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: 24
40
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 


There is no need to alert, because we are watching this thread. You are correct that the current discussion is off topic and does not belong in this thread, but after several warnings, post removals, and post edits to several members, some of you continue to go off topic.

If this continues, the next step taken will be a temporary post ban, and to show that I'm not biased, I can do two at a time, or even three.

Please discuss the topic and not each other.




posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   
This descent into personal insults and character attacks is the direct result of the originator of the cartoon in the OP which uses a deceptive math technique which will not stand on it's on. Using the same formulas, one can come up with a number of different G's required which are entirely plausible. No, I'm not going to search for the links because calculations are posted through out this thread and on other Forums proving the OP wrong.

This cartoon was the result of an original math error some 6 months ago. Instead of simply correcting the math error another method was devised in an attempt to prove a fraudulent point.

Because of the fraudulent math, the originator of the cartoon has little alternative other than a false appeal to authority and personal attacks on those who critique the deceptive methods used.

It is quite obvious that the OP will not admit to deceptive math, but will continue to quote an aircraft position that is unknown and refer to the FDR which has missing values for the portion of flight depicted in the OP.

The only solution is to close the thread, because it will only descent further into personal insults and off topic discussions. There is nothing further to be gained by keeping the thread open.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 07:50 AM
link   

posted by Craig Ranke CIT



posted by acura_el2000
Ok, so that's the flight path, why would the plane need to "pull out" of the dive? It never needed to, nor did it.

The math might be correct that it would need 34G's to pull out, but there is no need for the plane to do so, as it would just deflect off the ground, and ram into the Pentagon anyway.

Your post has alot of logical information, however you need to look at all view points on the issue before becoming convinced on a certain one.

That particular vector totally misses the light poles which are critical to the official flight path. The 1st light pole allegedly struck, is about 500 feet from the Pentagon wall. If aircraft would just deflect off the ground, then there would be a lot fewer crashes into the ground. Aircraft do not simply deflect to a horizontal flight when reaching ground level, especially after having their wings battered by five 247 pound light poles. Commercial 757s require an extremely delicate fingertip touch on the controls and a Cessna trained rookie would overcorrect.



The official aircraft also needed to strike the other four light poles which were further down the hill. Then it needed to pull up before the bottom of the hill in order to complete the level flight across the lawn as attested to by the official parking lot security videos, and confirmed by the Pentagon Building Performance Report.

The 10.14 Gs required for the lowest possible hypothetical altitude to the top of the VDOT antenna is not possible. The 34 Gs you mention from the last altitude recorded by the alleged Flight 77 FDR is even more impossible.

In actuality, the actual aircraft has now been proven over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo, making even reaching the #1 light pole a total impossibility, and relegating this hypothesis to un-necessary status.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


So this is your excuse for poor posting behavior? You don't agree with the topic? I have news for you, we have plenty of members that don't agree with each other and don't resort to personal insults. What is even more surprising is that you guys claim to be pilots some of whom fly commercial airliners, yet you don't appear to have the levelheadedness I would expect from someone with this type of responsibility. If it is true, then please tell me which planes you fly, so that I will not be on one of them.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Do you call him Captain Bob because you have no control over your emotions, Pinch?


Merely an honorific bestowed upon the good "Captain" by your buddy Nick at OC Weekly. He should be proud. Methinks the dude doth protest too much.

As far as how this relates to G Force calculations in this thread, Captain Bob was wrong on the C-130 departure time with regards to the ground stop, on the Herk's departure flight path and on DCA's southern approach plates with regards to ADW's Camp Springs 1 departure, has stated the radar returns of AA77 show it flying right up to the very edge of P-56 at low altitude (even though nobody saw that) so why should we believe his aeronautical prowess when it comes to calculating G-force conditions?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


SP.....I have to take a little issue with you, on your 'fingertip' comment, as it pertains to flying a B757.

In fact, a 'Cessna' or a 'Piper' feels incredibly 'light' to an Airline Pilot, after being used to flying a large jet.

Personal story: Years ago, when I was just learning in a Cessna 150, I was shocked at how much more 'force' was required, the 'feel' when I flew a Cessna 172.

Fast-forward, years later....I had been flying the DC-10 for some years, and went to check-out in a Cessna 210, to rent it for a trip up to Lake Powell, in AZ. Of course, after 'vetting' my experience, we went flying....and I remember this young Flight Instructor, who was tasked with the 'check-out', commenting on how I used just two fingers on the control wheel.

So, you see....it is relative. You fly a Cessna 150, and a cessna 210 feels 'heavy' on the controls to you, in comparison.

You spend a few thousand hours in a DC-10, or a B757 or B767 or even a B727....and you get used to the 'feel'....and a small airlplane feels surprisingly light on the controls.

No....a person with a couple of hundred hours in 'light' airplanes would find that it takes more force than expected to operate the controls of a large jet. YES...they are actuated by hydraulics....but there is a 'feel' system built-in. Think of the power-steering in your car. Most modern large commercial jets also have 'speed-sensitive' programming....especially when it comes to elevator inputs.

So, on one hand you are correct, at high speeds at high altitudes, it takes a gentle hand....at lower altitudes, at lower speeds, more force is required, but we still 'feel' it....at HIGH speeds and low altitudes....I have no experience there, else I'd be dead. But I can infer, from my times in the Simulators (which won't kill you) that your 'average' pilot with a couple of hundred of hours, and some familiarization with the cockpit...excuse me, "Flight Deck"...arrangement, could fly a commercial airliner.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


If you don't like the thread, just stop posting in it. There is no need to close the thread. If you feel the math in the original post is incorrect, then please post a good rebuttal with proper sourcing. So far all you have been doing, besides personal instults, is posting about possible inacurracies in navigational equipment(unsourced as far as I can tell). It doesn't tak an FDR to come up with the final leg of the flight, if the official story is true. The plane had to have been on a specific path with very little room for shifting in any direction for the tower to be missed and the light poles hit and the aircraft to level off perhaps feet off from the Pentalawn. Where is your proof that this is possible given the claimed speeds and necessary decent rate before pulling up? How is P4T's math flawed?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Commercial 757s require an extremely delicate fingertip touch on the controls and a Cessna trained rookie would overcorrect.

Can you state this as fact, or is this just conjecture?

Regardless, Hani Hanjour was not a "cessna trained rookie". I encourage you to look at the facts and realise that in fact he was qualified and certified for this flight.


The 10.14 Gs required for the lowest possible hypothetical altitude to the top of the VDOT antenna is not possible. The 34 Gs you mention from the last altitude recorded by the alleged Flight 77 FDR is even more impossible.

R Mackey's analysis shows that this is complete rubbish, and is in fact artificially inflated values, essentially lies propagated by CIT / P4T.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
R Mackey's analysis shows that this is complete rubbish, and is in fact artificially inflated values, essentially lies propagated by CIT / P4T.


Reported. We do not lie nor do we propagate lies.

You do understand that PFT's presentation was in DIRECT response to R.Mackey's flawed analysis right? There were no 4 G's represented in the data and the DATA- including G's-not the lat/longs--are present all the way up until the alleged impact.

You can't apply blanket denial and just carry on as if R Mackey's quick little analysis is the final word. Your bias is showing.

I dare you... absolutely dare you to go to PFT's forum. I will usher you in if you'd. Let Rob and co explain it to you so you can stop this nonsense.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
reply to post by pinch
 


There is no need to alert, because we are watching this thread. You are correct that the current discussion is off topic and does not belong in this thread, but after several warnings, post removals, and post edits to several members, some of you continue to go off topic.

If this continues, the next step taken will be a temporary post ban, and to show that I'm not biased, I can do two at a time, or even three.

Please discuss the topic and not each other.


Hal,

How can a reply to a certain post be off topic when it addresses another post specifically, yet the post being addressed is not off topic and stays? Can i reply to posts here or will it be removed again? This has happened twice.

Just curious as to how you guys moderate over here.

At Pilots For 9/11 Truth forums, we never delete a members post, even off topic or attacks. We just split, move, warn and suspend. So im a bit confused as to how you justify deleting posts as "off topic" when its a direct reply to a post which stays.

This post
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Was a direct reply to this post
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Inclusive with an email from Kolstad clarifying his credentails/experience.

With that said, if anyone has questions regarding Kolstad since Pinch claims are very wrong, please feel free to email us as it appears we arent allowed to reply to the post in question.

Thank you

Capt Rob


typo

[edit on 9-10-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   



Regardless, Hani Hanjour was not a "cessna trained rookie". I encourage you to look at the facts and realise that in fact he was qualified and certified for this flight.


Really? He was trained and qualified enough to fly into a dive/descent at 535 mph from the top of the VDOT tower or even much higher according to the FDR, as he then pulls up to level out(at 10-34 G's) and carefully thead himself through a needle-eye path of 5 light poles, while he misses the VDOT camera mast and overhead sign then quickly within a nano second tilting his right wing up to hit the fence/generator trailer and then his left wing down to hit the vent structure with his left engine (can you explain how he did that at 535 mph) to make a perfect impact without wrecking on the lawn?

Really?



[edit on 9-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Reported. We do not lie nor do we propagate lies.

You are doing so by claiming that 10g or above are required values. They are not, and are based wholly in manipulating values to extremes. Three separate analyses have shown that this is entirely wrong.


You can't apply blanket denial and just carry on as if R Mackey's quick little analysis is the final word. Your bias is showing.

I am not denying anything, the figures speak for themselves.


I dare you... absolutely dare you to go to PFT's forum. I will usher you in if you'd. Let Rob and co explain it to you so you can stop this nonsense.

I tried to get some explanation here, but that failed. If this analysis is indeed accurate, perhaps you could explain to me why such a tiny arc is used, rather than Mackey's parabolic trajectory?


Really? He was trained and qualified enough to fly into a dive/descent at 535 mph from the top of the VDOT tower or even much higher according to the FDR, as he then pulls up to level out(at 10-34 G's) and carefully thead himself through a needle-eye path of 5 light poles, while he misses the VDOT camera mast and overhead sign to make a perfect impact without wrecking on the lawn?

Really?

Craig, by this logic no pilot is trained for any unique scenario. This is a ludicrous line of reasoning. How about I give you a simple question to answer?

Was Hani Hanjour a certified and trained commercial pilot?

edited for minor grammar

[edit on 9-10-2008 by exponent]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Exponent (and others),

Please review the OP video again and pay particular attention to the 6 min mark. Specifically the arc drawn under the red line (which represents FDR trends), and how we matched it to Mackeys parabola and exposed his false conclusions.

Mackeys conclusions state his calculations are consistent with the FDR data (albeit in a double negative approach). When we show him that his calculations do not exist in the FDR data (4.0 G/1.62 G required for 4 second duration), he then goes on to say the FDR is "missing up to 6 seconds". (Yet Anti-Sophist admits there can be no more than two seconds missing).

How can Mackeys calculations be consistent with "missing data"?

Not only is Mackey deceptive with his conclusions, but he is also deceptive with his excuses for his conclusions.

Regards,
Rob



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
How can Mackeys calculations be consistent with "missing data"?

Not only is Mackey deceptive with his conclusions, but he is also deceptive with his excuses for his conclusions.


His quote does not seem to be any claim of consistency with missing data, in fact the exact quote seems to be this:

Based on these calculations, there is absolutely no case to be made that (1) the obstacles are inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77, (2) the FDR data is inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77, or (3) the FDR data is inconsistent with impacts to the obstacles themselves. Furthermore, with the exception of Case F, all of the various requirements lead to a trajectory that is easily reconcilable with an amateur pilot at the controls. Even Case F is plausible, it is merely unexpected.


Are you misquoting him, or are you quoting something I am unaware of?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   


Really? He was trained and qualified enough to fly into a dive/descent at 535 mph from the top of the VDOT tower or even much higher according to the FDR, as he then pulls up to level out(at 10-34 G's) and carefully thead himself through a needle-eye path of 5 light poles, while he misses the VDOT camera mast and overhead sign then quickly within a nano second tilting his right wing up to hit the fence/generator trailer and then his left wing down to hit the vent structure with his left engine (can you explain how he did that at 535 mph) to make a perfect impact without wrecking on the lawn?


Really?

Craig, by this logic no pilot is trained for any unique scenario. This is a ludicrous line of reasoning. How about I give you a simple question to answer?

Was Hani Hanjour a certified and trained commercial pilot?


Stop it Ex. Please. Don't try and move the goal posts. Both you and I know Hani's background. Do I need to bring up Peggy Chevrette? We can start there if you want to talk about Hani's commercial license.

How many coincidences and inconsistencies can you explain away?

Rob already responded to your posts about the G's.



[edit on 9-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

[edit on 9-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Stop it Ex. Please. Don't try and move the goal posts. Both you and I know Hani's background. Do I need to bring up Peggy Chevrette? We can start there if you want to talk about Hani's commercial license.

How many coincidences and inconsistencies can you explain away?


There is no movement of goal posts, by your definition of "trained" used above, no pilot can be trained to deal with any situation which they have not already encountered. This is exactly the opposite of what training is used for. Hani Hanjour, despite admittedly being poorly skilled, was appropriately qualified and not by any means incapable of performing the manuevers seen that day.

Why you have to twist and squirm around this point is obvious, but it also clearly shows that you are intent on belittling Hani Hanjours ability in order to make it seem more likely he did not pilot AA77.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by johndoex
How can Mackeys calculations be consistent with "missing data"?

Not only is Mackey deceptive with his conclusions, but he is also deceptive with his excuses for his conclusions.


His quote does not seem to be any claim of consistency with missing data, in fact the exact quote seems to be this:

Based on these calculations, there is absolutely no case to be made that ...... (2) the FDR data is inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77, or (3) the FDR data is inconsistent with impacts to the obstacles themselves.


Are you misquoting him, or are you quoting something I am unaware of?


Did you watch the video? We quote him directly.

Now read the above conclusion again.. i snipped the irrelevant parts and bolded the most relevant...

"Based on [Mackey] calculations..." there most certainly is a case to be made that the FDR data is NOT consistent with impact of flight 77..... the FDR data is inconsistent to the obtacles themselves.

Mackey is referencing his calculations with an FDR that he also claims is missing seconds. His double negative approach is actually a rather clever way to disguise his deceptive approach.

Not only are Mackeys G forces not represented in the FDR data which Mackey claims his calculations are "consistent" with, but his intial vertical speed requirements are also inconsistent with the FDR data. So the claim Mackey makes that "no case can be made" is completely false. His claim that there is "no insight into aircraft pitch or vertical speed.." is also false.

Exponent, question...

Is the FDR data, as plotted by the NTSB (no excuses, no speculation for "missing seconds"), just a direct plot as provided by the NTSB including impact time from their Flight Path Study, altitudes in csv file, etc.. again as plotted by the NTSB,

1. Is the FDR data consistent with an Impact of Flight 77?
2. Is the FDR data as plotted by the NTSB consistent with an impact to obstacles?

Please answer these questions. A simple yes or no will do as its black and white at this point regarding the data as provided by the NTSB.

Regards,
Rob

typo

[edit on 9-10-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Nice. Stay on him Rob. We have to get him to see the light.

These people are dangerous to the truth when they are ill-informed.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I would reply to his Hani claims, but my post will most likely be removed for "off topic", while his stays...



(sorry mods, couldnt resist)




posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Did you watch the video? We quote him directly.

I did watch the video, and have now re-watched it. I can see no situation in which you quote R Mackey claiming that his model is consistent with missing data, simply that no case can be made that would show it to be inconsistent.

Can you point out specifically where you quote him saying this?


Exponent, question...

Is the FDR data, as plotted by the NTSB (no excuses, no speculation for "missing seconds"), just a direct plot as provided by the NTSB including impact time from their Flight Path Study, altitudes in csv file, etc.. again as plotted by the NTSB,

1. Is the FDR data consistent with an Impact of Flight 77?
2. Is the FDR data as plotted by the NTSB consistent with an impact to obstacles?

If we assume that the NTSBs impact time and therefore your extrapolated positioning of the FDR data is accurate, then no the FDR data is not consistent. However, if we look at all the information available then it can easily be shown that it is both consistent and well within performance limitations.

I know you are looking for a simple yes or no, but when you pre-empt the question with a series of requirements then we can hardly claim this is fair



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Nice. Stay on him Rob. We have to get him to see the light.

These people are dangerous to the truth when they are ill-informed.

Craig, by your definition of "trained", is any pilot trained to deal with unexpected circumstances? Does training mean a person experiences every potential scenario in order to confirm they are capable of handling it, or does it mean that a series of exercises are undertook imparting critical skills so a person can adapt these skills to any situation they might face?



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join