDR study. He certainly isnt of the mind that it impacted, so it's either totally fake or evidence that AA77 flew over the Pentagon..

[apathoid]

I could be wrong about this, but I think he believes a whistleblower released the FDR data. I'm not sure what his point is though. Maybe he feels they hadn't completed mocking up the data to support the OCT, or maybe it's legit and he feels wasn't officially released because it "proves" the OCT is wrong, or heck knows what he thinks, cause he's only asking questions :rolleyes:

He(the NTSB official whose name I've forgotten) released it because he was ordered to under FOIA, some whistleblower!
You'd think it would take less than 5 years to fake the data in any case.

[DavidJames]

You'd think it would take less than 5 years to fake the data in any case.:D

As been mentioned, the same government that can put together this brilliant fake attack is also unable to CGI some videos or fake a .csv FDR file and even planted evidence from the wrong plane at the Pentagon. Their (the loosers) stupidity is mind numbing.

[Darth Rotor]

I contacted a professional engineer who analyses FDR data for a living, and got him in touch with with DOH!

He looked at the data (.csv file) and said that because the altitude data was taken above Vmo, we don't know if it is accurate or not. He's had that pointed out time & time again, but he's won't give up his pet project.

Also, you are using pressure altitude data for something that requires RADALT data (which was not a valid parameter on the DFDR).

He hasn't looked at the DFDR itself, how it gained its inputs, what those senors were, what their tolerences were, what factors could affect the data, etc, etc.

He simply see what he wants to.

I mean, really - if this is such a "smoking gun" then:

1. Why did the government release the DFDR data showing that it did not match the government claim, when they had 5 years to "fix" the data; and

2. Why hasn't it been picked up by news agencies ALL around the world?

Because it's crud, but those losers (that's not a typo) can't see that.

Also makes me wonder - why hasn't DOH! advertised his (Palm)Pilots for Truth(fulness if it suits Doh) forum on PPrune? Thousands of professional pilots, aircrew, engineers, etc from around the world. Civil, military, tech heads, phling wing phlyers, trash haulers, fisheads, knuckleheads, buggys, flappys, ginger beers, etc, from all around the globe.

I think he's afraid what will happen if some real pilots start inhabiting the forum; he'll be too busy banning to actually type a reply to anything. After all, look at the pasting he got when he went to PPrune the first time.
About a month ago, I posted, in a discussion with gumboot and some others, the discussion of altimeter errors, altitude errors, AGL, MSL, Bar Alts and rad alts.

Your engineer friend and I are in agreement, and I am glad he pointed out the VmO issue and pressure altitude variation, which I failed to do.

Good on him!

DR

[sleahead]

Found JDX's thoughts on the LC forum:

1. If the FDR data is accurate.. there is NO WAY it hit the light poles and unlikely it hit the pentagon. We dont know if it hit the pentagon or not because we DONT HAVE THAT DATA ANYWHERE. period.

2. If the FDR data is fake.. it is as alarming as if it were accurate.. see number

So he thinks it is unlikely Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and therefore likely that it did a flyover.

[Muckar-duva]

Oh, a flyover. Now, is that a theory that's come up just to explain the lightpoles?

I was hoping that someone would do a graph or animation of a missile, or amissile-carrying plane. Why don't they ever try to prove something? It's always just about the disproving, to hide the fact that the alternate theories are far less likely.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Sorry to barge in without first introducing myself, but there is an important point that everyone seems to be over-looking in this thread. JohnDoeX worked backwards from the height of the impact into the Pentagon to calculate the altitude of Flight 77 as it passed over the locations of light poles using a constant rate of descent. But since witnesses claimed that Flight 77 actually hit the ground before hitting the Pentagon, his conclusions are obviously invalid. If someone can find out how far away from the Pentagon Flight 77 hit the ground (it reportedly struck a helipad), it should be possible to work backwards from that point.

Of course, all this seems irrelevant. Theories are required to fit observations, observations are not required to fit theories.

[WildCat]

Sorry to barge in without first introducing myself, but there is an important point that everyone seems to be over-looking in this thread. JohnDoeX worked backwards from the height of the impact into the Pentagon to calculate the altitude of Flight 77 as it passed over the locations of light poles using a constant rate of descent. But since witnesses claimed that Flight 77 actually hit the ground before hitting the Pentagon, his conclusions are obviously invalid. If someone can find out how far away from the Pentagon Flight 77 hit the ground (it reportedly struck a helipad), it should be possible to work backwards from that point.

Of course, all this seems irrelevant. Theories are required to fit observations, observations are not required to fit theories.
IIRC, a wingtip it the ground. I think that an engine hit a fence, and maybe a few other things were hit but only the wingtip actually hit the ground, but almost at the Pentagon.

[Hellbound]

IIRC, a wingtip it the ground. I think that an engine hit a fence, and maybe a few other things were hit but only the wingtip actually hit the ground, but almost at the Pentagon.

THis is my understanding as well, although I can't source it currently. But I seem to recall the left wingtip hit the ground at pretty much the same time the nose hit the building.

[tsig]

As someone else pointed out, he is using the FDR of flight 77 which was recovered from the wreckage of the pentagon to prove that flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon.
So I say; stupid or crazy- take your pick.

You clearly do not understand the CT mind.

If the data is false, the gumint did it.

If the data is true then the gumint truely did it.

That's the best I could do out of one of jdx's response to the logical delimma of claiming the data you are using is fake.

[T.A.M.]

Sorry to barge in without first introducing myself, but there is an important point that everyone seems to be over-looking in this thread. JohnDoeX worked backwards from the height of the impact into the Pentagon to calculate the altitude of Flight 77 as it passed over the locations of light poles using a constant rate of descent. But since witnesses claimed that Flight 77 actually hit the ground before hitting the Pentagon, his conclusions are obviously invalid. If someone can find out how far away from the Pentagon Flight 77 hit the ground (it reportedly struck a helipad), it should be possible to work backwards from that point.

Of course, all this seems irrelevant. Theories are required to fit observations, observations are not required to fit theories.

Welcome Telly to the JREF Forum on Conspiracy Theories. Your opinions here will always be allowed, if not always accepted.

As for the issue of the plane hitting the ground, I am not sure this is accurate. I do not believe there was any damage done to the Helipad from the plane, and I think the angle that the plane came in on, may have misled people to think that the plane hit the ground before impact. I think most agree now that it didn't hit the ground prior to impact, but I could be mistaken.

As for is data, ands working back, you make a good point, in the sense of what his starting elevation was. I am not sure what he used as the starting elevation in his calculations was (the elevation at impact). Anyone? Does it make any difference?

TAM

[Dragonrock]

Sorry to barge in without first introducing myself, but there is an important point that everyone seems to be over-looking in this thread. JohnDoeX worked backwards from the height of the impact into the Pentagon to calculate the altitude of Flight 77 as it passed over the locations of light poles using a constant rate of descent. But since witnesses claimed that Flight 77 actually hit the ground before hitting the Pentagon, his conclusions are obviously invalid. If someone can find out how far away from the Pentagon Flight 77 hit the ground (it reportedly struck a helipad), it should be possible to work backwards from that point.

Of course, all this seems irrelevant. Theories are required to fit observations, observations are not required to fit theories.

Earlier in this thread someone mentions "ground effect". Rather than get into the exact physics I'll sum it up; in this case, "ground effect" refers the plane getting more lift as it gets closer to the ground. The final moments of the flight would have been a curve rather than linear descent so the decent could have been originally steeper than shown in the numbers given by the CTer.

[Hellbound]

It might make a difference, depending on where the altimeter probe is on the aircraft. For example, if the probe is on the bottem of the aircraft, but JDX used the top of the impact area as the start point, then everything will be off by the height of the fuselage.

Just one example I could think of off-hand...and something that should have been spelled out in his anal-ysis (a clear definition of what he chose as the impact point and why).

[CurtC]

IIRC, a wingtip it the ground. I think that an engine hit a fence, and maybe a few other things were hit but only the wingtip actually hit the ground, but almost at the Pentagon.
These guys put together a pretty convincing case (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Flittlegreenfootballs%2Ecom%2Fweb log%2F%3FPHPSESSID%3Da2bd4f2bd9c5a890ba6fedb5a4cb7 f4a) that the wingtips did not hit, but the starboard engine slammed the big generator, and the port engine clipped a short concrete footing near the cable spools.

[Hellbound]

These guys put together a pretty convincing case (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Flittlegreenfootballs%2Ecom%2Fweb log%2F%3FPHPSESSID%3Da2bd4f2bd9c5a890ba6fedb5a4cb7 f4a) that the wingtips did not hit, but the starboard engine slammed the big generator, and the port engine clipped a short concrete footing near the cable spools.

Discovery (or National Geographic channel) had a documentary on where they talked about this. I haven't spent much time looking for it, but I'll have to see if I can find it. Basically, they agreed with that, but their theory was that when the right engine hit the generator.structure, it tilted that side up from the impact, dipping the left wing slightly, so the left wingtip touched ground right as the nose was entering the building. The documentary stated that pieces of the wing were found buried in the ground just outside the wall.

I'll have to find that, and see if they source that info anywhere. It's entirely possible I'm recalling it incorrectly, as well.

[CurtC]

Huntsman, I have a hard time buying that. If the generator impact was the cause of the leftward tipping, at that point it had something like 1/10 of a second before impact. Imagine putting enough upwards force on the right wing of an airplane so that the left wing dips down by ten feet in 1/10 second. I don't think you could do it.

Also, I think the left wingtip might have passed over one of the cars that you always see pictures of, plus you can see in this photo (http://www.gallerize.com/Pentagon%20Graphics-Dateien/image013.jpg) (from Killtown's site) where the wing apparently hit the wall, a few feet off the ground.

ETA: bits of the engine cowling buried in the ground just outside the wall, now that I can believe.

[Hellbound]

Huntsman, I have a hard time buying that. If the generator impact was the cause of the leftward tipping, at that point it had something like 1/10 of a second before impact. Imagine putting enough upwards force on the right wing of an airplane so that the left wing dips down by ten feet in 1/10 second. I don't think you could do it.

Also, I think the left wingtip might have passed over one of the cars that you always see pictures of, plus you can see in this photo (http://www.gallerize.com/Pentagon%20Graphics-Dateien/image013.jpg) (from Killtown's site) where the wing apparently hit the wall, a few feet off the ground.

ETA: bits of the engine cowling buried in the ground just outside the wall, now that I can believe.

May have been engine...I'll have to find that documentary and see what it said.

[Peephole]

I have seen JDX suggest that Flight 77 did a flyover of the Pentagon. The search function at the LC Forum is pretty much useless, so I can't provide a link, but I have seen him suggest that.

Rumsfeld: ...so then, we fly the remote controlled aircraft over the Pentagon and launch the cruise missile. Everyone got it?
Wolfowitz: I don't know, i think it could use a little more oomph.
Cheney: I've got an idea! Why don't we jump a couple of light poles?
Rumsfeld: Haha yeah, great stuff.
Bush: Uhm, guys?
Cheney: Yes George?
Bush: I don't understand. Why don't we just fly the plane into the Pentagon?
Cheney:...
Wolfowitz:...
Rumsfeld:...
Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld: Shut up, George!

[DavidJames]

It looks like Russell in his never ending search for the truth (as long as it's a CT truth) is leaning towards 77 hit the Pentagon, with all the passengers, but, it was remotely controlled and not piloted by a human. Why? who the **** knows. Because as a CTists, Russell is bound by some alien, lizard like oath to not support, 100%, any official stories about 9/11.

sheesh.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It looks like Russell in his never ending search for the truth (as long as it's a CT truth) is leaning towards 77 hit the Pentagon, with all the passengers, but, it was remotely controlled and not piloted by a human. Why? who the **** knows. Because as a CTists, Russell is bound by some alien, lizard like oath to not support, 100%, any official stories about 9/11.

sheesh.

Just to keep the info readily available, especially for our newer posters; apathoid was kind enough to address this idea and 911myths to host his analysis: http://www.911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf

[Nevermore]

Hello

This is my first post here (second if you count the one in the computer section). I post using the name Nevermore in the LC forms as well. I've become fascinated with the events of 9-11 and have read many of the theories presented there and elsewhere. I try my best to remain open-minded about things and weigh evidence as it is presented. I hope you won't dismiss me as a tin-foil hat wearing loony immediately.

TellyKNeasuss asked about the plane striking the ground before the Pentagon. Frank Probst provided eyewitness testimony about the impact:

Frank Probst, 58, is a West Point graduate, decorated Vietnam veteran, and retired army lieutenant colonel who has worked for the Pentagon Renovation Program Office on information management and telecommunications since 1995. At approximately 9:30 A.M. on September 11 he left the Wedge 1 construction site trailer, where he had been watching live television coverage of the second plane strike into the World Trade Center towers. He began walking to the Modular Office Compound, which is located beyond the extreme north end of the Pentagon North Parking Lot, for a meeting at 10 A.M. As he approached the heliport (figure 3.2) he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him. According to the Arlington County after-action report (Arlington County, 2002), this occurred at 938 a.m. The aircraft pulled up, seemingly aiming for the first floor of the building, and leveled off. Probst hit the ground and observed the right wing tip pass through the portable 750 kW generator that provides backup power to Wedge 1.The right engine took out the chainlink fence and posts surrounding the generator. The left engine struck an external steam vault before the fuselage entered the building. As the fireball from the crash moved toward him, Probst ran toward the South Parking Lot and recalls falling down twice. Fine pieces of wing debris floated down about him. The diesel fuel for the portable generator ignited while he was running.

His account seems legitimate based on images of damage to the generator, fence and retaining wall taken after the incident.

Would it be possible to use the port engine's impact with the retaining wall as a reference? Is it feasible to say the port engine struck the retaining wall rougly 100 feet before impacting the wall? (I base this estimate on a photo I can't link to and a measurement using the admittedly questionable Google Earth with a satellite image now substantially altered by construction)

Secondly, in order to calculate an accurate rate of decent wouldn't you have to account for the apparently level approach shown in the video released by the government from the guard shack? Is it fair to say the plane appears to be level as it moves from right to left? If so, how does that impact the rate and angle of decent?

Note: Sorry, I've tried to include web references but I do not have enough posts yet

[DavidJames]

Hello

This is my first post here (second if you count the one in the computer section). I post using the name Nevermore in the LC forms as well. I've become fascinated with the events of 9-11 and have read many of the theories presented there and elsewhere. I try my best to remain open-minded about things and weigh evidence as it is presented. I hope you won't dismiss me as a tin-foil hat wearing loony immediately.

TellyKNeasuss asked about the plane striking the ground before the Pentagon. Frank Probst provided eyewitness testimony about the impact:



His account seems legitimate based on images of damage to the generator, fence and retaining wall taken after the incident.

Would it be possible to use the port engine's impact with the retaining wall as a reference? Is it feasible to say the port engine struck the retaining wall rougly 100 feet before impacting the wall? (I base this estimate on a photo I can't link to and a measurement using the admittedly questionable Google Earth with a satellite image now substantially altered by construction)

Secondly, in order to calculate an accurate rate of decent wouldn't you have to account for the apparently level approach shown in the video released by the government from the guard shack? Is it fair to say the plane appears to be level as it moves from right to left? If so, how does that impact the rate and angle of decent?

Note: Sorry, I've tried to include web references but I do not have enough posts yet

Welcome to the board.
I'm not knowledgeable in that area although many others are so I expect you will get the answers you seek.

A word of caution though, there have been a few "interesting" new members the past few days who've raised some eyebrows and have not received the usual warm welcome (possibly socks from LC).

Very good form commenting about your participation in LC and giving your username. Honesty is a great trait and will serve you well here.

Welcome again.

[T.A.M.]

Nevermore:

Yes, welcome to JREF Forum on Conspiracy Theories. Unlike over at the LC board, your opinions will not get you banned, no matter how opposed to the majority here they maybe. Proof of this, as others have pointed out, is a 100 page long thread a poster by the name of Christophera has been posting in, where he contends the WTCs had a concrete core. He has been able to spue over and over again the same stuff, debunked, time and time again...Here at JREF they promote debate and having your own opinion.

You will find that most who haunt this house, however, are of the Debunking nature. That in mind, if you have views that are in favor of any of the 9/11 CTs, and you bring them up here, be prepared to back them up, or suffer the wrath of all the debating spirits that roam the halls of JREF.

TAM:)

[TheGrunion]

Secondly, in order to calculate an accurate rate of decent wouldn't you have to account for the apparently level approach shown in the video released by the government from the guard shack? Is it fair to say the plane appears to be level as it moves from right to left? If so, how does that impact the rate and angle of decent?

Hi Nevermore,

I'm new over here as well. We've posted in some of the same Pentagon threads over at LC. I was Grunion over there......then I got banned and some posts deleted for painting Merc in a corner.

If I am interpreting what is being said in this thread correctly, the decent was most likely generally parabolic, which would account for the plane's decent being "flatter" at impact.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65369

[eeyore1954]

I almost can't stand the plane was too high to hit the poles argument.
Why in the world would anyone believe they would have bothered faking the poles being knocked down. How in the world would this have been done on a busy highway. Although I am happy to see people checking out the claim and trying to find his error. Very unlikely that John DOe will accept he could be wrong. IMHO it is far more unlikely that he could be correct

One thing I'm 99% sure of is if the poles had not been knocked down they would be arguing that was proof that no plane hit the pentagon and there would probably be calculations showing exactly why it would have been impossible to hit the pentagon without knocking down the poles.


If johndoe really believes in his calculations and interpretations and he is interested in the truth why doesn't he find a third party who actually make black box devices to check his data. They would be qualified to know about the margin of errors ,time lags , methods of measurements and other items that could account for the supposed discrepency. i think there are several companies that make similar devices.

BTW I believe John Doe is interested in the truth but he is so blinded by his hate of the current administration that he would never be able to see anything but the truth he has decided on.
I have seen him mention many times how wrong it is to be going to Iraq and killing innocent babies because of this fact attack. I guess if the WTC actually was brought down by terrorists then it would be OK to kill babies.

Since I base my opinion on not actually knowing the person and I no training in any psycological field (probably can't even spell it correctly) my opinion should be treated skeptically or septically.

[R.Mackey]

Earlier in this thread someone mentions "ground effect". Rather than get into the exact physics I'll sum it up; in this case, "ground effect" refers the plane getting more lift as it gets closer to the ground. The final moments of the flight would have been a curve rather than linear descent so the decent could have been originally steeper than shown in the numbers given by the CTer.
Yeah, that might have been me that brought up "ground effect." What it means with a little bit of added scientific detail is that when the aircraft is close to the ground, it changes the circulation around the aircraft, which is necessary to provide lift. Air can't flow through the ground. This leads to a local increase in pressure (the air "piles up") between the aircraft and the ground.

This has several relevant effects. One is the aircraft will experience more effective lift, which will help it pull up slightly, though not much. Another is that, at the speeds the aircraft was travelling, the added pressure will buffet the plane and make control less precise. A third is that the air data probes, including the airspeed indicator and altimeter, will suffer more from compressibility and produce less accurate readings.

[CurtC]

His account seems legitimate based on images of damage to the generator, fence and retaining wall taken after the incident.

Would it be possible to use the port engine's impact with the retaining wall as a reference? Is it feasible to say the port engine struck the retaining wall rougly 100 feet before impacting the wall?
Welcome, Nevermore.

This CGI video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Flittlegreenfootballs%2Ecom%2Fweb log%2F%3FPHPSESSID%3Da2bd4f2bd9c5a890ba6fedb5a4cb7 f4a) that I linked to earlier seems to be a pretty well supported idea of what happened, including the light poles, the smoke visible in the Pentagon camera, the generator struck by the right engine, and the left engine's striking the little steam vault wall.

[Hellbound]

I'll have to withdraw my earlier statements and through my hat in with CurtC's CGI interpretation.

I know I saw that documentary, but I'm having toruble finding a reference...and it's not that big of an issue anyway :)

As long as I don't start talking about the Pentagon having a concrete core, I think I'm okay...

:D

[Anti-sophist]

Secondly, in order to calculate an accurate rate of decent wouldn't you have to account for the apparently level approach shown in the video released by the government from the guard shack? Is it fair to say the plane appears to be level as it moves from right to left? If so, how does that impact the rate and angle of decent?

Note: Sorry, I've tried to include web references but I do not have enough posts yet


Define "level", and define "appears to be". How much margin for error are you allowing? If you want to do this properly, you'd take the camera, calibrate the scene, correct for lensing effects, find the projection matrix, and interpolate some points. Has anyone done this? Has anyone done the math to draw a line or show what we _would_ see if the plane wasn't level? What is the framerate of that pentagon video? How many frames is the position of the plane known, and to what precision is all of this.

If you mean "level" as in, "in this one frame, it's pretty close to the ground", then you after you run all those numbers, you'll see that your idea of level is like + or - 15 degrees.

[Nevermore]

Welcome, Nevermore.

This CGI video that I linked to earlier seems to be a pretty well supported idea of what happened, including the light poles, the smoke visible in the Pentagon camera, the generator struck by the right engine, and the left engine's striking the little steam vault wall.

Thanks to everyone for the welcome. I think you'll find that I'm not one to present outlandish propositions without evidence. However, I cringe every time someone defers to an "expert" or "official" explanation without probing that position for flaws.

One question about the CGI video linked above. In your opinion, does it accurately reflect the decent of the plane as it approaches the Pentagon?

[CurtC]

One question about the CGI video linked above. In your opinion, does it accurately reflect the decent of the plane as it approaches the Pentagon?
Is it absolutely accurate, down to the inch? That's probably too big of an expectation. I think he at least got the height of the light poles and the elevation of their bases about right, and that video doesn't even start until the plane starts hitting the light poles. Given that:

* we know the plane hit the light poles but missed the freeway itself,
* we know where it hit on the Pentagon's wall

then simply drawing a straight line between those two positions gives a pretty accurate account of where the plane had to be. I just did a little figuring, and even if he had been in a 2-G pullup between those points, at that speed it would only make about a three foot difference between the actual position and the assumed straight-line position.

So yes, I think it's pretty darn accurate.

[T.A.M.]

Thanks to everyone for the welcome. I think you'll find that I'm not one to present outlandish propositions without evidence. However, I cringe every time someone defers to an "expert" or "official" explanation without probing that position for flaws.

One question about the CGI video linked above. In your opinion, does it accurately reflect the decent of the plane as it approaches the Pentagon?

I appreciate your refusal to accept things on face value, but let me play the opposite. I cringe every time I see someone with no education in a particular field, try to pick apart a theory or opinion in that field simply because it "flys in the face" of what they feel is "logical". Not all things are so easy to "pick apart" sometimes in matters of science, things do "fly in the face" of logic. The more complex an event, the more likely that standard logic cannot be applied, in terms of simplistic explanations.

I am a health professional, and If someone brings in an opinion on a health related topic, than I am on it for flaws and what not, but if someone brings in a paper on the collapse of WTC1&2, who the F&*K am I to comment, except through my assh&le, on the points of materials engineering, structural engineering, etc..., in that paper?

here is an example:

When you go to the doctor, you trust what he has to say. Now if his opinion or conclusion is completely off the wall, like he tells you that your cough means you have cancer, just from listening to your chest, then yes, investigate him, as he is likely a quack. But if he tells you that you have cancer because of your history as a 2ppd smoker, a chronic cough with hemoptysis, weight loss, and a mass on Chest XR, than I think you will take his word for it, would you not? If he then brings in a pathologist, an expert in tissue diagnosis, into it, and he gets a lung biopsy which confirms it, are you going to then go and question that as well, wasting valuable time to operate and remove the tumor, or get chemo, or are you going to get the damn mass out of your lung as soon as possible?

At some point, you have to trust the experts, that is why they took those years of schooling. They have years of education in that particular field, and I am sorry, but basic college physics doesnt cut it, making you or anyone else an expert on Building collapse.

Probe, yes, but the flawed approach of assuming the experts are wrong until proven right is illogical. We should assume they are right until someone who is also educated in the given field points out flaws, and then we need to have the opinion or paper reevaluated.

It is like those who come in here and say that the engineers who confirm the official story of WTC collapse are wrong because the buildings fell at near free fall.

Who the hell am I, or anyone else without training in the field of structural engineering, to say this. Does one really think that the equation is as simple as "building fell nearly at free fall, therefore could not have been due to fires and impact alone". The complexity of the collapse is beyond simple physics, beyond simple logical analysis...it is COMPLEX!!!

Sorry, I am rambling and ranting. I will leave you with a quote we often use in my profession to sort the good from the bad wrt medical students.

"I would much rather a student admit to me that he does not know something, than for him to act like he does, but in fact does not."

TAM

[Hellbound]

Heh.

TAM, a better analogy would be getting a second, third, fourth, fifth, sizth, seventh, etc opinion...then when, finally, the twenty-seventh opinion (not a doctor, but a person who works in a nature food store) says "I don't think it's cancer, I think it's poisoning" you immediately hop up and scream "See!? I knew somethig was wrong! What do those doctors know, I feel like I was poisoned!"

Of course, this happens. This past weekend I spent a couple hours on the phone with my mother-in-law. My Brother-in-law had developed a black rash on his chest, stomach, and neck. The Doctor told her it was a fungus, and gave her a prescription for him. She stopped at the health food store, talked to the clerk, and the clerk at this store apparently told her the fungus was a result of "antibiotics he'd taken that weakened his immune system to let the fungus in" and that the fungus was "growing from the inside out" and that she didn't need the prescription but this "all-natural herbal cream."

*sigh*

With a strong enough arm, long enough club, and good enough aim, I could eliminate stupidity from the world...

[T.A.M.]

Funny thing is, in that case, the health food guy was partly right. Killing off bacteria with antibiotics can lead to fungal growth. It is one of the most common causes of yeast (candidiasis) infectins in women, vaginally, that i see. They come in for a painful ear, get diagnosed with an ear infection, placed on penicillin (amoxil) and come back 7 days later saying their ear is good, but now they have discharge and a nasty itch "down below".

That said, with respect to dermatomycosis (skin fungal infections), it is much more uncommon. And the whole inside out thing is BS. I have my doubts the "cream" he is suggesting will do the trick.

TAM;)

[rwguinn]

Funny thing is, in that case, the health food guy was partly right. Killing off bacteria with antibiotics can lead to fungal growth. It is one of the most common causes of yeast (candidiasis) infectins in women, vaginally, that i see. They come in for a painful ear, get diagnosed with an ear infection, placed on penicillin (amoxil) and come back 7 days later saying their ear is good, but now they have discharge and a nasty itch "down below".

That said, with respect to dermatomycosis (skin fungal infections), it is much more uncommon. And the whole inside out thing is BS. I have my doubts the "cream" he is suggesting will do the trick.

TAM;)

There you go with that "Appeal to authority" thing again...

[Hellbound]

Funny thing is, in that case, the health food guy was partly right. Killing off bacteria with antibiotics can lead to fungal growth. It is one of the most common causes of yeast (candidiasis) infectins in women, vaginally, that i see. They come in for a painful ear, get diagnosed with an ear infection, placed on penicillin (amoxil) and come back 7 days later saying their ear is good, but now they have discharge and a nasty itch "down below".

That said, with respect to dermatomycosis (skin fungal infections), it is much more uncommon. And the whole inside out thing is BS. I have my doubts the "cream" he is suggesting will do the trick.

TAM;)

Yes, that was my conclusion too. But his argument wasn't that antibiotics killed off the bacteria and allowed fungus to grow (which could be plausible), but that it was internal fungus that grew because his immune system quit working because it got used to the antibiotics doing the work...
[insert pause to allow retrieval of jaws from floor, and recovery from laughing fits]

Luckily, my wife and I were able to convince her to get the precscription. I'm not a doctor by any means, but I worked as a medic for over a decade and my brother is a PA, and we talk fairly often. Although he doesn't specialize in illness, his focus areas are orthopedics and (now) neurosurgery. Still, we discuss a lot of this.

And, of course, I know enough to shut up and listen when those with more knowledge than I point out my mistakes or things I missed :D

[T.A.M.]

hey huntsman; I hear ya. Go look at how many posts I have on the John Doe's Math thread...and I scored quite high in first year College Calculus (and I have a diploma in Electronic Engineering Technology...but who is counting).

When it comes to matters of opinion, or logic, or medicine, I'm there, but I to know when to call in the experts, and I NEVER pretend to be one.

To quote a not so famous wrestler, the ROCK (lol, i know, now shut up and stop laughing):

know your role.

TAM:p

[apathoid]

To quote a not so famous wrestler, the ROCK -
know your role.

TAM:p

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/99024504f61c3b197.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1423)

[Nevermore]

I appreciate your refusal to accept things on face value, but let me play the opposite. I cringe every time I see someone with no education in a particular field, try to pick apart a theory or opinion in that field simply because it "flys in the face" of what they feel is "logical". Not all things are so easy to "pick apart" sometimes in matters of science, things do "fly in the face" of logic. The more complex an event, the more likely that standard logic cannot be applied, in terms of simplistic explanations ...

I certainly respect your perspective and readily admit that all layman lack the knowledge and experience to interpret evidence and must either educate themselves or trust someone else. However, I think the key word here is "trust."

Following your example, if I had received your proposed diagnosis from a family doctor whom I trusted and respected (both his or her knowledge of medicine and character) I may accept it at face value. If I received it from a doctor I didn't trust I would begin asking many questions and certainly seek a second opinion. Either way, before I agreed to any sort of treatment I would read as much as I could about the diagnosis, treatment options and side-effects. For example, I might ask my trusted family doctor about the commercial I heard on the radio the other day about MD Anderson's Proton Therepy Center had he or she recommended regular chemo-therapy.

I'm a computer professional by trade and it seems, in my profession, providing good support requires me to explain things in such a way that the people who seek my help can understand the problem. If I fail to do this and instead rely on excessive technical jargon or just dismiss them as unqualified to understand they may not trust me or my recommendation on how to fix their problem. In other words, I need to translate my technical understanding of the problem and solution into layman's terms in such a way that the person trusts my evaluation of the problem and my recommended solution.

So, what criteria do we use to trust someone? Is it determined by their CV or the string of letters after their name? The practical experience they have?

Bringing this a little closer to the discussion at hand, should I trust the government's report without question? Their experts? The "conspiracy theory" folks? The counter-conspiracy theorists?

In our post-modern world, especially one where trust is so often betrayed, it seems we can only rely on ourselves while considering the words of Socrates "the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

[Alareth]

Bringing this a little closer to the discussion at hand, should I trust the government's report without question? Their experts? The "conspiracy theory" folks? The counter-conspiracy theorists?


The point here is that the official report is a matter of public knowledge and can be read by anyone. As such independent experts in the field around the world have looked at the NIST report and none of them have contradicted it's findings.

This gives credibility.

[T.A.M.]

The NIST report is a govt document, but it was created from the opinions and investigations of hundreds of scientists. Because they work for a govt agency, I do not think should take away from their credibility.

As to who we should trust, yes I think their CV and their credentials (letters after their name) is a big part of it, in terms of credibility. I also think that where they got their training is important, to a smaller degree. Also, I believe the strngth of numbers applies here. As I said, we are talking about hundreds of scientists.

eg.

If a doctor says "salami" is not good for you, you might listen to him, probably would, but might not.

If the American Medical Association puts out a paper on the danger of "salami", i think you would HAVE to take it seriously.

I think your comment about breaking things down for people into simple terms is an important one, when the audience in question are "laymen" I am not sure this was the case in the NIST report. I feel it is the case with the 9/11 Commission report, which while a tedious read, is simple enough for the laymen (trust me).

I do not think we differ to much on this point, but it is a far cry from the "expert opinions are useless" stance that I have seen a number of CTers profess.

TAM

[stateofgrace]

See what you guys don't realise is how real investigation work takes place. Here Johnny is way ahead of the game.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15788

Call the NTSB at 202-314-6000 and find out why the FDR conflicts with the official story.

You will be handed off to several others till you get to the FBI PENTBOM team in NYC. Dont let it go till you get an answer.

If you think AA77 did hit the light poles.. you need to rule out the FDR. Ignoring it because you "feel" it may be inaccurate is not an explaination.

Here is a recording of when we tried.

http://www.pumpitout.com/phone_calls/77fli...atarecorder.mp3 (http://www.pumpitout.com/phone_calls/77flightdatarecorder.mp3)

Good luck!

Please post the results and/or record it.

This challenge should be especially easy for the JREF'ers.


I really don't know whether the audio file will have copied over if not, I'm sorry because it is a 12 minute comedy of unparalleled proportion and a must listen as Johnny or somebody acting on his behave calls various FBI agencies asking the questions.

You can almost feel and see the blank and bemused faces on the unfortunate operates who he gets through to. Proclaiming that the FDR is all wrong and Flight 77 missed the lamp posts. This he claims to each and every one of those unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and actually be on shift at that moment has been proven by "experts" (basically himself).

A thoroughly enjoyable and entertaining 12 minutes. As he is fobbed off again and again, further reinforcing his belief "they" must be covering it all because nobody has a clue what he is talking about.

One unfortunate telephone receptionist asks him " are you one of those guys that reads them web sites"

Oh no ,as Johnny proudly says over and over again " I'm an independent reporter/expert/pilot etc,"

( Hint, Hint the guy who is doing all the phoning lets his name slip at 11:00, Is this Johnny’s real name ? emmmmmm,interesting)

[T.A.M.]

I love how many times he say the word "experts". Are we suppose to consider Johnny "I'm mentally unstable" DoeX and his group of wingnuts to be "experts"?

TAM

[Bell]

Stateofgrace, great find. It's almost like NTSB and FBI are continuosly banning JDX from the phoneline :) He is acting very polite though, like he was when I spoke with him trough PM, I wish he would do that more on his forums, instead of banning people who dissagree.

What amazes me, as I work as a phone operator for the police, is how easily he gets transfered. When somebody calls me and want's to talk to such or so, or wants a transfer to this or that office, I'll first ask them their shirts from their back. I don't make it people easy :)

[Dog Town]

That ain't johnDoh! That's some Canadian kid. He also called Chertoff(sp).
You guys haven't heard this? His site has a bunch of calls he makes. A few were funny,IIRC.

[T.A.M.]

yes, his most "famous" call among the CTers, I believe, is the one he made to a demolition company to ask what "Pull it" meant. He gets some phone operator on the line, he asks her what it means, she pulls away from the phone for about 3 seconds to 10 seconds, then comes back and says,

"It refers to when they pull down a building sir" or something to that effect, and they all use this as proof that demolition companies mean Controlled Demolition of a building when they say the words "Pull it"....guy is a lunatic...one with balls, but still a lunatic.

TAM

[Mr. Skinny]

Interesting audio. He was very polite, (so I kinda doubt it was JDX) but I wish he would have phrased his question a bit better. He kept saying he had a question about the FDR before he mentioned flight 77 and the Pentagon, but that was probably just nervousness.

Did anyone else think he sounded Canadian? I thought I detected a fairly distinct "aboot" in one of his earlier calls. :)


ETA: I see Dog Town agrees he's Canadian.

[stateofgrace]

Nay, I've never heard of this guy before,seems like a false flag, to coin a phrase.

There I was getting all excited thinking I'd finally heard Johnny speak.

Just assumed, wrongly Johnny had made the calls since he had started a thread with the post, offered no links else where and it came across as his own work. Oh well, better luck next time.

stateofgrace.

[T.A.M.]

Listen, there aint nothin wrong with us Canadians eh. What is all this name callin aboot anywho.

TAM - Proud East Coast Canadian.

[Beerina]

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF, the JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

WTH is up with this disclaimer? It's rather recently appeared. Is JREF afraid to get sued if you accidently click on a video with bouncing boobies?

[chipmunk stew]

WTH is up with this disclaimer? It's rather recently appeared. Is JREF afraid to get sued if you accidently click on a video with bouncing boobies?
Or cussing, or racial/ethnic slurring, or copyright violations, or whatever.

CYA is a smart choice, I think.

[eeyore1954]

Just like John Doe to expect the people at the NTSB or FBI to drop whatever else they were doing because someone calls them and claims their data is wrong.

John doe if you read this why don't you or the Loose change crew pay for an expert independent analysis of the data. If this analysis supports your claims then maybe a nice professional letter to the proper department backed with expert analysis might get a response from the authorities. I sincerely doubt you can get an independent expert analysis that agrees without doing something akin to opinion shopping.


Also John what was done on this and another thread was much more than
Ignoring it because you "feel" it may be inaccurate is not an explaination.

Why don't you either come here and debate the points (since critical analysis is frowned upon at the LC board) or address them on the Loose change site. Maybe put your data up on the PPRune site and see what the response is.
If you only put your conclusions on the LC site don't expect much more than a lot of smilies with high fives

[Anti-sophist]

Why would they need independant expert analysis? They _are_ experts.

[Bell]

Interesting audio. He was very polite, (so I kinda doubt it was JDX) but I wish he would have phrased his question a bit better. He kept saying he had a question about the FDR before he mentioned flight 77 and the Pentagon, but that was probably just nervousness.

Did anyone else think he sounded Canadian? I thought I detected a fairly distinct "aboot" in one of his earlier calls. :)


ETA: I see Dog Town agrees he's Canadian.

Yeah, I wanted to comment about that, but thought I might have heard wrong. JDX is from NY state, isn't he?

[CurtC]

I think this was pointed out earlier, the guy who makes the phone calls goes by the name "shure" over there. It's like a pathetic version of The Jerky Boys. I heard his call to Ben Chertoff at Popular Mechanics, and pathetic is the only way to describe it.

[T.A.M.]

His attitude about it all brings home to me, something I have been thinking about for a while now, and that is motive.

You ever notice how protective these guys are over their own work. For instance, the Flight77.info site shaites all over Judicial Watch, because according to flight77.info, it was their FOIA request that got the pentagon tapes released.

I think "shure' as he is called, makes these calls so that he is seen as a "maverick" an "action" guy amongst the movement.

Watch every time he makes a call, he posts a link to it over there, the LC gang stick their noses up his a-hole, and he feels gratified.

The thing I love about this attitude they have, is that it always lead to splits in the group as a whole. The worst perps of this are the scholars themselves. Look how jealous Reynolds and Woods got over Jones and his work...what happened, they took their toys and left the scholars.

pathetic, but as long as it keeps them fractured as a group, I am all for it.

TAM

[CurtC]

I think "shure' as he is called, makes these calls so that he is seen as a "maverick" an "action" guy amongst the movement.
Heh - take a look at this thread (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=16023) over at LC. Shure got into an argument at another board, asked for reinforcements back at LC, and THE_DECIDER registered but was frustrated that the registration process takes a couple of days. So shure posts his login and password to that board, right there in a public forum, so THE_DECIDER can help immediately. Apparently, either THE_DECIDER or someone else posted inflammatory stuff under shure's login over at the other board.

[T.A.M.]

link missing

:(

Edit: gotta love edits...thanks.

[T.A.M.]

That is priceless. I only wish they had really done him in. Stupid ass.

TAM

[Dog Town]

What part of the forum is it in? I am on proxy, can't use that link.

Thanx

DT

[CurtC]

What part of the forum is it in? I am on proxy, can't use that link.

LC Lounge -> I'm Under Attack On Forum, need people to speak up.....

[CptColumbo]

LC Lounge -> I'm Under Attack On Forum, need people to speak up.....

Translation:I painted myself into a corner, and am too big a wuss to admit it. So someone else should defend my erroneous information.

[bignickel]

This is what "Bart" thinks is a 'strawman'
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. (Bolding mine)
"Seemingly"? Evidently, this means finding the holes in your opponent's argument 'just makes him look bad.' No wonder they keep yelling that Gravy is using 'strawman' arguments; he keeps finding problems with their evidence and logical reasoning.

Have any of our posters over there been able to tell them what a 'strawman' argument actually is?

[T.A.M.]

This has probably been said before, but reason me this...

Let us assume that JDXs calculations are right (which I doubt), then...

If the big bad evil gubmint hit the pentagon with a missile, either launched from a secret location, or from a fly-over jet, and hence faked the whole plane hitting it, than why, ON THIS EARTH, would they fake INCORRECT Data. Seems to me a very STUPID thing for the masterminds of 9/11 to have done.

Now if the CTers argue that they didn't fake the data for the FDR, but rather used the FDR from the "flyover plane", than answer me this...WHY, WHY, WHY?

Why, ON THIS EARTH, would you take the FDR from a "flyover" jet, knowing the FDR data would be wrong, and plant it in the debris to be found and analyzed.

Or if the CTers say there was no FDR at all, but just some cooked up numbers, than why, ON THIS EARTH, would you cook up the wrong numbers?

There reasoning makes no sense to me...can someone help me understand their reasoning, their theory, anything here...please...my head is about to spin 360.

TAM

[DavidJames]

This has probably been said before, but reason me this...

Let us assume that JDXs calculations are right (which I doubt), then...

If the big bad evil gubmint hit the pentagon with a missile, either launched from a secret location, or from a fly-over jet, and hence faked the whole plane hitting it, than why, ON THIS EARTH, would they fake INCORRECT Data. Seems to me a very STUPID thing for the masterminds of 9/11 to have done.

Now if the CTers argue that they didn't fake the data for the FDR, but rather used the FDR from the "flyover plane", than answer me this...WHY, WHY, WHY?

Why, ON THIS EARTH, would you take the FDR from a "flyover" jet, knowing the FDR data would be wrong, and plant it in the debris to be found and analyzed.

Or if the CTers say there was no FDR at all, but just some cooked up numbers, than why, ON THIS EARTH, would you cook up the wrong numbers?

There reasoning makes no sense to me...can someone help me understand their reasoning, their theory, anything here...please...my head is about to spin 360.

TAMJDX's pet phrase is ask questions, demand answers (if you've parented 6 year olds, you'll recognize that attitude). You won't get JDX to espouse any alternatives. All he want's to do is find holes in the the official story. Disingenuous, yes. Intellectually dishonest, you betcha. Child like in it's simplicity and depth, now were on the same page.

JDX's act has worn thin. He offers nothing of substance, which of course still makes him the intellectual wizard and expert analyst so lacking in the LC crowd.

Russ Pick is an honest, albeit misguided researcher. His big mistake is failing to wear his tin foil hat 24x7 and consume liquids other then kool aid. He's falling out of favor with the loosers.