G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible

page: 1
40
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+18 more 
posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
CIT has been dedicated to providing independent verifiable evidence demonstrating the true flight path of the Pentagon attack jet which ultimately proves it could not have hit the building as reported. See this thread for details.

But is the government story flight path as shown in the official data, reports, and required by the physical damage even physically possible?


Pilots for 9/11 Truth released an article earlier this year demonstrating how the final leg of the official flight path is in fact mathematically impossible for a 757 or any transport aircraft for that matter.

Unfortunately the article was released with an error that was quickly noted by other members as well as detractors who came out with their own interpretations of this scenario and the problem presented.

As any honest scientist/professional would do, Pilots for 9/11 Truth quickly admitted the error and promised an update with corrected math.

Since the issue had become convoluted with so many people offering up alternative scenarios.....P4T determined it would be best to put out a video presentation not only with the corrected math, but also with complete animations with scale topography for accurate demonstrations along with completely addressing all of the alternative or "debunking" scenarios in detail and showing exactly WHY they are wrong.

They have done this and as it turns out, the entire premise of the initial article holds true and the "debunkers" have been shown to be disingenuous at best or blatantly deceiving at worst.

The 2006 NTSB data or alleged "black box" has the flight path directly over the VDOT tower as shown here:


This makes the final descent to light pole number 1 with the necessary pull up to be perfectly low and level to the ground as shown in the Pentagon security video and required by all physical damage observably fishy to the layman but physically impossible to the scientist.



The scenario is especially irreconcilable with the evidence when considering the values reported by the NTSB particularly for speed, altitude, and g forces.

This really holds the government to their word as far as what the plane allegedly did and the pseudo-skeptic/government apologists out there seem to think that this official information can simply be dismissed when coming up with excuses for their impossible story.

Of course that is the ultimate cop out. This is the required descent if the officially reported altitude is used:



But it is STILL impossible even if we hypothetically lower the plane to the top of the highest obstacle on the official flight path!


There is no way a 757 would be able to withstand more than 5 or 6 G's. But the highest G rate recorded in the NTSB data for this stretch is only 1.75 G's for a mere 1/8th of a second!

This 13 minute excerpt from Pilots for 9/11 Truth's latest release, 9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON, is really enough in itself to prove a military deception in Arlington that day.

So to all the pseudo-skeptics who have repeated the mantra "got math?" since the initial article came out with the error.....the answer is:

Sure do! And it proves your official 9/11 fantasy false.


Google Video Link




posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Nice post but why do people still post stuff like this, anyone with half a brain cell knows a jet did not hit the pentagon.

This is not a troll or bait or anything.


+2 more 
posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Th0r
 


Well I see the world forging ahead with a fraudulent war on terror that slaughters more innocent people every day so as long as they continue to get killed with my tax money, we need to keep coming up with better arguments and more evidence to expose this heinous deception once and for all.

So while many see the truth, unfortunately there are a lot more people who make excuses and lie to support the official deception so a mere belief that it's false isn't enough.

Scientific evidence like this is necessary as is using the best arguments.

For instance......this final descent and pull up to reach pole #1 argument is solid proof while most 9/11 documentaries focus on the "difficulty" of the full spiral maneuver for an inexperienced pilot like Hani Hanjour.

While that may be true it is not proof of anything.

This however is a much stronger argument and the type of information that the movement needs to focus on if we want to get passed being considered a bunch of "conspiracy theorists".



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I knew the pseudo-skeptics would be afraid of this thread!

You wanted math fellas!

You got it.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Interesting topic. I have a question regarding the Flight path as recorded by the Black Box. What is the margin of error?

In other words, how far left or right could that plane have been from that Antenna and still come up as flying directly over it?



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I knew the pseudo-skeptics would be afraid of this thread!

You wanted math fellas!

You got it.



WRONG!

People who understand the "twoofer" math used are not afraid of this garbage at all. The problem is there is no one here knowledgeable enough to discuss it, least of all you. You just post some graphics with a link to a video, yet you don't understand whether it is correct or not. You simply swallow it just as you've swallowed all of the other crap propagated by Cap'n BoB.

You have proven over and over again that you have no clue regarding aeronautical math at all, yet you post some graphics, "cock and crow" about how wonderful it is when in actual fact you don't have a clue whether it's accurate or not. Psssst - it isn't and a thorough analysis will be forthcoming. It won't take 5 months either.

As I said earlier there is no one here in this Forum who has the knowledge to discuss it intelligently, so this thread is only designed to bamboozle the ignorant. In fact, that's why it was done as a video instead of a paper with the formulas listed and the logic and rational behind the numbers.

A prime example of this lack of understanding is when you have been caught LYING regarding what the Tribby Video and the Looney Photographs show. To my knowledge no twoofer has acknowledge that LIE. That means they either don't understand it, or are not willing to admit you've lied. Consequently, it's a waste of time to even attempt to discuss something much more complicated than the analysis of a video and photographs.

So, "crow" to your hearts content until the "slam dunk" is published. In the meantime, you ought to be worried about all of the things that prove your convoluted fantasy WRONG.

The final analysis is that AA77 was hijacked and flown by jihadists into the West Wing of the Pentagon and many people both on the aircraft and in the building died there. All of your twisted fantasies and gluttonous Internet activity is not going to change that. You can ignore and deny all of the evidence you want, but it's not going away any time soon.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Reheat]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Lebowski achiever
 


Given the fact that there is a straight line from the lat long coordinates to light pole one which is the beginning of the physical damage there really isn't any room for error.




The pins are the lat long coordinates and the yellow straight line is where it needs to continue in order to line up with the physical damage.

In the video presentation Pilots for 9/11 Truth explains how while the lat long coordinates in the black box mysteriously stop, other values are recorded all the way to the Pentagon wall.

There is nothing indicating any sort of swerve around the antenna.

As a direct answer to your question, I don't know what the margin of error for FDR's typically is, if any, but the physical damage is what leaves very little, once again if any, wiggle room here for the official flight path and a swerve around the antenna would be detectable in other values.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
How much is Captain Bob charging for this one?

Do I get a free PFFFT 911 clock if I buy one?



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The pins are the lat long coordinates and the yellow straight line is where it needs to continue in order to line up with the physical damage.


This is a prime example of how little you understand. If you disagree then show us how (source) you obtained lat/long coordinates for those yellow pins. Post the lat/long data.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
In the video presentation Pilots for 9/11 Truth explains how while the lat long coordinates in the black box mysteriously stop, other values are recorded all the way to the Pentagon wall.


Again, you illustrate a total lack of comprehension of what is shown in the FDR. Show how lat/long coordinates stop and other data continues to impact. You can't because this statement is false.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
There is nothing indicating any sort of swerve around the antenna.


Why would there need to be a "swerve"?



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Awwww.

You're just bitter because Ryan Mackey has been exposed as either extremely stupid or a liar.

I think it's clear that he is at least average intelligence.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Reheat you are the one who needs to prove me wrong if you don't agree.

You can't so you just huff and puff and blow as much smoke as you can.

If those are not the lat long coordinates for that final stretch you go ahead and post them yourself and prove me wrong old guy.

You can't and you won't because I am right.

Just like you can't debunk the updated math in this new presentation because Rob is right.

Your fantasy is falling apart around you and your frustration is showing.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


I expected you to evade the answer and you didn't disappoint at all.

There are no FDR derived lat/long coordinates for those positions, so how can I post them?

You said there were, so post them to prove your point.

Pssst - don't bother to continue your line of crap because I know you don't have a clue. The fact that you said those points were from FDR derived lat/long coordinates proves it.

Added: If there were accurate lat/long coordinates based upon the FDR then Cap'n BoB would know the position of AA77. He doesn't have a clue where it is for his calculations. He bases it on the NTSB derived impact time which is WRONG. At the same time he bases his conclusions on an FDR that he implies is FAKE or manipulated. If that sound confusing, it is exactly that. He doesn't know the location of AA77, but he is easily able to fool you and other followers of his fantasy and sell more DVD's.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Reheat]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   
ReTreat,

Will you be man enough to put your name to your claims this time around so your credentials can be verified? Or are you just going to show convoluted BS to confuse the reader and gain blind support by those who are also extremely biased and make excuses for the govt story.

ReTreat, Beachnut, et al all think the NTSB are incomptenet and are in error calculating an impact time of 09:37:45 (they still think the csv fle and NTSB Flight Path Study are "working copies" when the NTSB has never stated as such..lol). Its no surprise, they refuse to contact the NTSB, L3 or any real "Fdr Expert" to confront such information and of course will never put their name or professional reputation on the line regarding their claims as does P4T. There is only one reason for this, its because they will automatically be discredited when people dig into their past and they know it.

Hopefully this time they will come up with a paper which doesnt produce lies and false conclusions.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


I expected you to evade the answer and you didn't disappoint at all.

There are no FDR derived lat/long coordinates for those positions, so how can I post them?

You said there were, so post them to prove your point.

Pssst - don't bother to continue your line of crap because I know you don't have a clue. The fact that you said those points were from FDR derived lat/long coordinates proves it.


I see ReTreat hasnt looked at ReadOut2. We already know they dont have the expertise to decode a raw file as did P4T.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


I didn't create the image.

Farmer did.

If you don't think it represents where the NTSB said the plane was.....take it up with him.

I've never claimed to have technical knowledge of FDR's and that hasn't changed.

But I DO understand how it is that Ryan Mackey lied and I DO understand what is impossible about the final descent due to recorded altitude and all trends in the data.

Meanwhile you are not able to refute a single thing in the OP.

Apparently you concede that Rob's math is correct because you would have easily been able to show otherwise by now!



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
How much is Captain Bob charging for this one?

Do I get a free PFFFT 911 clock if I buy one?



19.95, and if you hurry, you may be able to get in on the second round of orders (first one already sold out. .sorry).

And no clock for you.. ;P



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   
By the way ReTreat,

Hows that claim coming along where you stated "Dont worry, Rob will never fly again, Many people will be interested if he renews his medical"?

ReTreat tried to imply he "knows" people who will prevent me from getting an FAA Flight Physical. Yeah, he tries to destroy the livelihoods of anyone who questions the govt story (Nazi Germany anyone?). But as usual, its a lie, because he knows no one... and he certainly will not put his name on such a claim/lie... the guy is nothing but smoke...

He also tried to lie that i padded my logbook and then backpeddled. Is it any surpsie why ReTreat never puts his names to his claims/lies?

What a joke...

typo

[edit on 17-9-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Reheat
 


I didn't create the image.

Farmer did.

If you don't think it represents where the NTSB said the plane was.....take it up with him.


I did not say it did not indicate where the NTSB said AA77 was. You indicated the data came from the FDR when, in fact, it did not. My point was and still is that you don't have a clue about what you're posting and here you admit it.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I've never claimed to have technical knowledge of FDR's and that hasn't changed.



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
But I DO understand how it is that Ryan Mackey lied and I DO understand what is impossible about the final descent due to recorded altitude and all trends in the data.



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Meanwhile you are not able to refute a single thing in the OP.


How would you know?



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
I did not say it did not indicate where the NTSB said AA77 was. You indicated the data came from the FDR when, in fact, it did not.


Famer made the pin locations from the lat/long coordinates out of the raw .fdr file. So, in fact, you're wrong.. as usual. And as usual, you do not have the experts to decode the raw file as did P4T.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
ReTreat tried to imply he "knows" people who will prevent me from getting an FAA Flight Physical. Yeah, he tries to destroy the livelihoods of anyone who questions the govt story (Nazi Germany anyone?). But as usual, its a lie, because he knows no one... and he certainly will not put his name on such a claim/lie... the guy is nothing but smoke...


He, he. Now, how could I or anyone else prevent you from getting a physical? That is a lie based on nothing but it's face.

I don't care whether you derive you livelihood from Janitorial Services or not, but you certainly should never fly passenger carrying aircraft. It's your judgment that is in question, not the fact that you question the Government. Pull the old Nazi canard, that will gain you a lot of supporters.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
He also tried to lie that i padded my logbook and then backpeddled. Is it any surpsie why ReTreat never puts his names to his claims/lies?


Well, maybe you shouldn't leave your logbook lying around in trash bins where it can be easily found.

Why don't you keep posting and then everyone will know why I wish to remain anonymous. In the first place, my credentials have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything. If credentials meant anything you wouldn't have a handful of perhaps otherwise respectable people with good credentials buying the snake oil you sell. That alone proves credentials mean very little.





new topics
top topics
 
40
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join