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.

 

G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible

page: 20
40
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex

Originally posted by beachnut
I designed approaches for the Air Force, we used in desert storm, I went to TERPS school, I worked current ops shop for years getting world wide dip clearances; being familiar with TERPS is a good thing to check and find errors in approaches to protect your crews.


Civilian is very different than military. You'd know that if you actually called L3. But then again, you refuse. Just like you refuse to debate P4T.

Terps is TERPS. We have to design our approaches to meet FAA/TERPS. Both civilian and military fly our approaches in the USAF. If they are capable. You have to study the approach to see if you can meet the criteria without upsetting the pax.

Your military is different from civilian does not mean anything for this discussion.

The salesman at L3 would say? 77 did not hit the Pentagon?; does he support your implications based on a INS crashing that did not crash?

Why can I use your methods in the video to support many different G loads? Why do you use a level off not used in real flying?

Why do you level off all at once, something the terrorist never did?

You know the terrorist pilot did not have to level off to hit the posts and impact the Pentagon. The lens in the parking lot camera does not show 77 level, it shows distortion of the terrain and you can not use the lousy lens to describe the real flight with accuracy.

Impact damage to the foundation would not be a factor just like a hard landing on a runway most the energy in the horizontal, by over a factor of 18. So the claim of damage to the foundation is not true with a 2600 feet per minute descent, making the 10 G and 34 G claims special cases, and arbitrary.

77 was at or lower than the VDOT tower at 307 MSL. 34 G is out the window; the witnesses used by CIT support 77 being as low as the VDOT tower, or hitting the tower. There is room to go past on either side of the VDOT tower.

NTSB data shows 77 over 6 seconds from impact when you claim it is closer; yet offer no substantive evidence.




posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Im looking at jetBlue JEPP plate for SFO ILS 28R dated 14DEC07. Now try to find us an approach where the IM is required.

The IM hasnt been used in a VERY long time for precision approach (read: required), it doesnt mean they are all decomissioned. But thanks for once again proving your intellectual dishonesty.


At no point or at any time did I ever say they were REQUIRED. It's quite obvious that I was simply explaining WHY ILS Approaches use Marker Beacons and Inner Markers are STILL part of some systems. I made no reference to it's frequency of use at all, YOU DID.

Why do you always try to divert attention when you are WRONG?



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Reading this discussion I will think twice before taking my next trip. I may opt for Amtrak instead.
: )



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex

Originally posted by beachnut
I designed approaches for the Air Force, we used in desert storm, I went to TERPS school, I worked current ops shop for years getting world wide dip clearances; being familiar with TERPS is a good thing to check and find errors in approaches to protect your crews.


Civilian is very different than military. You'd know that if you actually called L3. But then again, you refuse. Just like you refuse to debate P4T.


I missed this earlier.... TERPS applies to ALL approaches and departures whether drawn by civilian or military. The criteria is EXACTLY the same. In fact, Canada uses it too as I'm pretty sure do a lot of other Countries.

While it is possible there are some military only approaches in remote environments, they would be very rare and it's non-compliance would be annotated on the charts.

Why are you wrong so often about things related to flying? Do you have a real FAA Certificate or is it that you just lack of lot of knowledge? The fact that you don't have an ATP really shows.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
Why can I use your methods in the video to support many different G loads? Why do you use a level off not used in real flying?

Why do you level off all at once, something the terrorist never did?


Absolutely - I could suggest (for sensationalism) that the plane had to pull up from a 6 degree dive in 25mS which amounts to a radius of about 58m (arc length 6m) producing 100g but far more reasonable & feasible solutions are possible and naturally more likely.



77 was at or lower than the VDOT tower at 307 MSL. 34 G is out the window; the witnesses used by CIT support 77 being as low as the VDOT tower, or hitting the tower. There is room to go past on either side of the VDOT tower.


That's a point I was going to mention - the accounts of the Paiks (2 of them I believe). They mentioned AA77 being at or below the top of the tower and actually clipping it which is a better indication of true altitude and position than the other references. Was there ever any confirmation of their mention of the tower being repaired the next morning?



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by syeager9
Reading this discussion I will think twice before taking my next trip. I may opt for Amtrak instead.
: )


With the possibility of Captain Bob at the controls, damn good idea. Anyone who doesn't understand departure procedures and approach plates and why, in the case of ADW's Camp Springs departure and the southern approaches to DCA, they do not conflict in any way, shape or form, I wouldn't trust him or his coterie of Sky Kings with flying a kite.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


As before, the central question remains: why your fascination with and seeking attention from forum posters who matter not a wit to the end-goal of bringing the perps to justice?

Why the desire to perpetuate the discussion into the most minute FAR discussions? Isn’t the discussion about something else entirely? Is it not true that if your assertions were as obvious as you like to claim, this wouldn’t happen? Is your interest in minuta DME/ILS/general FAR information, or brinigng the perps to justice?

Why the constant belittling of posters by way of making fun of their screen names? This is childish to the ninth degree and speaks volumes about where your head is at. Is the focus childish “neener – neener” banter, or bringing the perps to justice?

Why the constant application of the terms "pseudo skeptic" and "liar" to anyone who disagrees with you? Is the focus applying labels in an attempt to smear those who don’t agree with you, or bringing the perps to justice?

Why the constant reference to JREF? Who cares what JREF’ers have to say? If your ‘smoking gun’ evidence is so solid, why are you so obsessed (yes, obsessed) with what those posters have to say? Shouldn’t/wouldn’t your evidence stand on it’s own without any defense needed? Is the goal the approval of JREF, or brining the perps to justice?

Actions speak louder than words and your actions speak very, very clearly.


[edit on 22-9-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Craig, I'm very interested in your response to my question in this post from page 17.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you plan to answer?



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


JDX....looked at CIT's opening post. It is complete nonsense. It is a desparate attempt to skew certain facts to fit his case.

All of this jibber-jabber from multiple sources, just clouds the issue.

Even a hack pilot with a few hundred hours knows how to fly over a point, and turn back to fly over it agan. It's the darn basics for flying a traffic pattern, for gosh sake!

AAL 77 was following a Highway here in Arlington named 'Columbia Pike'.

You, as a pilot, should know that the spot in your windshield that is fixed in your view is the point you will hit. You know this from experience, at admittedly slower speeds, landing speeds, to judge your touchdown point for a visual landing.

Now, imagine a maniac bent on a suicide crash into a building.
He's not worried about overstressing the airframe....but 34 Gs is a terrible red herring, designed to deflect the discussion. You, and all of your 'laughing buddies' at Jetblue (I'm biting my tongue, here...) know that elevator authority is speed-related...even full aft control column movement, at the speeds involved, would result in an accelerated stall, and substantial airframe damage. But no way would it pull 34Gs, until hitting a solid object, such as a building. AND mechanical engineers can tell us the REAL values encountered by the victims of that crash.

As to the rest of the post that I am replying to....ya know, I remember when I was a cocky, young 'hotshot' with 4,000 hours. Heck! I was cocky at 500 hours. When I was Instructing, I saw it happen to people at about 200 hours.

So, your dismissive comments about the 'old-timers' (my words, not necessarily yours) are very disengenuous. Maybe, in 20-25 years, if you survive your arrogance, and when you have as much experience as I have, you will regret those comments. Come on back to me when YOU have 21,000 hours. OK?



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


No because it is off topic.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Do you deny this accurately represents the officially reported altitude?




posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig Ranke, what I have seen is only the NTSB DFDR readouts of the Navigation/Communication and FMS modes.

I also know that the ability of the DFDR to update rapidly-changing Headings, Altitudes and Airspeeds is limited. There is a time-lag, for each update.

Say the airplane, as it was diving and accelerating, reached 550K. This (factoring out the KIAS vs KCAS vs Groundspeed, we are estimating here) that is 3,333,000 ft/hour. Divide, and you get 55,550 ft/min. Divide again, and you get ~926 ft/sec.

Let's try it again, at 480K....now, it's 2,908,800 ft/hour...you can do the math, it works out to 808 ft/sec.

(remember, please...a Nautical Mile is 6,060 feet)

Even if the DFDR updates every quarter-second (maybe someone from Sundstrand can help?) we can see that a precise path, based on the Flight Recorder data, at speeds near the ground that are not expected, can be wildly interpreted.

Just because NTSB did their best, based on what they had to work with, does not a 'Conspiracy Theory' make!

The bodies were (apologies, to the families...) DNA identified. Airplane debris was recovered. Hundreds of First Responders, on scene almost immediately, say nothing to disagree with the fact of a B-757 crashing into the Pentagon.

On I-395, driving back and forth from my home to KDCA, where I commuted from....I could SEE the devastation.

If Pilots for Truth want to find truth, seems they need to open up a little.

Sorry....it's emotional for me, because I knew the FO on AAL 77.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Do you deny this accurately represents the officially reported altitude?


Craig, I thought you were in pursuit of the truth. Why is it that when you claim the NTSB got it entirely wrong this is perfectly acceptable, but when 'debunkers' claim they got it wrong, it is unthinkable and somehow at odds with reality?

We're not interested in proving the "official story", we're interested in knowing what happened this day. Even so I'm pretty sure what you're describing is dealt with by Mackey's Case F isn't it? Requiring only a 4g pullup, not a 34g pullup.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


No because it is off topic.


I don't think it is, but have it your way.

I invite you to this new thread to defend your theory

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Do you deny this accurately represents the officially reported altitude?



Didn't one of your star witnesses (Paik) state that it flew right over his head just above the roof tops further back to the SW?



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


No because it is off topic.


I find this hilarious. Because all of us can link to the darkbluesky post, and it IS NOT off-topic!

More deflection.

What point, now...??? Disrespecting the dead????

'Posturing' for one's ego boost? Believe me, I have no ego to bruise.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Do you deny this accurately represents the officially reported altitude?


And what is that NTSB reported altitude you have? How does it match up with the 273 foot RADAR Altimeter reading?

Show me the NTSB reported data placing Flight 77 at that exact position, at that altitude you call NTSB


Here is the NTSB reported position, it is 3400 feet to the west of your made up postion.

The yellow dot is the NTSB reported position, and that is good to 1500 feet, from a fully working INS (FMS system on Flight 77).



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


I'd like to know how many of these so-called 'experts' have actually been here....driven, and parked and walked around the Pentagon, to eyeball it for themselves??

beachnut's Google pic shows the I-395 freeway.....(I'm assuming it is oriented North Up...looks like it....)

The road 'Columbia Pike' does NOT go all the way to intersect the roadways, in that Google Satellite pic. But, the highway does run generally West to East. AND, it was the western portion of the Pentagon that was impacted.

When you drive by the Pentagon, on I-395, you see the SW segment, with the attendant huge parking lot. There is also a huge edifice, steps and such.....guess that's why that 'side' wasn't chosen for the attack.

BUT, as I exit I-395, on to Route 27 (Washington Blvd) then we see the devastated side. Look at the Google Satellite images, and figure it out.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   
ON THE "EXPLOSION" AT THE PENTAGON, ON "911". THIS WAS CAUSED BY ONE OF THE "CIA'S EXPLOSIVE FILLED SMALL DRONE PLANES" SIMILAR TO THE ONE'S USED IN IRAQ, WITH THE "FRONT MOUNTED CAMERAS". EARLY WITNESS HAD SEEN "PENTAGON SUPERVISORS"-"SHIRTS AND TIES" AND SOME HOLDING THEIR COATS OVER THEIR ARMS, THEY WERE PICKING UP "SMALL PLANE PARTS", FOR THIS IS WHAT THEY HAD TOLD THE EARLY WITNESSES. THE" EARLY WITTNESS" HAD SEEN "NO" BODIES, NEITHER "INSIDE", NOR 'OUTSIDE" OF THE PENTAGON.
THEN, ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE "TWIN TRADE TOWRS" AND "BUILDING 7". JESSE VENTURA, A FORMER "NAVY SEAL" HAD IT CONFIRMED THAT THE TWIN TRADE TOWERS WERE "TAKEN OUT" BY "INSIDE DETONATIONS", AS "NO" FOREIGN TERRORIST FLEW "NO" PLANES, INTO "NO" BUILDINGS, "NOR CRASHED ANY WHERE, ON "911".
IN FACT, ALL THE "911" PASSENGERS OF ANY COMMERCIAL JETS, HAD ENDED UP AT THE CLEVELAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. THEY WERE THERE FOR ABOUT A WEEK, THEN A "WHITE WINDOWLESS MILITARY AIRPLANE" PICKED UP AL THE PASSENGERS, AND FLEW THEM TO A SPOT
"TWO MILES FROM THE "FALSE UNITED 93 CRASH SITE: ASHORT TIME LATER, "1500 BODY PARTS" WERE FOUND AT THE SAME SPOT. I'M NOT ALLOWED ON THIS SIGHT TO SAY WHOM MAY ORDERED THE "WITNESS TO BE HID".
SO, ESSENTIALITY, THERE WERE NO "VALID REASONS" FOR THE "U.S. TO INVADE "AFGANAZATION, NOR, "IRAQ", HUH?
TOSAVE THE WORLD, SEE: "ANGELGILS-INSTANT-HEALINGS.COM".
AMEN. ~ANGELGIL~



new topics




 
40
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join