|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
15th September 2008, 03:31 PM | #1 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
|
G Forces - Scene From 9/11: Attack On The Pentagon
An update to Pilots For 9/11 Truth Arlington Topography and Obstacles Article.
"G FORCES", a scene from the new film "9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON" produced by professional pilots, Aeronautical Engineers and physicists analyzes the G forces required for a 757 to negotiate the Arlington region on September 11, 2001 based on flight data provided by the US Govt. For full high quality film and detailed description, please visit: http://pilotsfor911truth.org http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...86758033&hl=en |
15th September 2008, 04:06 PM | #2 |
ETcorngods survivor
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 24,328
|
So, they still didn't fix any of their errors from the original?
|
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost |
|
15th September 2008, 04:24 PM | #3 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,126
|
This doesnt even seem like a conspiracy discussion but rather PFT just trying to pimp their "movie".
Maybe this annoucement should go into Movies, TV, Music, Computer Gaming, and other Entertainment (1 |
15th September 2008, 04:45 PM | #4 |
NWO Kitty Wrangler
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
|
Why don't you PfTers just write up an article, with a little math? I can read a hell of a lot faster than that guy narrates, and I don't have to put up with crappy quality video while I do it.
Oh, wait, I know why..... |
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd |
|
15th September 2008, 05:02 PM | #5 |
NWO Master Conspirator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
|
That's exactly how Woodward and Bernstein did it!
|
__________________
Vive la liberté! |
|
15th September 2008, 05:07 PM | #6 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 401
|
Is there a reason why Aeronautical Engineers is capitalized and the others aren't? Is there something special about Aeronautical Engineers that renders professional pilots and physicists impotent with regards to capitalizing? Are Aeronautical Engineers the fruit of your bounty while professional pilots and physicists are mere toads?
In any event, I've no interest to watch some cartoon made up of unverified, unvalidated and unaccredited aeronautical (lower case) data created by a bunch of people who don't even understand departure plates or flight clearances. |
15th September 2008, 05:32 PM | #7 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
|
That's too bad that you're too lazy to watch because it exposes Myriad,
R. Mackey and other 'pros', or "Pros" on this board. Is there a reason why many of your pick on the most rediculous points of a post? |
15th September 2008, 05:57 PM | #8 |
ETcorngods survivor
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 24,328
|
(a) I did watch. It is garbage. (b) The movie, via vigorous use of straw men, attempts to deflect attention from the bogus calculations upon which it was based. (c) Myriad, R. Mackey, et al., remain better at math, and physics, etc., than PFT. (d) Why is it so difficult to correctly spell 'ridiculous'? It seems to be a systemic problem, not just an affliction of Turbofan. |
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost |
|
15th September 2008, 06:06 PM | #9 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
|
a. That's your opinion.
b. That's your perception c. Myriad, Mackey et al continue to form calculations that are not based on flight data provided by the NTSB. I don't see how their math is above PFT when they are producing values not even listed in the data file. d. Thanks for catching my spelling error. I'll be sure to look for yours and point them out as well. I've caught a few too many from your JREF buddies. I guess you didn't see those? |
15th September 2008, 06:08 PM | #10 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
|
All thru' the day I me mine, I me mine, I me mine.
All thru' the night I me mine, I me mine, I me mine. Now they're frightened of leaving it Ev'ryone's weaving it, Coming on strong all the time, All thru' the day I me mine.
|
||
15th September 2008, 06:15 PM | #11 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 733
|
Originally Posted by jsfisher
|
15th September 2008, 06:17 PM | #12 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,281
|
|
__________________
- There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong. |
|
15th September 2008, 06:21 PM | #13 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
|
As a matter of fact yes.
What hit the light poles if the NTSB, FAA and PFT data shows too high, or off course from the OGCT? |
15th September 2008, 06:21 PM | #14 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,126
|
|
15th September 2008, 06:25 PM | #15 |
The Clarity Is Devastating
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 20,891
|
Hi Turbofan,
I have a question about the clip. Please refer to 8:02, where a side-on diagram depicts a pull-up arc about 370 feet wide, with a radius (the narration later claims) of 2085 feet. Note that this arc is intersected by three radii, which I'll call the left, center, and right radii. The right radius is vertical, indicating that the tangent of the arc at that point which is perpendicular to the radius is horizontal. In other words, the plane has leveled off at that point; the trajectory has become horizontal. The left radius should similarly be perpendicular to the tangent of the arc, that is to the trajectory of the plane at that point, which is at or near where it hit the first light pole. You are assuming in this scenario that the plane's trajectory is a straight line intersecting the top of the VDOT and the top of the first struck light pole (that is, that it does not begin to pull up until reaching the light pole, which is an unwarranted and unjustified assumption that makes this whole exercise pointless, but bear with me). So at that point the plane has been descending, up to that point, in a straight line from 304 ASL to 80 ASL over a distance of 2400 feet. That's a descent angle of 4.07 degrees from horizontal. Why, then, is the left radius not 4.07 degrees from vertical? It's more than twice that. Where did the angle at which the left radius is drawn come from? How can that radius have an angle other than perpendicular to the tangent of the trajectory? It makes no sense. It's wrong. If you draw the left radius at the correct angle, perpendicular to the trajectory just before the pull-up, the radius ends up being about 3980 feet. That radius gives you about 4.4g of centripetal acceleration, plus 1g = 5.4g total. Of course, if the plane starts pulling up sooner, the necessary g forces go way down, exactly as R.Mackey and I calculated before. Whether you approximate the trajectory as a parabola or as an arc of a circle will make little difference. What makes the result in the clip so high, besides the geometry error, is the assumption that the plane flies in a straight line from the tower to the pole and then does its entire pull-out within a 370-foot ground distance. (Note that in the other thread, my figures are a little different because I used a rougher approximation, 400 feet instead of 370, for the ground distance covered by the arc.) Respectfully, Myriad |
__________________
"*Except Myriad. Even Cthulhu would give him a pat on the head and an ice cream and send him to the movies while he ended the rest of the world." - Foster Zygote |
|
15th September 2008, 06:30 PM | #16 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,281
|
|
__________________
- There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong. |
|
15th September 2008, 06:32 PM | #17 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,126
|
Sheesh they cant even get a friggin preview clip right.
|
15th September 2008, 06:38 PM | #18 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
|
|
15th September 2008, 06:39 PM | #19 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
|
Stay on topic please. This is about the calculations. Physical evidence? pfff! LMAO! The magic Pentagon walls, and lack of debris found? Lack of photos...yeah. Carry on. Back on flight data and Myriad's questions. I'll have to ask PFT about some of those questions, however how do you justify the new values against the NTSB flight data? |
15th September 2008, 06:39 PM | #20 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
I will watch when I have the time and I won't be bugging my wife with the sound on.
However, can you tell me that it arrives at any conclusion other than that on the ridiculous 11.2 G page? Do you still divide feet by the acceleration due to gravity to obtain something you claim would be the 'G forces'? Since we are pointing out bad grammatical form, I should mention that the nominal acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth is written in lower case, 'g'. Upper case, 'G' is the gravitational constant, 6.674 X 10-11 N(m/kg)2 |
15th September 2008, 06:40 PM | #21 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 401
|
What I'm "lazy" about is, as I mentioned before, not being interested in a cartoon that attempts to push a specific theory that is made up with data that is unverified, unvalidated and unaccredited.
I work in the field of modeling and simulation, specifically in the Verification, Validation and Accreditation field. Any simulation or model that is used in training, acquisition, test or evaluation or any other discipline needs to be verified that it accurately represents the developer’s conceptual description, validated to determine the degree to which a model is an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses of the model and it must be accredited by an independent authority as official certification that the model or simulation is acceptable for use for a specific purpose. Anything else is a cartoon - it might look slick and neat and cool, but it is a presentation that lacks all the above criteria to make it meaningful and truthful. Last I heard, the FDR data was from a "working copy", meaning it was by no means a final, validated and verified data set. Building your little cartoon from a "working copy" of a data set and not verifying the results and validating the data it produces makes it worthless from a technological and practical perspective. Even if the FDR data set is indeed a finalized copy, the development of your little cartoon is still not worth anything more than a warm bucket of spit until you spend the time and effort to go through a VV&A process. Go read up on the first launch of the Ariane 5 launch vehicle or the Mars Climate Orbiter to see what happens when you don't pay attention to VV&A in the design process of a model or simulation. You get data and results that can trash a multi-billion dollar program. And Captain Bob's penchant for arithmetical errors does not bode well for a quality product. This is pretty much par for the PffT course, though. Make something look pretty and snazzy and cool - and forget the math problems, we'll fix those later! - and you'll get those people who don't know about accuracy and verification and validation to say "Wow!". Those of us who know, though, just sit back and laugh. Like I'm doing now. And work on your spelling, please. The poor use of grammar and poor spelling makes you look foolish when you try to talk about graduate-level issues. But go ahead and rub your hands together and giggle with Captain Bob and the Sky Kings about your little cartoon. Serious people know what tripe it is. |
15th September 2008, 06:42 PM | #22 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
|
What was magical about the Pentagon walls and what was the problem with the wreckage o flight 77 which was found at the Pentagon along with the FDR which Turbo is trying to use to claim that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon?
|
15th September 2008, 06:49 PM | #23 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 401
|
What I'm "lazy" about is, as I mentioned before, not being interested in a cartoon that attempts to push a specific theory that is made up with data that is unverified, unvalidated and unaccredited.
I work in the field of modeling and simulation, specifically in the Verification, Validation and Accreditation field. Any simulation or model that is used in training, acquisition, test or evaluation or any other discipline needs to be verified that it accurately represents the developer’s conceptual description, validated to determine the degree to which a model is an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses of the model and it must be accredited by an independent authority as official certification that the model or simulation is acceptable for use for a specific purpose. Anything else is a cartoon - it might look slick and neat and cool, but it is a presentation that lacks all the above criteria to make it meaningful and truthful. Last I heard, the FDR data was from a "working copy", meaning it was by no means a final, validated and verified data set. Building your little cartoon from a "working copy" of a data set and not verifying the results and validating the data it produces makes it worthless from a technological and practical perspective. Even if the FDR data set is indeed a finalized copy, the development of your little cartoon is still not worth anything more than a warm bucket of spit until you spend the time and effort to go through a VV&A process. Go read up on the first launch of the Ariane 5 launch vehicle or the Mars Climate Orbiter to see what happens when you don't pay attention to VV&A in the design process of a model or simulation. You get data and results that can trash a multi-billion dollar program. And Captain Bob's penchant for arithmetical errors does not bode well for a quality product. This is pretty much par for the PffT course, though. Make something look pretty and snazzy and cool - and forget the math problems, we'll fix those later! - and you'll get those people who don't know about accuracy and verification and validation to say "Wow!". Those of us who know, though, just sit back and laugh. Like I'm doing now. And work on your spelling, please. The poor use of grammar and poor spelling makes you look foolish when you try to talk about graduate-level issues. But go ahead and rub your hands together and giggle with Captain Bob and the Sky Kings about your little cartoon. Serious people know what tripe it is. |
15th September 2008, 06:54 PM | #24 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,778
|
|
15th September 2008, 06:54 PM | #25 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,281
|
Yes, the topic always concerns AA77 hitting the Pentagon or not. It would be helpful for you to stay focused.
Quote:
Yet not a single witness to AA77, or any other low-flying twin-engine jet, overflying the Pentagon. How can you continue to claim an "overflight" without a stitch of evidence??? Such is the nature of your denial, Turbofan.
Quote:
Turbofan, why won't you deal with actual evidence? Really, give us some - any - good reasons why you and P4T are so bloody afraid of presenting evidence. Are you SO afraid of being WRONG? |
__________________
- There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong. |
|
15th September 2008, 07:01 PM | #26 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
Am I to assume that, despite the claims of the Pilots For Truth, I have yet to be "exposed?"
Shocking. |
15th September 2008, 07:09 PM | #27 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,157
|
I'm still trying to figure these guys out.
There is light pole damage, numerous witnesses, and the damage done to the generator (pointing towards the Pentagon), pieces of the plane's fuelsage, pieces of the engine, the FDR, and bodies found in the Pentagon. There is even books written by the fire fighters and first responders describing the wreckage. Yet they still buy into the whole "flyover" theory which has as much evidence as Godzilla destroying the Pentagon. And these morons wonder why I call them "9/11 Deniers" |
__________________
MarkyX's Haunted Bloghouse - Read my boredom |
|
15th September 2008, 07:20 PM | #28 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
|
Grammar and spelling? Is JREF full of English masters? Let's see how many errors I can find in your post: 1. Your first paragraph contains a 'run on' sentence. 2. The second paragraph is another example of 'run on'. Try using a period, or two. 3. Paragraph three is an incomplete thought; read by itself, it makes no sense. 4. The fourth paragraph is missing some punctuation. 5. The fifth contains an acronym which is not referenced. You should define your acronym prior to using it. 6. It's poor practice to start a sentence with a conjunction such as "AND". 7. "Like I'm doing now." is an incomplete sentence. The video does not contain any mathematical errors. The data has been verified. It was released by the NTSB. PFT based their calculations on the DATA, not the animation. The Data is NOT a 'working copy'. Please learn the difference. |
15th September 2008, 07:23 PM | #29 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
How can you get everything wrong with ease?
11.2 g, 256 w/s, everything wrong. The lawn is not level, it is going down to the Pentagon. LOL BUSTED Balsamo does not understand physics. Still flawed. How can he be this bad. One dimensional, the p4t ideas. That video is worse than 11.2 Gs. Balsamo is wrong again!!!! Seems nuts. |
15th September 2008, 07:32 PM | #30 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
|
So what happened, Turbofan? Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon and then agents ran around knocking down light poles?
(And since when has P4T been teamed up with CIT?) |
15th September 2008, 07:35 PM | #31 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
|
11.2 g's has been updated.
When are you going to fix your errors? 256 wps was an oversight and corrected. It works in my favour, so have a nice day. I hope you liked the video and the corrections made to all of the myths produced by you and your 'experts'. |
15th September 2008, 07:38 PM | #32 |
ETcorngods survivor
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 24,328
|
|
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost |
|
15th September 2008, 08:18 PM | #33 |
The Clarity Is Devastating
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 20,891
|
To continue, here's what happens with a pull-up on a circular arc when you don't assume the plane waits until reaching the first light pole before pulling up.
For this, I'll define the origin as sea level at the base of the VDOT tower. The light pole is 2400 feet away and the wall is 3416 feet away. We have a trajectory that is a circular arc passing through three points: (0, 304) -- the top of the VDOT tower (2400, 80) -- the top of the first pole (3416, 45) -- impact We must find the center and radius of the circle that passes through these three points. We must also make sure the arc between the three points does not intersect the ground. To find the center by hand is a lot of tedious algebra. Instead I use this circle solver applet. The source code and the methodology used are available at the site, and anyone not trusting the results can check them by calculating the distance from each of the three points to the calculated center, to verify that each distance equals the calculated radius. The center of our pull-up arc ends up at (3914, 29274) and has radius 29233. The center's x is farther from the origin than the pentagon wall's x, meaning that the lowest point in the circle is past the impact point. So the plane is descending the entire time, and reaches no point lower than the impact point. The arc does not intersect the ground. The g force generated by this maneuver (at v=781 ft/sec) is v2/r = 0.65g. With gravity, 1.65g. As with R.Mackey's previous analysis with parabolic trajectories, the parameters can be adjusted for more conservative cases such as clearing the VDOT tower by larger distances, resulting in a range of higher, but still tolerable, g forces. Respectfully, Myriad |
__________________
"*Except Myriad. Even Cthulhu would give him a pat on the head and an ice cream and send him to the movies while he ended the rest of the world." - Foster Zygote |
|
15th September 2008, 08:41 PM | #34 |
Dark Lord of the JREF
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 5,805
|
I keep telling you all. The lightpoles were brought down by rogue Canadian Lumberjacks!
Sheesh. |
__________________
"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head." |
|
15th September 2008, 08:42 PM | #35 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Not true. It is a long sentence but not a run on sentence.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
15th September 2008, 08:47 PM | #36 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
|
No, it's not wrong. It's based on flight data trends. Please watch the video
again.
Quote:
Why haven't you accounted for horizontal velocity in your previous calculation? You did not correct your equation to include horizontal distance. You should contact members of PFT for a more detailed explanation of how to properly compute the values. It might make more sense if a professional explains the procedure rather than myself. At the ~6:00 minute marker, you can find an overlay of your arc in question (the red line). Once again, where are these 4.0, and 5.4 values found in the CSV file? These data files are NOT working copies. |
15th September 2008, 09:00 PM | #37 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
15th September 2008, 09:02 PM | #38 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
|
Perhaps spontaneous combustion would explain the downed light poles. Or perhaps Magic? I guess we'll never know if we rely on people who are "just asking questions dude".
|
15th September 2008, 09:02 PM | #39 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
|
You see the problem with your calculation and R. Mackey's math is that
the values don't appear in the CSV file! How do you arrive at 1.65 g when averaging the values in the data file over the duration needed to complete the pull up? EDIT: I can't find 4.0 g, or 5.4 g for even an eight of a second; forget a full four second duration as stated in your case. Furthermore, that is figured from the top of the VDOT antenna! Once again, the data files are extracted from the FDR, they are not some sort of 'working copy'. |
15th September 2008, 09:06 PM | #40 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|