It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Joint research from CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth has proven that the physically necessary descent angle of the final moments of the Pentagon attack jet on the official flight path is aeronautically impossible.

original article here

This is underscored due to the fact that the NTSB released alleged FDR has the plane directly over the 169 foot tall antenna at the VDOT that we know wasn't hit.






With all of this information we can use basic math to calculate whether or not it would be possible for the plane to descend as fast as the plane was reported traveling at such a significant descent angle to light pole number one and then be able to pull up and be low and level with the lawn as shown in the security video.



Here are the calculations:


Top of VDOT Height = 304 MSL (above sea level)
Top of Pole 1 height = 80 MSL

Difference = 224 feet descent required.

Distance between VDOT - Pole 1 = 2400 feet

2400/Speed 781 feet per second (according to Flight Data Recorder) = 3 seconds

224/3 seconds = 75 fps descent rate x 60 = 4480 fpm descent rate needed to reach top of pole 1 from top of VDOT Antenna.

Pole 1 distance to Pentagon = 1016 feet

1016 feet/781 fps = 1.3 seconds

4480 fpm descent needs to be arrested within 1.3 seconds.

75 * 1.3 = 97.5 foot descent within 1.3 seconds.

97.5/32 fps accel due to gravity = 3.0 G's + 1 G = 4.0 G's needed to arrest descent within 1.3 seconds and 97.5 feet vertically. However, 97.5 feet vertically is not available.

Top of pole 1 height = 80 MSL
"Impact hole" height = 33 (pentagon ground level) + 12 feet (center of pentagon hole height) = 45 MSL

80 feet (top of pole 1) - 45 (height of "impact hole") = 35 feet vertically available to arrest descent rate of 4480 fpm.

97.5/35 = 280% (G Load required to arrest 4480 fpm descent rate within 1.3 seconds and 97.5 feet vertically needs to be increased by 280%.)

280% x 4.0 G's = 11.2 G's needed to arrest descent.

Conclusion = Impossible for any transport category aircraft to descend from top of VDOT Antenna to top of pole 1 and pull level to "impact hole" as reported by the government story and seen in the DoD "5 Frames Video". 11.2 G's was never recorded in the FDR. 11.2 G's would rip the aircraft apart.


The more we dig the more we expose FATAL contradictions in the official lie.








[edit on 13-3-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]




posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Calculations.

Facts.

Impossibilities.

This is the stuff of PROOF of deception folks.

We need not speculate.

We have plenty enough hard evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job.

It's imperative that the movement hones in and focuses on these types of arguments.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Common Arguments Addressed

pilotsfor911truth.org...



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Here is the rebuttal:

Link

Care to take a swipe at his work and prove him wrong?



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Video doesn't lie, Can any of you believers of the "Official government theory" point out a passenger jet aircraft in the short video? I sure don't see one, I see a missle or small private jet type aircraft.

If, as some believers on this forum have pointed out, the camera location is approximatley 200 yards from the impact point, a 757/767 would be markedly bigger in the video, geez, from a mile away a passenger jet would be markedly bigger than that "plane" in the short video. Think people, before it's too late.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I'd be interested to see whether anyone tries to debunk this.

Craig, great work again both by you guys at CIT and the P4T team. I don't necessarily agree with your theories - not yet anyway - but I admire the hands-on approach and the dedication you've shown towards trying to help those who lack the will or the means achieve a better understanding of what really happened that day.

ETA: Large off-topic chunk removed.

[edit on 14-3-2008 by coughymachine]



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Here is the rebuttal:

Link

Care to take a swipe at his work and prove him wrong?



www.abovetopsecret.com...

pilotsfor911truth.org...



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


You never sufficiently debunked anything there.

All you did was get into a pissing contest. Having read that post, there was no clear proof that you are right and he is wrong.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
reply to post by johndoex
 


You never sufficiently debunked anything there.

All you did was get into a pissing contest. Having read that post, there was no clear proof that you are right and he is wrong.



Ahh yes and so goes the endless cycle.

P4T puts out a simple article with a succinct legitimate point backed up with equations, the pseudoskeptics respond with convoluted technical spin that the average reader couldn't possibly interpret so they can confidently declare "debunked"!

Everyone is left scratching their heads wondering....gee who is right and who is wrong?

That's all the pseudoskeptics can hope for and that's all they care to do.

They simply bluff with bravado and fake authority behind anonymous screennames to make people question the simple facts laid out in front of them by legitimate researchers who aren't afraid to back up their claims with their true identity.

Bottom line it's basic COMMON SENSE.

There is no way a massive boeing could descend so drastically and rapidly yet end up entering the building perfectly low and level with the lawn with ANYONE at the controls.




It's aeronautically impossible.

Use your noggins people and let the pseudoskeptics live in their little make believe world of denial.


[edit on 14-3-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
And just so everyone is 100% clear here.....


Please note the Oct 2006 date on the alleged "rebuttal" from jref that was posted by "COOL HAND" and authored by "Anti-sophist".


It is clearly not a direct response to the very specific and simplified claim in this article.

But they don't care.

They will throw this convoluted bunch of nothing to cast doubt on facts and common sense over and over and over and over.....



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Day by day the perps are exposing themselves with their methods.

Dont ever doubt for a second that the perps did not install thousands of internet trolls to muddy the waters of truth on internet forums such as this one.

The rebuttles are jokes. Never forget that these people are the same people that started the stupid Missile pods, hologram, tv fakery, fuel tankers, nukes, laser theories ...etc... to name a few..... Only to debunk them later in the Popular Science article " debunking 9/11 myths"
making "toothers" look stupid.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT





Just an observation here, the horizon doesn't mach up in your split pic diagram. So hence the point your trying to make is skewed by an imaginary line that should have a less steep decent into the Pentagon.

Sorry to "Captain Obvious" you like this.

As always keep up the diligent work your doing, I certainly appreciate the time and effort you and others put in to the research and presentations.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Question:

1. Seeing as how cell phone towers can pop up overnight (and I mean that quite literally), especially in this area, do you have any evidence that cell phone tower was there in 2001??


2. You know the exact flight path with heights and everything for 77? Wow! Congrats! All everyone else has are best estimates.


3. As noted, light poles were clipped. So what type of missile or light plane has that kind of wingspan and is strong enough to clip light poles and not explode or at least be taken off the path?



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Just an observation here, the horizon doesn't mach up in your split pic diagram. So hence the point your trying to make is skewed by an imaginary line that should have a less steep decent into the Pentagon.


The difference is nominal.

One day is more clear than the other so you can see across the river better but the river edge is lined up pretty darn close.

In fact the adjustment should go the other way....the left image could tilt down a bit which would make for a steeper descent angle.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Question:

1. Seeing as how cell phone towers can pop up overnight (and I mean that quite literally), especially in this area, do you have any evidence that cell phone tower was there in 2001??


The VDOT told us it was as did eyewitnesses we interviewed in the area and you can see it in a couple of the Steve Riskus shots:





2. You know the exact flight path with heights and everything for 77? Wow!
Congrats! All everyone else has are best estimates.


Unless of course they are going off the alleged black box data that was released from the NTSB in 2006. See pilotsfor911truth.org for more info.



3. As noted, light poles were clipped. So what type of missile or light plane has that kind of wingspan and is strong enough to clip light poles and not explode or at least be taken off the path?


Nothing clipped the light poles because we know the plane was not really over there, it was on the north side of the citgo. The poles had to have been staged in advance. A complete light pole hypothesis is available here.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Nothing clipped the light poles because we know the plane was not really over there, it was on the north side of the citgo. The poles had to have been staged in advance. A complete light pole hypothesis is available here.

lol, thanks for the laugh buddy...

That is a major highway. I'm sure someone would have noticed



Lot of spam to other sites, but no explanations as to what really happened.
Apparently, what I'm getting is that they used some sort of holographic image (since there were numerous eyewitnesses on the ground and the tracking of the plane from above it) of an airplane as it speed toward the pentagon. They then used, I don't know, magic? to cut and down the light poles to make it appear that a plane hit them. Then at the last second before the plane hit they turned off the hologram and fired a missile from (????) and hit the pentagon with that. That is the alternative theory right?
Wouldn't it have been easier to just fly a plane into the pentagon?
I mean, what was the point of hijacking a plane if you're not even going to use it? And where did they take it?



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
One day is more clear than the other so you can see across the river better but the river edge is lined up pretty darn close.

In fact the adjustment should go the other way....the left image could tilt down a bit which would make for a steeper descent angle.


I'm not seeing where you think the river is lining up "pretty darn close."

In the lower rt. corner of the left shot is a building that is also visible in the right shot. If you were to aline the horizon, and river, then overlap that building, you'll lose some height on the cell tower.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ThatsJustWeird
 


No spam.

Direct links to my personal research.

I was part of the research team that interviewed the driver of that cab and the video is available for you to watch for free on our site.

The questions you have are simply off topic and have been addressed more than you could possibly imagine.

The plane was nowhere near that pole.

The cab driver's story is physically impossible.

The evidence is there man.

Please check it out.

Watch this first and then this.

Pay special attention to my avatar image when you watch the second one.




posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by infinityoreilly
 


I think if you adjust it that it would increase the descent angle. If you look at that building for reference it would have to tilt down to match up causing the Pentagon to be on a steeper descent.

But whatever........point still stands either way.

There isn't enough time for the plane to level out as shown in the security video.

There would have been some sort of descent angle as reported in the FDR which isn't reconcilable with the physical damage particularly the first floor slab.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
ERRORS FOUND WITH ROB BALSAMOS MATH

It appears that Rob has made fatal errors in his calculations pertaining to this latest attempt at supporting a flyover on 911.

I won't post all the calculations..takes up too much space. I will post some reasons that he is wrong, but I urge you to go to the thread to read it for yourself.


Arresting a 75 fps descent within 1.3 seconds requires arresting 75/1.3 = 57.7 feet per second of velocity, per second. He's multiplied where he should have divided.



What is this figure of 97.5 vertical feet? That's the distance the plane would descend at 75 fps in 1.3 seconds, if it were not accelerating upward. Since we've just determined that it is accelerating upward at 1.8g (based on the assumption that it has to have leveled off by the time it reaches the Pentagon wall), how far would it actually descend?



he's used a ratio of distances (97.5/35) to scale an acceleration, when distance traveled in a given time is a quadratic function of acceleration.

In the process, he's also managed to increase earth's gravity by a factor of 280%. (Note the +1G he adds for earth's gravity to get the 4G figure, and he then multiplies that entire 4G by his distance ratio.)

Starting at the light pole descending at 75 fps, pulling up at 10.2 g, the plane would climb 178 feet in 1.3 seconds. In other words, instead of lining up with the impact hole, its projected flight path at 10.2 g vertical acceleration clears the Pentagon wall by 180 feet and takes off like a rocket.

That's at least four significant math errors. Doesn't anybody ever check the math?


forums.randi.org...


Also please note this post where NASA Scientist totaly takes this theory to bed. forums.randi.org...


You stated that the impact height corresponded to the center of the hole. But there's no reason to assume the light pole was hit by the center of the aircraft. We've got apples and oranges here. Since the poles are referenced to the bottom of the aircraft, the impact point should be so referenced too, and that is at 33 feet, not 45.

If you repeat the above but substitute in 33 feet, you find that the vertex is actually at -90 feet, i.e. the aircraft is still descending at impact. And the acceleration now is only 26.9 ft/s2, or a mere 0.84 g.

That's peanuts. Even the Wright Flyer could handle that.

I remind you, I'm using your figures. Your figures are consistent with a totally viable flightpath. Therefore, Mr. Balsamo is either spectacularly incompetent, or a total fraud. Whichever it is, you have been duped.

Please feel free to ask if any of that was unclear. It saddens me deeply to see nontechnical people taken advantage of by such breathtaking idiocy.


There are 3 pages of information where a member from Pilots 4 911 Truth speaks on behalf of Rob Balsamo (who is banned from Jref)

Anyway... very interesting and shows Mr. Balsamo made mistakes and it is proven.




top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join