G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Ohhh so you're e^n?

Yeah, unfortunately a lot of forums don't like the caret

Awesome!

Good to see you decided to grow a pair and address me direct after all these months.

I took a nice little break from LC, and decided to join ATS, nothing personal

You should come around our forum more often. I have always thought you were one of the more semi logical psuedo-skeptics.

Well you were willing to call me a coward quite quickly, I only came on your forum to get any data that I could, you refused to provide it so I decided not to even bother doing an analysis until your next presentation was out. It seems you're getting there now, so here I am again

You can not compare eyewitness testimony with government supplied data from the alleged FDR.

I am not, your 'pull up' scenario is not based on FDR data.

Eyewitness evidence comes from the human mind and is subjective (not mathematical) and the mechanically generated FDR data is the opposite.

The FDR does not record any of the values you claim, and you use an artificially small radius of turn, you cannot claim this is data retrieved from the FDR as it does not cover this period.

Originally posted by Dramey

the op needed to post his topic

then everyone else who isnt providing proof or some form of intelligent debate need to just shut the **** up

Word!

That was actually a really good post.

Realize though that their goal is to keep the noise ratio as high as possible because they can not refute the info.

It's their only hope.

Realize though that their goal is to keep the noise ratio as high as possible because they can not refute the info.

The NOISE Ratio is HIGH on both sides and equally so...

THAT needs to stop or there will be warning and posting privilege problems...

Semper

Originally posted by exponent
=
I am not, your 'pull up' scenario is not based on FDR data.

You asked me "Didn't you tell me that this sort of maths could not prove anything when it came to bank angles?"

Then you quoted me from a discussion about the witnesses.

This thread has nothing to do with the witnesses.

The FDR does not record any of the values you claim, and you use an artificially small radius of turn, you cannot claim this is data retrieved from the FDR as it does not cover this period.

Huh?

Ryan Mackey is the one who concluded that a necessary constant 4 g's for the final 4 seconds would be required based on the NTSB reported altitude.

Unfortunately for him, you, me, and everyone this is not reflected in the FDR proving the data is irreconcilable with the alleged impact of "Flight 77".

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You asked me "Didn't you tell me that this sort of maths could not prove anything when it came to bank angles?"

Then you quoted me from a discussion about the witnesses.

This thread has nothing to do with the witnesses.

You told me there were far too many variables to appropriately deal with so that I could not make any reliable predictions. How is this situation different to what you are now doing? Do you have any verifiable data for the period in which you are claiming a 34g pullup is required?

Ryan Mackey is the one who concluded that a necessary constant 4 g's for the final 4 seconds would be required based on the NTSB reported altitude.

Unfortunately for him, you, me, and everyone this is not reflected in the FDR proving the data is irreconcilable with the alleged impact of "Flight 77".

I am not hugely familiar with Mr Mackey's work, but from my understanding the FDR data stops being recorded well before the period in which you are doing these calculations, and his 4g claim is based off misinterpreting the FDR data.

These points are irrelevant to me, I simply want to know why it is you can assume a pullup in a certain amount of space, even though it is radically smaller than the unknown portion of the flight, and yet I cannot take the best case scenario for your theory?

What data do you have for the plane which I did not have?

Originally posted by exponent

Do you have any verifiable data for the period in which you are claiming a 34g pullup is required?

Absolutely.

G forces are recorded all the way to alleged impact time.

I am not hugely familiar with Mr Mackey's work, but from my understanding the FDR data stops being recorded well before the period in which you are doing these calculations, and his 4g claim is based off misinterpreting the FDR data.

You understand incorrectly.

Please watch the presentation in the OP as this is covered as is Mackey's claim that has been proven false.

These points are irrelevant to me, I simply want to know why it is you can assume a pullup in a certain amount of space, even though it is radically smaller than the unknown portion of the flight, and yet I cannot take the best case scenario for your theory?

So are you now abandoning the OP and going back to the eyewitnesses again?

Why?

*snip* Comment removed: He is on topic



[edit on 9/21/2008 by semperfortis]

If you have a complaint about Moderation, send a U2U or hit the complaint button..

It will not be posted on the boards..

I am not assuming anything.

The topography, obstacles, and physcial damage REQUIRE a pull up within a limited amount of time and the NTSB data does not reflect the g forces necessary to explain this.

This is the case even if we use Ryan Mackey's conclusion of a necessary constant 4 g's for the final 4 seconds.

4 g's is not anywhere in the data at all.

Originally posted by exponent
What data do you have for the plane which I did not have?

He has none. The problem with the OP and why it's incorrect has been posted multiple times in this thread. Ranke doesn't understand it and won't understand it for the next 1000 years.

The problem is an arbitrarily small radius (distance) for the pull up is the first problem with the OP. It's unnecessary ridiculously small.

Then they compare this finding with the FDR data which is NOT for the same segment. Even if we eliminate the FDR the math is still deceptively wrong because of the arbitrary small pull up distance.

He'll pull out the "Got Math" crap again in a minute when he has been plainly told repeatedly why the math is WRONG!

Again, it's been posted by me, by you, by Beachnut, and a couple of other posters, but we continue to get the "broken record" of "you can't refute the OP". The OP has been thoroughly refuted. It difficult to argue with a fence post and that is exactly what we have here. Valid arguments opposed by a cartoon using deceptive math and denying the missing FDR data.

Because of this it eventually results in just name calling and insults and that is perhaps where it will continue because of the *snip* denying the OP has been shown to be WRONG.

MOD Note: Review this Link: Courtesy is Mandatory

[edit on 9/21/2008 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Absolutely.

G forces are recorded all the way to alleged impact time.

I was not aware this was the case, and have a hard time believing this thanks to all the confusing debate which goes on. I will look into it and get back to you.

You understand incorrectly.

Please watch the presentation in the OP as this is covered as is Mackey's claim that has been proven false.

I watched the presentation, can you explain why the pullup starts so late? Perhaps you can plot on a map for us the VDOT tower and when the start and end of pullup is in your theory.

So are you now abandoning the OP and going back to the eyewitnesses again?

Why?

Because these would seem mutually exclusive to me, you cannot say that one approach yields unverifiable data, when you use the same approach to 'disprove' something else. If the FDR did in fact record acceleration until impact then the situation may be different, I will have to look into that.

reply to post by Reheat


If you don't think the radius used by P4T is sufficient then use Mackey's!

His radius spans the entire area from the antenna to the Pentagon wall and requires a constant 4g's for the final 4 seconds!

Too bad the NTSB data shows an average of 1.17 g's and 4'g's is NOWHERE to be found!

Know what that means?

It means Mackey was WRONG when he said:

"there is no case to be made that the FDR data is inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77"

-Ryan Mackey

If he doesn't admit his error he will have been proven a liar.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

The physics in the video is not how flying is really done. Not proper flying. Like my poor writing the calculation in the video are nor proper, the are not rooted in reality.

Mackey's work is not affected by my work; it is ludicrous to say what you said.

If you don't understand my sentences, I now see it is indicative of your understanding of 9/11.

The 10 G and 34 G values are made up from radius picked at random (or just made up on the spot from any old radius). You can use any radius you want with the method depicted in the video, and the ones used are ridiculous. They are also impossible to fly. The perfectly round radius is only an estimate in the real world, an idealistic impossible event.

However, they are good estimates for values, but pure fantasy. The real values from the terrorists were posted.

You average the G force of the terrorist in an attempt to cover-up the truth; your math is like my sentences.

The terrorist did pull 1.7 Gs, and pushed to as low as .2 Gs or so. In the same fact if you average the video G force you would get 1.17 G, or 4 Gs for the extreme case. Mackey is not busted, your video is a fabrication to fool others! Mackeys work is to reveal it is possible, no agenda, no hidden purpose to sell implications of lies on DVD for 15 bucks.

*snip*

This work stands, it is realistic, and not misleading.
In the video, if you take the 9.14 G, and average it over the time from the VDOT tower you get 1.03 g, or 2.03 G. But you should not average and mislead. So you guys can stick with an impossible pull up as I can see there is little need for G force, a straight shot from the VDOT tower is good enough to do the job with slight variation. Any kid can take Google earth and see for themselves no major problem hitting the Pentagon.


That purple dot is the VDOT tower, and in the distance the base of the Pentagon, almost a straight line, no major G force required, just the erratic G profile the terrorist is doing is enough to hit the lamppost and impact the Pentagon, the terrorist is within 40 to 50 feet of impacting the overpass and failing.

This is the most likely position where the FDR data ends, and you can see in the distance (just over 6 seconds, the lampposts and Pentagon base are all lined up, no major G force needed. The suicide terrorist is just aiming for the Pentagon. Using the video model you could easily see the profile is easy, no major G force needed.



You can use the same method and use 3700 feet radius and you get a total of 6.14 G. There are many radii you can use to game this new smoke screen to sell DVDs. The truth is there was no pull out to level, 77 impacted in a descent. Once you hit the first lamppost, they all line up to impact.

The video implies since there is no damage to the foundation 77 did not impact in a descent. However if you have seen aircraft impact at 4 to 6 degree into runway, much like the foundation of the Pentagon, there is no major damage to the runway from the glancing blow. The primary impact damage in the horizontal, the final impact angle gave a descent of 2600 feet per minute not a major vertical event compared to 46,860 feet per minute in the horizontal, this is why there is no major damage to the foundation, 18 times the downward movement was into the building in the horizontal. The damage to the foundation is a smoke screen is to fool people, that a level off happened. Not having to level off make the G force 1.35 Gs less right off the bat. But there is no way to relate this value to the ridiculous methods used in the video.

I am just checking the video, found it wrong these are my notes, it is best to figure this out for yourself, and use your own work. Individual work, not follow the leaders junk, trust those who earn it.

MOD Note: Review This Link: Terms and Conditions

Specifically

1d.) Cross-Posting: You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive advance permission from The Above Network, LLC). You will not post-by-proxy the material of banned members or other individuals who are not members, but have written a response to content within a thread on these forums.

[edit on 9/21/2008 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Absolutely.

G forces are recorded all the way to alleged impact time.

I was not aware this was the case, and have a hard time believing this thanks to all the confusing debate which goes on. I will look into it and get back to you.

It's explained in the presentation in the OP but here is another one specifically addressing this in more detail.

I watched the presentation, can you explain why the pullup starts so late? Perhaps you can plot on a map for us the VDOT tower and when the start and end of pullup is in your theory.

It's not "late" at all.

And the radius calculated is a full 2,085 feet!

Given the fact that the FDR does not show and has not recorded any positive load required to pull out of this dive in the segment prior to this, there is no legitimate reason to suggest that the arc should be spread out any larger.

In fact, the NTSB data for the period before the radius in the P4T presentation shows less than 1 G for that segment which represents a "pushing forward" motion on the yoke, as seen in the animation reconstruction provided by the NTSB , instead of a "pulling level" motion required.

If the FDR did in fact record acceleration until impact then the situation may be different, I will have to look into that.

It does.

This is easy to see if you watch the NTSB produced animation.

Pay special attention to the yoke.





[edit on 21-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Thanks for the replies Craig. There's a lot of data in here which obviously needs reading up on, I'll get back to you on this.

I would appreciate it if you marked on a map where the pullup arc occurs.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Craig, you've completely ignored my questions. Is this because you know the answers and they don't support your position? Are my questions just too much for you to handle?

You have proven absolutely nothing as of yet to me or anyone because of the simple principle of the benefit of the doubt.

1) What is the +/- accuracy level of the black box data? 5 centimeters? 5 billion light years? Until you've answered this question, by the principle of the benefit of the doubt, the the accuracy is +/- 200 ft and therefore you have evidence of nothing.

1b) Being as specific as possible, where does the black box data place the plane at its closest point to the tower? What coordinates?

2) What is the +/- accuracy level of the tower location data? +/-5 centimeters? +/-The entire estimated span of the universe times 5 hundred trillion? Giving the benefit of the doubt to the plaintiff, I believe that the the accuracy is +/- 200 ft, which means again you have shown nothing to anybody with your research as of yet if that person follows the benefit of the doubt principle.

2b) Being as specific as you can, where is the tower by the data you have? What coordinates?

3) Same as question two, but related to the light pole. What are the coordinates of the earliest struck light pole? Also, (3b) what is the altitude of the light pole in relation to the Pentagon? You claim the jet was approximately level before striking the Pentagon. Now provide the evidence of this by answering the question. Until you've answered the question, you have not even shown that your most basic premise that the plane leveled off is true, even if you were to answer the first two questions well.

4) What is your data sources for the above mentioned information? The benefit of the doubt requires me to believe you pulled all data out of your behind until you've shown otherwise. You've shown some data sources but not all of them, most glaringly the black box data.

I really feel bad to ask the questions with such sharp points but feel I have no other option if I want a good solid answer given that you simply entirely ignored my initial questions. In my defense I allowed you a chance to answer them with no pointy stick attached.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Reheat

 

If you don't think the radius used by P4T is sufficient then use Mackey's!

His radius spans the entire area from the antenna to the Pentagon wall and requires a constant 4g's for the final 4 seconds!

Too bad the NTSB data shows an average of 1.17 g's and 4'g's is NOWHERE to be found!

Know what that means?

It means Mackey was WRONG when he said:

"there is no case to be made that the FDR data is inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77"

-Ryan Mackey

If he doesn't admit his error he will have been proven a liar.

Mackey's work stands, you must be upset real math and physics proves the new video a some screen to form false ideas on 9/11. Below again I show the Gs generated by the terrorist, if you continue to average them over time, then you must do the same with your calculation in the video, and only come up with 2.03 Gs. This makes the 10.14 disolve. I would stop the average G force smoke screen, your own work fails the test.

Please show your work and how you averaged the G force of the terrorist. Thank you very much...

Mackey's work shows what is possible, not what happen. Mackey's work is more realistic than the circle, random radius stuff in the video.

Pilots for truth said it was impossible to go from the top of the VDOT tower, hit the lampposts and impact the Pentagon because it took 11.2 Gs. They were wrong, the flight profile can be done, and proven with physics with 1.7 Gs. Pilots for truth now have a video which finally uses a method to calculate G, but they used an arbitrary radius, which I showed above can be changed get a lower number of Gs. In addition, I showed the argument for level off is false, and 77 impacted in a descent as high as 2600 feet per minute. Next they will say 77 appears level in the distorted lens of the Parking lot camera for a fraction of a frame.

Mackey's work uses the arbitrary level off to show 77 is capable of all the parameter set by the pilot for truth first major physics failure. Now they have the physics closer to correct, but use methods that are not realistic. Look again at the G profile of our terrorist, it is not constant and will never fit a pure circle instantaneous G force level off.

Even with the gyration in G force, a very unsettling ride, the terrorist for these last 20 second (the last values in the FDR, still missing over 6 more seconds to impact) are able to make the following approximate loss of altitude per second: 48, 44, 50, 52, 50, 62, 70, 100, 104, 110, 94, 86, 82, 102, 92, 96, 98, 92, 68, 65... average fps lost for each of the last 20 seconds recorded. Why is the plane not level with the 1.7 G, because the plane is heading down and the pull ups leave the plane in a descent. The plane lags the inputs made by the pilot, you are moving a very large mass, over 200,000 pounds. As you see in the real world the average rate of decent is changing constantly.

The video is not even close to reality, but an idealized way for pilots for truth to fix their flawed physics. Now with a totally unrealistic approach, they claim Mackey's work wrong!? They have failed again, the truth is Mackey's work is closer to reality; as engineers or people who do experiments, it is a proof of concept; proves 77 can impact all posts and hit the Pentagon even constrained to the initial conditions of the original pilot for truth work, and the new pilot for truth video trying to remove the stigma of failed physics.

To call Mackey a liar, reveals the person attacking him lacks the skill to check Mackey's work and comprehend what Mackey did, and said. *snip*

Mackey's work stands. The real problem with the video is the talk of an NTSB higher altitude, yet there the video mentions no real position as seen in the FDR or confirmed by RADAR data. The video used a position based they make up, then say 77 is too high over the VDOT tower, when Flight 77 is really 1300 to 1900 feet further back based on the final data in the FDR.

*snip*

Any math/physics capable person can see Mackey's work stands as he covered all the initial conditions set up by the pilots for truth in their original work, and this new video.

MOD Note: Terms and Conditions

1d.) Cross-Posting: You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive advance permission from The Above Network, LLC). You will not post-by-proxy the material of banned members or other individuals who are not members, but have written a response to content within a thread on these forums.

[edit on 9/21/2008 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by exponent

If the FDR did in fact record acceleration until impact then the situation may be different, I will have to look into that.

It does.

This is easy to see if you watch the NTSB produced animation.

Pay special attention to the yoke.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

WRONG!

The part of the post I snipped doesn't make any sense at all. You continue to illustrate that you have no clue what you're talking about. None at all.

The animation stops PRIOR to impact, so you can not say there is acceleration data available to impact.

Thanks for posting this as it again proves there is data missing from the FDR just as we've all been telling you.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It's explained in the presentation in the OP but here is another one specifically addressing this in more detail.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Raw files shows 77 over 8 seconds away from the Pentagon, but the accuracy of the INS stands at 1600 to 3000 feet, and with updates from VOR/DME, the INS is constantly driven back the accuracy afforded by the DME used on Flight 77 about 1600 feet as seen in studies where average errors in accuracy for DME in an aircraft (not test sets, or transmitters on the ground) of 0.23 NM.

1.5 DME!? The DME is only stored as X.0, X.2, X.5, X.8. This means the resolution of storage is 0.25 NM! Do not laugh as you see the video use 1.5 DME explicitly ignoring the fact the DME is accuracy is not much better than the INS written off as CRASHED due to the pathetic flying of the terrorist exaggerated to major maneuvers, but in reality wimpy turns, and wimpy dives. As explain in the 2001 edition of the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), the accuracy of the DME at that time was less than ½ mile, or 3 percent of the distance, whichever is greater. When the FAA conducted studies with DME sets similar to Flight 77 for new systems they found typical accuracy for the terminal area (close in to the DME station) to be 0.23 NM for similar Boeing aircraft to Flight 77. The video is claiming an accuracy not found in DME! The storage alone, 0.25 NM resolution and the FAA only requires the DME storage to be at 1 NM resolution. If you study all the DME stored in the FDR the best you can do is 1500 to 3000 feet accuracy. Don't be alarmed of this error in the video, the INS did not crash, it is accurate to 1500 to 3000 feet, and it receives updates from the VOR/DME to correct the drift, the video ignores this. Fact the INS is good to 1500 to 3000 feet, rarely more accurate, the DME is accurate to 0.23 NM! Remember the INS system used VOR/DME to make the INS more accurate, the best it gets is 1500 feet to 3000 feet! Support for my figures are proven by the INS system; this relationship between DME accuracy and the INS accuracy make cascading errors in this video now on record showing a lack of understanding of Flight 77 systems.

Saying the INS crash is bordering on a lie since the 330 degree turn was not greater than a standard rate turn (when you face a wall and turn around to face the wall again you too have done the massive maneuver of a 360 degree turn, was it hard?), and the descent not greater than normal operations. During the last line up, descent rates as high as 6600 feet per minute were seen, but this would not crash the INS. If INS crashed due to acceleration, they would crash on each takeoff, the acceleration is greatest at that time; no the INS did no crash on takeoff due to the engines being pushed up for take off and the acceleration. The INS crash statement crashes with simple logic. I have used INS, they do not drift that far when subjected to maneuvers I made in the military twice as great as the dive made by 77, and much tighter turns made by me than 77 did. Practical experience proves this statement of crashing INS false. When you take RADAR data from multiple ATC stations, and correlate the FDR to RADAR, you get the confirmed final position of Flight 77 within 1600 feet of the INS position stored in the INS, a fact the INS was updated by VOR/DME to give get closer to real position than when 77 took off 2000 feet off from it's actual position. So the drift was countered by updates by VOR/DME, and there was no crash. INS updates illustrate the level of accuracy of the DME as seen in studies before 2001, confirmed by AIM as logical. there was no extreme maneuvers, the 330 degree move did not cause the INS to crash, that is pure bunk. The 330 degree turn took 3 minutes, not a massive maneuver and it would not affect the INS. No vast dive! 5000 feet in 3 minutes, not close to making the INS crash! This is pure bunk!

The 1.5 DME bait was taken. This is funny if you understand the limitations of using 1.5 DME as an absolute value. The fact storage of DME is limited to 4 values per unit NM, the 0.25 NM resolution alone kills the video arguments. When using the accuracy of Flight 77 DME system, with an accuracy of 0.23 NM, the 1.5 DME exact value melts into 1600 to 3000 feet of total uncertainty. If you study the entire DME history in the FDR, you will agree ½ NM resolution is all you can expect from the DME, rendering the arguments based on 1.5 DME bogus.



RADAR; the blue pin is a return at 13:37:47 from DCA RADAR. This makes the NTSB time of impact of 13:37:45 bogus, and the pilots for truth made a mistake using the agency that did not investigate 9/11 as their time of impact. How could the NTSB make a mistake on impact time? Simple, they never investigated Flight 77 to determine an impact time, it is clear that the last two time stamps in the NTSB data were :45 and:46. They did zero forensics to check the final position of 77 against anytime of impact, used the next to last time stamp for impact time. 5 seconds to impact from the RADAR return, yield 13:37:52.

By studying RADAR data and the FDR the yellow pin is a very good estimate based on real facts where 77 is when the last data point at :43 shows 77 at 401 MSL based on RADAR altimeter and the elevation at the point. There are 2 seconds to go to the VDOT tower standing at 307 MSL, with rates the terrorist were making, the last inputs were 68 and 65 feet lost per second, we are below the VDOT tower and the witnesses who thought 77 hit the tower are confirmed. It looks like the FDR time of impact is close to 13:37:50, within two seconds of the RADAR return, are the two clocks this close?

1.74 NM, the real DME, when 1.5 DME is stored. How? The DME is stored at a resolution of 0.25 DME and reasonable accuracy of DME is 0.23 NM. 0.25 storage resolution, and 0.23 NM accuracy, can be stored as 1.5 DME. So this position backed with RADAR information, is plausible based on the real world. Rebuttal will be the DME accuracy is 0.1 NM, this is based on test equipment and ground station, not the combined DME system (ground transmitter, airborne receiver) accuracy encountered in-flight.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by beachnut]

I watched the well done video on the pilot's group website but was wondering if they were infering that a remote missle drone was dropped from the belly of flight 77 plane enroute and they were sharing remote technicals accounting for the odd sudden changes? Did anybody else get this jist?