Take off at 300 feet?

lijebaley01 · 18th October 2008, 11:05 AM

I am new to these forums, so I am very sorry if this has been answered before. I'm sure it has, but I cannot find it. I was wondering What the significance is that the takeoff altimeter reading was 300 feet on the NTSB AA77 Animation 9/11 pentagon video. Would this be adjusted in flight? If it's not adjusted, wouldn't it effect the accuracy of the final reading? And also why wouldn't this be taken in consideration when making the NSTB video?

Gravy · 18th October 2008, 12:07 PM

Welcome to the forums, lijbaleyo1. See the third question here:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...9&postcount=58

My suggestion: back slowly away from this issue while averting your eyes. The important thing is that the plane hit the building. Hanjour didn't need to adjust any sensors to do that: he could see his target. The NTSB animation was a working copy, not intended for forensic analysis by amateur internet sleuths. Niggling over these details is meaningless unless you're a professional in the aircraft instrumentation field, and only serves the conspiracy fantasist agenda.

mchapman · 18th October 2008, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Gravy

Welcome to the forums, lijbaleyo1. See the third question here:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...9&postcount=58

My suggestion: back slowly away from this issue while averting your eyes. The important thing is that the plane hit the building. Hanjour didn't need to adjust any sensors to do that: he could see his target. The NTSB animation was a working copy, not intended for forensic analysis by amateur internet sleuths. Niggling over these details is meaningless unless you're a professional in the aircraft instrumentation field, and only serves the conspiracy fantasist agenda.

Yes, thats right. Dont worry about the details. Dont demand that inconsistencies in the day 3000 people were killed be investigated. Just keep repeating the mantra "hanjour hit the building, they hate our freedoms"

Dont forget to watch the new season of american idol!

Jonnyclueless · 18th October 2008, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by mchapman

Yes, thats right. Dont worry about the details. Dont demand that inconsistencies in the day 3000 people were killed be investigated. Just keep repeating the mantra "hanjour hit the building, they hate our freedoms"

Dont forget to watch the new season of american idol!

Oh the irony is just so much funnier in cases like this where the poster is completely oblivious to the discussion. But thank you chapman for letting us know that you have no problem with the plane being 300 feet off the ground before take off so long as it supports the claim that it was 300 feet above the pentagon where the plane was found.

Now THAT is priceless! Keep up the mantra "We're jsut asking questions and looking for twoof!"

lijebaley01 · 18th October 2008, 12:58 PM

I have been fighting with this flyover nut forever. Thanks for the link. It helps a bit, but now I have another question... an object flying level at 700 ft/sec needs to climb 80 ft in a distance of 100 feet. Is the math this easy? Time to travel 100ft is one 7th of a second. rate of ascent, 80ft/.14sec, 571 ft/sec. Acceleration from level flight to this 571 ft, 571/.14, 4081ft/sec squared. Divide that by 32ft/sec squared, and you get 127 Gs. Can that be right? What am I missing? Its been 35 years since high school physics.

scissorhands · 18th October 2008, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by mchapman

Yes, thats right. Dont worry about the details. Dont demand that inconsistencies in the day 3000 people were killed be investigated. Just keep repeating the mantra "hanjour hit the building, they hate our freedoms"

Dont forget to watch the new season of american idol!

Maybe you think that the take off altimeter reading should have been 0ft?
Sea level?
It helps to set a correct altitude when taking off, to avoid mistakenly hitting large obstacles, like mountains for example.

Reheat · 18th October 2008, 01:06 PM

The airport elevation at KIAD is 312'. When the barometric altimeter is set to the local pressure the altimeter must read 312' +- 75'. So, the altimeter was correct on take off.

Gravy · 18th October 2008, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by lijebaley01

I have been fighting with this flyover nut forever. Thanks for the link. It helps a bit, but now I have another question... an object flying level at 700 ft/sec needs to climb 80 ft in a distance of 100 feet. Is the math this easy? Time to travel 100ft is one 7th of a second. rate of ascent, 80ft/.14sec, 571 ft/sec. Acceleration from level flight to this 571 ft, 571/.14, 4081ft/sec squared. Divide that by 32ft/sec squared, and you get 127 Gs. Can that be right? What am I missing? Its been 35 years since high school physics.

The math is quite easy, but when you start with the incorrect assumptions of liars and incompetents, you will arrive at the wrong result. NEVER take their word that they're starting from correct premises.

See any assumptions in your calculation that you haven't fully justified?

Homeland Insurgency · 18th October 2008, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Gravy

The math is quite easy, but when you start with the incorrect assumptions of liars and incompetents, you will arrive at the wrong result. NEVER take their word that they're starting from correct premises.

See any assumptions in your calculation that you haven't fully justified?

But why should anyone take your word when you say...

back slowly away from this issue while averting your eyes.

Nothing to see here folks move along Gravy will do your thinking for you.

Gravy · 18th October 2008, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

But why should anyone take your word when you say...

back slowly away from this issue while averting your eyes.

Nothing to see here folks move along Gravy will do your thinking for you.

I asked no one to take my word for anything. See what I mean when I said that you'll go wrong when you base your argument on false premises– especially your own?

I have no idea why someone would want to spend their time arguing the details of a delusional truther's claim when that claim fails the most basic and cursory analysis at every point. It's like arguing about the minimum wingspan-to-body weight ratio of pink unicorns. Before spending time on such a debate, wouldn't it be a good idea to determine if pink unicorns exist?

Arguing the details of nonsensical theories only helps the conspiracists. They want to get normally rational people lost in their world of details. It's the only way they can sustain their fantasies: and let's not forget that this is their goal. It isn't to answer questions, it's to sustain the conspiracy theory at any cost. I think it's unwise and irrational to play that game.

If someone has a real interest in understanding how aircraft sensing and instrumentation works, I'm all for it. Several people on this forum have made valuable additions to such discussions, and have repeatedly shown how the false premises of truthers have led them astray. But professionals in the specialties concerned may need to be consulted for definitive answers to technical questions.

One thing I know: continuing to argue about a Pentagon "flyover" is the same as arguing about pink unicorns. It's as foolish as can be and only helps the handful of delusional people in the world who make such claims. I suggest not giving them the attention they crave.

lijebaley01 · 18th October 2008, 01:45 PM

There are no assumptions made on my example, I was just wondering if I understood the math correctly. I saw a similar example, and the math seemed convolated, beyond any understanding.

X · 18th October 2008, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by lijebaley01

I have been fighting with this flyover nut forever. Thanks for the link. It helps a bit, but now I have another question... an object flying level at 700 ft/sec needs to climb 80 ft in a distance of 100 feet. Is the math this easy? Time to travel 100ft is one 7th of a second. rate of ascent, 80ft/.14sec, 571 ft/sec. Acceleration from level flight to this 571 ft, 571/.14, 4081ft/sec squared. Divide that by 32ft/sec squared, and you get 127 Gs. Can that be right? What am I missing? Its been 35 years since high school physics.

Since I included some formulae useful in this analysis in a recent post to Heiwa, I will take a crack at this.

y = y₀ + v_y,0t + 0.5*at²

where:

y = instantaneous elevation
y₀ = initial elevation
v_y,0 = initial velocity in the vertical direction
a = vertical acceleration
t = time

I'm going to take upwards as the positive direction.

The horizontal velocity you provided is 700 ft/sec.
The required elevation change you provided is 80 ft.
The horizontal distance in which the elevation change must take place you gave as 100 ft.

From the horizontal velocity and horizontal distance constraint we can determine the time, t:
t = distance/velocity = (100ft)/(700ft/sec) = 0.14 seconds.

In addition, we can re-write the equation y = y₀ + v_y,0t + 0.5*at² to find acceleration:

a = [2/(t²)]*[(y - y₀) - v_y,0t)

(yay, more algebra...

)

Also, since you said level flight, it follows that v_y,0 is equal to zero.

Thus, we have 1 unknown (a) and 3 knowns (t, v_y,0 and y - y₀).

Which means we can solve the equation.

But first I'm going to re-write it in simpler terms.

v_y,0 = 0, so it can go.
y - y₀ is known, and for simplicity I shall call it "d".

Thus a = 2d/(t²)

Plugging in the known values:
a = 2(80 ft)/(0.14² sec²) = (160 ft)/(0.196 sec² = 8,163 ft/sec².

By now you've noticed that my answer is twice yours.

The reason for this is as follows:

Velocity is given as v = at (acceleration * time). It's a linear relationship, there is no problem.
But position is linear to velocity x = vt. It is ot linear to acceleration. As tempting as it is, you can't substitute at for v and get x = at².
The reason for this is that velocity is changing with time (that being the definition of acceleration).
You need to integrate v = at to find position.

Properly, v = at should be written as dv (change in velocity) = a (contant) * dt (small parcel of time). Or, if you prefer, dv/dt = a.

Integrating with respect to time will give you
x = (1/2)*at².

That one-half, when moved over to the left side of the equation, becomes a "2", which is why my answer is double what yours is.

8,163 ft/s/s vs. 4081 ft/s/s (the reason they do not seem exactly doubled/halved is due to rounding the final figures)

So the actual acceleration required is 8,163 ft/s².

Dividing by gravity (32 ft/s/s) shows that the plane would have to pull 255 g's.

The passengers (and jet) would actually feel an acceleration of 256 g's (+1 due to the Earth's gravity).

That's, umm..., a lot of gees.

Now, it's not 100% accurate, the aircraft will slow slightly in the horizontal direction as it accelerates upward. But over 0.14 seconds, this slowing is not going to be anywhere near enough to bring the required acceleration into the realm of reality.

Hope this helps.

If it's any consolation, the requirement of integrating that equation completely escaped and confused me all the way through high school, and my first couple years of university.

Caustic Logic · 18th October 2008, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

But why should anyone take your word when you say...

back slowly away from this issue while averting your eyes.

Nothing to see here folks move along Gravy will do your thinking for you.

That was sound advice the poster seems to have ignored. His problem. Fact is, Dulles elevation is app 300 feet MSL, That's why the altimeter says that. This doesn't even bear on the final descent issues, where JDX had that extra 300-foot correction based on altimeter re-set not shown in the animation. I''m not sure this is true, but it might be, putting the plane about 470 ft MSL at last data, which is fine since it was still at least 1/2 mile from impact, probably more like 3/4 mile. They don't like to tell you that part.

So, why do people refuse good advice?

johnny karate · 18th October 2008, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by mchapman

Yes, thats right. Dont worry about the details. Dont demand that inconsistencies in the day 3000 people were killed be investigated. Just keep repeating the mantra "hanjour hit the building, they hate our freedoms"

And above all, find out what Charlie Sheen thinks about it.

Thunder · 18th October 2008, 02:07 PM

there sre some things best left to the experts. this is one of them.

Gravy · 18th October 2008, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by lijebaley01

There are no assumptions made on my example, I was just wondering if I understood the math correctly. I saw a similar example, and the math seemed convolated, beyond any understanding.

Sorry, I meant to edit my post, but the forum hasn't been loading for me. I know what you're trying to do, but as far as truthers are concerned there are many assumptions in your example. I was acting as your truther opponent. How do you know the altitude and speed of the plane? Prove the witnesses are reliable. Prove the parking lot camera footage wasn't faked. Look at these north of Citgo witnesses. How do you know the FDR data isn't faked, even with mistakes added, to throw us off?

If you don't remember where the burden of proof of their claims lies, you're on the road to arguing over the details of an impossible event. Yes, it's impossible for a 757 flying level at 700 fps to pull up 80 feet in a 100 foot distance. Good luck getting a "flyover" truther to agree that those are the correct starting conditions. You are dealing with an irrational person who's wedded to a belief that cannot let that happen. You said,

Originally Posted by lijebaley01

I have been fighting with this flyover nut forever.

No offense intended (and many people here have engaged in the same lengthy arguments), but you're clearly going about this the wrong way. If you intend to make your point that a flyover didn't happen, it shouldn't take you more than a few minutes. Here are some resources at my website:
Flight 77 – Pentagon – A thorough look at the evidence, many links & photos

However, anyone who believes such a thing in the face of the evidence is unlikely to be swayed by anything you present. Continuing to argue with such a person is giving them exactly what they want. Why do it?

lijebaley01 · 18th October 2008, 02:56 PM

Thanks [X], The only understanding I had was, acceleration = change in velocity divided by change in time. Too simple. I see why college physics was beyond me, I mostly blame my dyslexia, I hate to admit I'm not clever enuf.
Quite simply, I didn't know if the FDR was adjustable. I was kinda thinking the flight panel altimeter was updated with new info a few times a second or so, and the FDR was independent, actually showing the altitude of where it was made as being zero, kinda silly when applying this train of thought to Denver and New Orleans and such.
And thanks Gravy, I didn't know why I thought I could change this guys mind, when he hasn't budged in over a year (I have only been talking to him for a few weeks). The only thing I have been doing is giving him a chance to voice his views ad nauseam.

beachnut · 18th October 2008, 03:37 PM

The FDR supplies PA (pressure altitude), raw altimeter data, not corrected for local altimeter. The FDR uses PA, what the altimeter would read when the Baro is set to 2992.

In the animation the altimeter to show the actual altitude to +-75 feet if we apply the local altimeter setting correction manually to 18,000 feet and then set 2992 to show the FL flown.

In the animation if you want the altimeter to show the correct altitude you have to manually apply the correction again. It appears the WORKING COPY of the NTSB animation did not correct the altimeter at the end of flight. They did not place the image (not found in the FDR!) of the Pentagon in the correct position or orientation.

Those who make up lies and fantasies about 9/11 will not understand this. They lack knowledge, they lack rational thought.

X · 18th October 2008, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by lijebaley01

Thanks [X], The only understanding I had was, acceleration = change in velocity divided by change in time. Too simple. I see why college physics was beyond me, I mostly blame my dyslexia, I hate to admit I'm not clever enough.

Don't worry about it.
The reasoning behind it doesn't make sense until you are comfortable with calculus and can see how the equations all get derived, and how they relate.

Gravy · 18th October 2008, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by lijebaley01

Thanks [X], The only understanding I had was, acceleration = change in velocity divided by change in time. Too simple. I see why college physics was beyond me, I mostly blame my dyslexia, I hate to admit I'm not clever enuf.

I apologize for saying the math was simple!

Quote:

And thanks Gravy, I didn't know why I thought I could change this guys mind, when he hasn't budged in over a year (I have only been talking to him for a few weeks). The only thing I have been doing is giving him a chance to voice his views ad nauseam.

When confronted with a truther who you haven't dealt with before, it's a good idea to start this way: "I understand your position. But assuming we've both seen the same evidence (point to websites, reports, etc.), what new evidence that may exist would change your mind?"

Surprisingly often, and usually because they've never thought through the implications of this statement, they'll say, "I've seen all the evidence I need to. Nothing can change my mind."

In that case remind them that any correct theory is properly falsifiable, and that they've adopted a religious viewpoint, not a rational or scientific one, which isn't how someone who claims to be seeking the truth should behave. Then move on.

Sometimes your correspondent will name an extremely unlikely condition, which is the equivalent of "nothing" as far as discussion with them goes: "Clear videotapes of the plane hitting the building from multiple sources, matched to the cameras and recorders and verified as unchanged from the originals by an independent lab."

Sometimes they'll say "nothing" out of bravado, but if pressed they'll admit there are some things that would change their minds. The three creators of Loose Change have all said that nothing could make them believe that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. But in subsequent months their position shifted from absolute MIHOP to the possibility that someone was criminally negligent for letting the attacks happen: LIHOP at most. So something did change their minds.

In a History Channel documentary there's some footage of me arguing with truthers. One of the group's leaders was making the usual accusation that I'm a government agent paid to disrupt and confuse them. I said I wasn't asking him to believe anything I said, I was merely asking that he consider all the evidence. He said that all the evidence was fake.

"All the evidence collected about the events of 9/11 is fake?"

"That's right."

"Well, I can't help you there. You've chosen a ridiculous fantasy over reality. That's a matter for a doctor. And all the witness accounts?"

"Fabrications."

I pulled out a list of witnesses accounts to Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon and read some of them. "So all these people, from all different backgrounds, are lying about that?"

"I believe so."

"And nothing can change your mind?"

"Well, I'd like to see a clear video that shows the plane hitting the building. That's a start."

"Good! But you know that's probably not going to happen, and if it did, you'd probably just say it was faked. Back to square one. But why should a videotape make any difference when all the other evidence is available? Look at it this way: a large airliner once crashed two blocks from my home (that's true). There are no photos or videos of it crashing. So how do we know it crashed?"

You could the wheels starting to creak and slowly spin in his head. "Because of the wreckage?"

"Right. The wreckage. The bodies of the people who were on the plane. Hundreds of people dealt with that: residents, first responders, investigators. Photos and videos of all that. Plus, lots of people saw the plane come down and crash there. And it was on radar. And no one saw the plane go somewhere else, and no other airliners of that type went missing, et cetera, et cetera. Right?"

"Okay."

"So you would have no problem, if you saw that information in the news, believing that the plane crashed there?"

"No."

"Then why don't you accept all the same evidence about the Pentagon crash?"

He wasn't about to admit anything right there, but at least you could see the wheels turning, and sometimes that's the best you can hope for. The reason they want you to play their game and get lost in the details is so they don't have to confront the basic, "big picture" logic that wrecks their fantasy.

18th October 2008, 11:05 AM	#1
lijebaley01 New Blood Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 14	Take off at 300 feet? I am new to these forums, so I am very sorry if this has been answered before. I'm sure it has, but I cannot find it. I was wondering What the significance is that the takeoff altimeter reading was 300 feet on the NTSB AA77 Animation 9/11 pentagon video. Would this be adjusted in flight? If it's not adjusted, wouldn't it effect the accuracy of the final reading? And also why wouldn't this be taken in consideration when making the NSTB video?
lijebaley01 New Blood Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 14

18th October 2008, 12:07 PM	#2
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Welcome to the forums, lijbaleyo1. See the third question here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...9&postcount=58 My suggestion: back slowly away from this issue while averting your eyes. The important thing is that the plane hit the building. Hanjour didn't need to adjust any sensors to do that: he could see his target. The NTSB animation was a working copy, not intended for forensic analysis by amateur internet sleuths. Niggling over these details is meaningless unless you're a professional in the aircraft instrumentation field, and only serves the conspiracy fantasist agenda.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links Last edited by Gravy; 18th October 2008 at 12:15 PM.

18th October 2008, 12:23 PM	#3
mchapman Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 291	Originally Posted by Gravy Welcome to the forums, lijbaleyo1. See the third question here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...9&postcount=58 My suggestion: back slowly away from this issue while averting your eyes. The important thing is that the plane hit the building. Hanjour didn't need to adjust any sensors to do that: he could see his target. The NTSB animation was a working copy, not intended for forensic analysis by amateur internet sleuths. Niggling over these details is meaningless unless you're a professional in the aircraft instrumentation field, and only serves the conspiracy fantasist agenda. Yes, thats right. Dont worry about the details. Dont demand that inconsistencies in the day 3000 people were killed be investigated. Just keep repeating the mantra "hanjour hit the building, they hate our freedoms" Dont forget to watch the new season of american idol!
mchapman Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 291

18th October 2008, 12:58 PM	#5
lijebaley01 New Blood Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 14	I have been fighting with this flyover nut forever. Thanks for the link. It helps a bit, but now I have another question... an object flying level at 700 ft/sec needs to climb 80 ft in a distance of 100 feet. Is the math this easy? Time to travel 100ft is one 7th of a second. rate of ascent, 80ft/.14sec, 571 ft/sec. Acceleration from level flight to this 571 ft, 571/.14, 4081ft/sec squared. Divide that by 32ft/sec squared, and you get 127 Gs. Can that be right? What am I missing? Its been 35 years since high school physics.
lijebaley01 New Blood Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 14

18th October 2008, 01:06 PM	#7
Reheat Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: In Space Posts: 2,033	The airport elevation at KIAD is 312'. When the barometric altimeter is set to the local pressure the altimeter must read 312' +- 75'. So, the altimeter was correct on take off.
	__________________ Debunking the North of Citgo Theory Last edited by Reheat; 18th October 2008 at 01:08 PM.

18th October 2008, 12:54 PM	#4
Jonnyclueless Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,360	Originally Posted by mchapman Yes, thats right. Dont worry about the details. Dont demand that inconsistencies in the day 3000 people were killed be investigated. Just keep repeating the mantra "hanjour hit the building, they hate our freedoms" Dont forget to watch the new season of american idol! Oh the irony is just so much funnier in cases like this where the poster is completely oblivious to the discussion. But thank you chapman for letting us know that you have no problem with the plane being 300 feet off the ground before take off so long as it supports the claim that it was 300 feet above the pentagon where the plane was found. Now THAT is priceless! Keep up the mantra "We're jsut asking questions and looking for twoof!"

18th October 2008, 01:00 PM	#6
scissorhands Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,537	Originally Posted by mchapman Yes, thats right. Dont worry about the details. Dont demand that inconsistencies in the day 3000 people were killed be investigated. Just keep repeating the mantra "hanjour hit the building, they hate our freedoms" Dont forget to watch the new season of american idol! Maybe you think that the take off altimeter reading should have been 0ft? Sea level? It helps to set a correct altitude when taking off, to avoid mistakenly hitting large obstacles, like mountains for example.

18th October 2008, 01:16 PM	#8
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Originally Posted by lijebaley01 I have been fighting with this flyover nut forever. Thanks for the link. It helps a bit, but now I have another question... an object flying level at 700 ft/sec needs to climb 80 ft in a distance of 100 feet. Is the math this easy? Time to travel 100ft is one 7th of a second. rate of ascent, 80ft/.14sec, 571 ft/sec. Acceleration from level flight to this 571 ft, 571/.14, 4081ft/sec squared. Divide that by 32ft/sec squared, and you get 127 Gs. Can that be right? What am I missing? Its been 35 years since high school physics. The math is quite easy, but when you start with the incorrect assumptions of liars and incompetents, you will arrive at the wrong result. NEVER take their word that they're starting from correct premises. See any assumptions in your calculation that you haven't fully justified?
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

18th October 2008, 01:27 PM	#9
Homeland Insurgency Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,705	Originally Posted by Gravy The math is quite easy, but when you start with the incorrect assumptions of liars and incompetents, you will arrive at the wrong result. NEVER take their word that they're starting from correct premises. See any assumptions in your calculation that you haven't fully justified? But why should anyone take your word when you say... back slowly away from this issue while averting your eyes. Nothing to see here folks move along Gravy will do your thinking for you.

18th October 2008, 01:45 PM	#10
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency But why should anyone take your word when you say... back slowly away from this issue while averting your eyes. Nothing to see here folks move along Gravy will do your thinking for you. I asked no one to take my word for anything. See what I mean when I said that you'll go wrong when you base your argument on false premises– especially your own? I have no idea why someone would want to spend their time arguing the details of a delusional truther's claim when that claim fails the most basic and cursory analysis at every point. It's like arguing about the minimum wingspan-to-body weight ratio of pink unicorns. Before spending time on such a debate, wouldn't it be a good idea to determine if pink unicorns exist? Arguing the details of nonsensical theories only helps the conspiracists. They want to get normally rational people lost in their world of details. It's the only way they can sustain their fantasies: and let's not forget that this is their goal. It isn't to answer questions, it's to sustain the conspiracy theory at any cost. I think it's unwise and irrational to play that game. If someone has a real interest in understanding how aircraft sensing and instrumentation works, I'm all for it. Several people on this forum have made valuable additions to such discussions, and have repeatedly shown how the false premises of truthers have led them astray. But professionals in the specialties concerned may need to be consulted for definitive answers to technical questions. One thing I know: continuing to argue about a Pentagon "flyover" is the same as arguing about pink unicorns. It's as foolish as can be and only helps the handful of delusional people in the world who make such claims. I suggest not giving them the attention they crave.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links Last edited by Gravy; 18th October 2008 at 01:52 PM.

18th October 2008, 01:46 PM	#12
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,082	Originally Posted by lijebaley01 I have been fighting with this flyover nut forever. Thanks for the link. It helps a bit, but now I have another question... an object flying level at 700 ft/sec needs to climb 80 ft in a distance of 100 feet. Is the math this easy? Time to travel 100ft is one 7th of a second. rate of ascent, 80ft/.14sec, 571 ft/sec. Acceleration from level flight to this 571 ft, 571/.14, 4081ft/sec squared. Divide that by 32ft/sec squared, and you get 127 Gs. Can that be right? What am I missing? Its been 35 years since high school physics. Since I included some formulae useful in this analysis in a recent post to Heiwa, I will take a crack at this. y = y₀ + v_y,0t + 0.5at² where: y = instantaneous elevation y₀ = initial elevation v_y,0 = initial velocity in the vertical direction a = vertical acceleration t = time I'm going to take upwards as the positive direction. The horizontal velocity you provided is 700 ft/sec. The required elevation change you provided is 80 ft. The horizontal distance in which the elevation change must take place you gave as 100 ft. From the horizontal velocity and horizontal distance constraint we can determine the time, t: t = distance/velocity = (100ft)/(700ft/sec) = 0.14 seconds. In addition, we can re-write the equation y = y₀ + v_y,0t + 0.5at² to find acceleration: a = [2/(t²)][(y - y₀) - v_y,0t) (yay, more algebra... ) Also, since you said level flight, it follows that v_y,0 is equal to zero. Thus, we have 1 unknown (a) and 3 knowns (t, v_y,0 and y - y₀). Which means we can solve the equation. But first I'm going to re-write it in simpler terms. v_y,0 = 0, so it can go. y - y₀ is known, and for simplicity I shall call it "d". Thus a = 2d/(t²)* Plugging in the known values: a = 2(80 ft)/(0.14² sec²) = (160 ft)/(0.196 sec² = 8,163 ft/sec². By now you've noticed that my answer is twice yours. The reason for this is as follows: Velocity is given as v = at (acceleration * time). It's a linear relationship, there is no problem. But position is linear to velocity x = vt. It is ot linear to acceleration. As tempting as it is, you can't substitute at for v and get x = at². The reason for this is that velocity is changing with time (that being the definition of acceleration). You need to integrate v = at to find position. Properly, v = at should be written as dv (change in velocity) = a (contant) * dt (small parcel of time). Or, if you prefer, dv/dt = a. Integrating with respect to time will give you x = (1/2)at². That one-half, when moved over to the left side of the equation, becomes a "2", which is why my answer is double what yours is. 8,163 ft/s/s vs. 4081 ft/s/s (the reason they do not seem exactly doubled/halved is due to rounding the final figures) So the actual acceleration required is 8,163 ft/s². Dividing by gravity (32 ft/s/s) shows that the plane would have to pull 255 g's. The passengers (and jet) would actually feel an acceleration of 256 g's (+1 due to the Earth's gravity). That's, umm..., a lot* of gees. Now, it's not 100% accurate, the aircraft will slow slightly in the horizontal direction as it accelerates upward. But over 0.14 seconds, this slowing is not going to be anywhere near enough to bring the required acceleration into the realm of reality. Hope this helps. If it's any consolation, the requirement of integrating that equation completely escaped and confused me all the way through high school, and my first couple years of university.
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

18th October 2008, 01:48 PM	#13
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency But why should anyone take your word when you say... back slowly away from this issue while averting your eyes. Nothing to see here folks move along Gravy will do your thinking for you. That was sound advice the poster seems to have ignored. His problem. Fact is, Dulles elevation is app 300 feet MSL, That's why the altimeter says that. This doesn't even bear on the final descent issues, where JDX had that extra 300-foot correction based on altimeter re-set not shown in the animation. I''m not sure this is true, but it might be, putting the plane about 470 ft MSL at last data, which is fine since it was still at least 1/2 mile from impact, probably more like 3/4 mile. They don't like to tell you that part. So, why do people refuse good advice?

18th October 2008, 02:02 PM	#14
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,830	Originally Posted by mchapman Yes, thats right. Dont worry about the details. Dont demand that inconsistencies in the day 3000 people were killed be investigated. Just keep repeating the mantra "hanjour hit the building, they hate our freedoms" And above all, find out what Charlie Sheen thinks about it.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

18th October 2008, 02:07 PM	#15
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	there sre some things best left to the experts. this is one of them.

18th October 2008, 02:15 PM	#16
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Originally Posted by lijebaley01 There are no assumptions made on my example, I was just wondering if I understood the math correctly. I saw a similar example, and the math seemed convolated, beyond any understanding. Sorry, I meant to edit my post, but the forum hasn't been loading for me. I know what you're trying to do, but as far as truthers are concerned there are many assumptions in your example. I was acting as your truther opponent. How do you know the altitude and speed of the plane? Prove the witnesses are reliable. Prove the parking lot camera footage wasn't faked. Look at these north of Citgo witnesses. How do you know the FDR data isn't faked, even with mistakes added, to throw us off? If you don't remember where the burden of proof of their claims lies, you're on the road to arguing over the details of an impossible event. Yes, it's impossible for a 757 flying level at 700 fps to pull up 80 feet in a 100 foot distance. Good luck getting a "flyover" truther to agree that those are the correct starting conditions. You are dealing with an irrational person who's wedded to a belief that cannot let that happen. You said, Originally Posted by lijebaley01 I have been fighting with this flyover nut forever. No offense intended (and many people here have engaged in the same lengthy arguments), but you're clearly going about this the wrong way. If you intend to make your point that a flyover didn't happen, it shouldn't take you more than a few minutes. Here are some resources at my website: Flight 77 – Pentagon – A thorough look at the evidence, many links & photos However, anyone who believes such a thing in the face of the evidence is unlikely to be swayed by anything you present. Continuing to argue with such a person is giving them exactly what they want. Why do it?
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links Last edited by Gravy; 18th October 2008 at 03:01 PM.

18th October 2008, 02:56 PM	#17
lijebaley01 New Blood Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 14	Thanks [X], The only understanding I had was, acceleration = change in velocity divided by change in time. Too simple. I see why college physics was beyond me, I mostly blame my dyslexia, I hate to admit I'm not clever enuf. Quite simply, I didn't know if the FDR was adjustable. I was kinda thinking the flight panel altimeter was updated with new info a few times a second or so, and the FDR was independent, actually showing the altitude of where it was made as being zero, kinda silly when applying this train of thought to Denver and New Orleans and such. And thanks Gravy, I didn't know why I thought I could change this guys mind, when he hasn't budged in over a year (I have only been talking to him for a few weeks). The only thing I have been doing is giving him a chance to voice his views ad nauseam.
lijebaley01 New Blood Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 14

18th October 2008, 03:37 PM	#18
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,902	The FDR supplies PA (pressure altitude), raw altimeter data, not corrected for local altimeter. The FDR uses PA, what the altimeter would read when the Baro is set to 2992. In the animation the altimeter to show the actual altitude to +-75 feet if we apply the local altimeter setting correction manually to 18,000 feet and then set 2992 to show the FL flown. In the animation if you want the altimeter to show the correct altitude you have to manually apply the correction again. It appears the WORKING COPY of the NTSB animation did not correct the altimeter at the end of flight. They did not place the image (not found in the FDR!) of the Pentagon in the correct position or orientation. Those who make up lies and fantasies about 9/11 will not understand this. They lack knowledge, they lack rational thought.
	Last edited by beachnut; 18th October 2008 at 04:35 PM.

18th October 2008, 04:00 PM	#19
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,082	Originally Posted by lijebaley01 Thanks [X], The only understanding I had was, acceleration = change in velocity divided by change in time. Too simple. I see why college physics was beyond me, I mostly blame my dyslexia, I hate to admit I'm not clever enough. Don't worry about it. The reasoning behind it doesn't make sense until you are comfortable with calculus and can see how the equations all get derived, and how they relate.
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

18th October 2008, 05:50 PM	#20
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Originally Posted by lijebaley01 Thanks [X], The only understanding I had was, acceleration = change in velocity divided by change in time. Too simple. I see why college physics was beyond me, I mostly blame my dyslexia, I hate to admit I'm not clever enuf. I apologize for saying the math was simple! Quote: And thanks Gravy, I didn't know why I thought I could change this guys mind, when he hasn't budged in over a year (I have only been talking to him for a few weeks). The only thing I have been doing is giving him a chance to voice his views ad nauseam. When confronted with a truther who you haven't dealt with before, it's a good idea to start this way: "I understand your position. But assuming we've both seen the same evidence (point to websites, reports, etc.), what new evidence that may exist would change your mind?" Surprisingly often, and usually because they've never thought through the implications of this statement, they'll say, "I've seen all the evidence I need to. Nothing can change my mind." In that case remind them that any correct theory is properly falsifiable, and that they've adopted a religious viewpoint, not a rational or scientific one, which isn't how someone who claims to be seeking the truth should behave. Then move on. Sometimes your correspondent will name an extremely unlikely condition, which is the equivalent of "nothing" as far as discussion with them goes: "Clear videotapes of the plane hitting the building from multiple sources, matched to the cameras and recorders and verified as unchanged from the originals by an independent lab." Sometimes they'll say "nothing" out of bravado, but if pressed they'll admit there are some things that would change their minds. The three creators of Loose Change have all said that nothing could make them believe that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. But in subsequent months their position shifted from absolute MIHOP to the possibility that someone was criminally negligent for letting the attacks happen: LIHOP at most. So something did change their minds. In a History Channel documentary there's some footage of me arguing with truthers. One of the group's leaders was making the usual accusation that I'm a government agent paid to disrupt and confuse them. I said I wasn't asking him to believe anything I said, I was merely asking that he consider all the evidence. He said that all the evidence was fake. "All the evidence collected about the events of 9/11 is fake?" "That's right." "Well, I can't help you there. You've chosen a ridiculous fantasy over reality. That's a matter for a doctor. And all the witness accounts?" "Fabrications." I pulled out a list of witnesses accounts to Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon and read some of them. "So all these people, from all different backgrounds, are lying about that?" "I believe so." "And nothing can change your mind?" "Well, I'd like to see a clear video that shows the plane hitting the building. That's a start." "Good! But you know that's probably not going to happen, and if it did, you'd probably just say it was faked. Back to square one. But why should a videotape make any difference when all the other evidence is available? Look at it this way: a large airliner once crashed two blocks from my home (that's true). There are no photos or videos of it crashing. So how do we know it crashed?" You could the wheels starting to creak and slowly spin in his head. "Because of the wreckage?" "Right. The wreckage. The bodies of the people who were on the plane. Hundreds of people dealt with that: residents, first responders, investigators. Photos and videos of all that. Plus, lots of people saw the plane come down and crash there. And it was on radar. And no one saw the plane go somewhere else, and no other airliners of that type went missing, et cetera, et cetera. Right?" "Okay." "So you would have no problem, if you saw that information in the news, believing that the plane crashed there?" "No." "Then why don't you accept all the same evidence about the Pentagon crash?" He wasn't about to admit anything right there, but at least you could see the wheels turning, and sometimes that's the best you can hope for. The reason they want you to play their game and get lost in the details is so they don't have to confront the basic, "big picture" logic that wrecks their fantasy.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links Last edited by Gravy; 18th October 2008 at 06:02 PM.