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: 25
40
<< 22  23  24   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
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




Hi Exponent,

Although your reply was a bit more convoluted than i expected (i did expect some spin over and above a simple "yes" or "no"), i respect the fact you admit the NTSB data does not support an impact.

Next set of questions...

1. If the data as plotted by the NTSB in their csv file and Flight Path Study is wrong, do you expect them to correct it as they have set precedent for in the past?

2. If above answer is no, do you accept the fact the NTSB is distributing data through the Freedom Of Information Act to the public which you admit is not consistent with an impact with the pentagon or obstacles?

3. Do you know more than the NTSB?




posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
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?


Trained as in skilled enough to perform these alleged maneuvers NO ONE saw him perform.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Hi Exponent,

Although your reply was a bit more convoluted than i expected (i did expect some spin over and above a simple "yes" or "no"), i respect the fact you admit the NTSB data does not support an impact.

Next set of questions...

I will answer your questions, but I expect you to answer mine in return.


1. If the data as plotted by the NTSB in their csv file and Flight Path Study is wrong, do you expect them to correct it as they have set precedent for in the past?

I wouldn't know, I suspect if it gathered any large scale attention they would certainly correct it, but I don't even know if they have been informed of their potential errors. I am no expert on either the NTSB or air crash investigation, so it would be presumptious of me to give a solid answer.


2. If above answer is no, do you accept the fact the NTSB is distributing data through the Freedom Of Information Act to the public which you admit is not consistent with an impact with the pentagon or obstacles?

It would appear they are yes, and indeed have done on several occasions. We know the original video they released was not aligned properly, and the more recent video, although produced in 2002, is also inaccurate.


3. Do you know more than the NTSB?

I doubt it, but let me point out that there's a difference between things the NTSB might be aware of, and things they have officially released.

The questions from my previous posts stand.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Trained as in skilled enough to perform these alleged maneuvers NO ONE saw him perform.

Do you have any evidence that he was not? I mean lets face it, he was certified as a commercial pilot wasn't he?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
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.


Great. I'll email you.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:08 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.

R mackey's analysis is complete rubbish. Well, maybe not completely rubbish, but rubbbish none-the-less. I read some of his work around a year ago and I don't care to go over it again, so I'm working from memory here.

Facts:
The EXACT flight path was NOT parabolic. Fitting a parabolic flight path only approximates what might have happened. How many data points did Mackey use to obtain his parabola? Where is his regression analysis that shows how well all of his data points fit the parabola? Any approximation is only valid, if there's mention of the error margin, or goodness of fit. It takes far more than three data points to fit a 'good' parabola.

Mackey concludes from his parabolic flight path that there was an average load of 4g. This leaves two possible scenarios:
1. The flight path was exactly circular, meaning that the radius was constant, so the plane was always experiencing a constant 4g force. We can discard this scenario, as Mackey used a parabolic flight path - not a circular one.

2. Given the parabolic flight path and an average 4g across the interval, there must have been points where the force was greater than 4g and other points where the force was less than 4g. This is easily verifiable by using the Mean Value Theorem (applicable here due to a closed, bounded interval). When the rate of change of the parabola's gradient is larger (further from the pentagon) the forces must have been greater than 4g. As the plane levelled out, close to the Pentagon, the forces would have been lower than 4g.

There is a distinct difference between averaged forces across an interval, as opposed to instantaneous forces experienced at individual points. We do not have a constant stream of data from the flight, so we have to approximate using intervals. The smaller the intervals (in other words, the more data points), the better the approximations will be. That's why calculus works, when we shrink interval widths to an arbitrarily small absolute value.

So, while Mackey's work looks like 'cute' mathematics to the untrained eye, it is NOTHING more than guess work, based on a poorly approximated flight path. Between the 'known' points of the flight path, there is no way to tell how many minor variations in flight path the plane experienced. There could have been many instants where the force loads could have peaked, due to the pilots over or under correcting their path.

If Mackey concludes an average 4g across an interval, then there were points during that interval which experienced higher than a 4g force.

NONE of us will know the exact g force loading on the plane, unless we know the exact continuous data stream of the flight parameters. NONE of us have that information.

Also, the plane actually flew in 3-D space. Reducing the problem to a 2-D frame of reference, based on an alleged 'straight' approach, further adds to the errors. There is a third velocity and acceleration vector that is being conveniently overlooked by all of these overly simplified flight path models.

By the way, I neglected to type the word 'alleged' when I refer to the flight path and the plane.

At least Mackey is prepared to put his name to his work, which shows more balls than some other people.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


I removed this post and will reply by u2u.

[edit on 10/9/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
The EXACT flight path was NOT parabolic. Fitting a parabolic flight path only approximates what might have happened. How many data points did Mackey use to obtain his parabola?

Mackey was not attempting to recreate the flight path exactly, he provided 6 different scenarios for different initial conditions, each path using only 3 data points as you must be aware by your mention of three points further on in your post.

4g is the worst case scenario, the maximum theoretical load if the plane flew a perfect parabola. We are all aware this was not the case, and indeed there's evidence that Hani Hanjour was in what I understand is known as PIO or Pilot Induced Oscillation at the last recorded point.

R Mackey's analysis is not designed to tell us exactly which path the plane took, simply whether it is possible for the plane to have taken any of these paths. His analysis shows that it was in fact perfectly possible under all initial conditions.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by exponent]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Trained as in skilled enough to perform these alleged maneuvers NO ONE saw him perform.

Do you have any evidence that he was not? I mean lets face it, he was certified as a commercial pilot wasn't he?



"I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had," said Peggy Chevrette, the JetTech manager."

"The operations manager for the now-defunct JetTech flight school in Phoenix said she called the FAA inspector that oversaw her school three times in January and February 2001 to express her concerns about Hanjour. "

"Chevrette, the flight school manager, said she told Anthony she believed Hanjour could not write or speak English fluently as required to get a U.S. commercial pilot's license."

"The thing that really concerned me was that John had a conversation in the hallway with Hani and realized what his skills were at that point and his ability to speak English," Chevrette said.

Chevrette said she was surprised when the FAA official suggested the school might consider getting a translator to help Hanjour.

"He offered a translator," Chevrette said. "Of course, I brought up the fact that went against the rules that require a pilot to be able to write and speak English fluently before they even get their license."

www.foxnews.com...


More here:
z10.invisionfree.com...



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

1. If the data as plotted by the NTSB in their csv file and Flight Path Study is wrong, do you expect them to correct it as they have set precedent for in the past?

I wouldn't know, I suspect if it gathered any large scale attention they would certainly correct it,


*SNIP* Link to website removed


but I don't even know if they have been informed of their potential errors.


*SNIP* Link to website removed

*SNIP* Link to website removed

There are alot more, search "Air America Radio debate" on our forum.



I am no expert on either the NTSB or air crash investigation, so it would be presumptious of me to give a solid answer.


Thank you for being honest. Hopefully the above links are helpful in your research.



2. If above answer is no, do you accept the fact the NTSB is distributing data through the Freedom Of Information Act to the public which you admit is not consistent with an impact with the pentagon or obstacles?

It would appear they are yes, and indeed have done on several occasions. We know the original video they released was not aligned properly, and the more recent video, although produced in 2002, is also inaccurate.


The NTSB states they want everything as accurate as possible *SNIP* (Link to website removed) when distributing data through the FOIA. The NTSB accounts for a clock annotation error and MCP error. Why hasnt the NTSB accounted for any other errors you and your cohorts claim (eg, missing seconds, rotated map.. etc)?

Also, to get an idea of precedent regarding NTSB animation errors and corrections made, please click here.

The NTSB corrects an error in their animation regarding the Little Rock crash which is only a 3 degree error. You and your cohorts claim the NTSB is off by more than 10 degrees with AA77 Animation. Why hasnt the NTSB corrected AA77 animation regarding your claims when they corrected a small 3 degree error in the past? Have you contacted them regarding your claims of error?



3. Do you know more than the NTSB?

I doubt it,


Its clear you dont. We*SNIP* (Link to website removed) have similar experience...


The questions from my previous posts stand.


My apologies,

Mackeys conclusion were that his calculations were consistent with the FDR data (when you reverse his double negative approach). This is false.

When we pointed out his false claims in our presentation, he then backpeddled into another false claim that the FDR data is missing seconds (to justify his initial conclusions). He did this after the presentation.

We directly quote Mackey in our presentation in the OP (Aldo narrates it), and now full presentation started in another thread here at ATS.



Do you have any evidence that [Hani] was not [certified]? I mean lets face it, he was certified as a commercial pilot wasn't he?


Do you have proof of such? Or are you just making this claim based off of what you been told....

Hani's instructors beg to differ. A pilot certificate can be forged (its only a piece of paper at that point in time). FAA inspector John Anthony cannot be found.

Regards,
Rob

typo

[edit on 9-10-2008 by johndoex]

Mod Edit: Please do not provide links to other discussion boards without permission as stated in the Terms and Conditions.

[edit on 10/11/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Mackey was not attempting to recreate the flight path exactly, he provided 6 different scenarios for different initial conditions, each path using only 3 data points as you must be aware by your mention of three points further on in your post.

Three data points for a parabolic path? Seriously? Only three data points?



4g is the worst case scenario, the maximum theoretical load if the plane flew a perfect parabola.

No, it's not. If he calculated 4g across an INTERVAL, then the Mean Value Theorem states that at some point during the interval, there was a 4g load, while other points in the interval experienced lower and higher loads. Remember, he's not using a circular path, he's using a parabolic one. The radius is NOT constant, neither is the force - they are always changing.

If the maximum load was 4g, at what point on the flight path did it occur?
Given that you (or Mackey) can answer the above question, how can you determine ANY pointwise data values, when none of us have a continuous data stream to analyse?

It's not poosible to obtain ANY pointwise approximations that are 'good', considering that we only have a discrete set of data points that define intervals.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw




4g is the worst case scenario, the maximum theoretical load if the plane flew a perfect parabola.

No, it's not. If he calculated 4g across an INTERVAL, then the Mean Value Theorem states that at some point during the interval, there was a 4g load, while other points in the interval experienced lower and higher loads. Remember, he's not using a circular path, he's using a parabolic one. The radius is NOT constant, neither is the force - they are always changing.


We knew someone would realize this. Thank you tezzajw!

We didnt really want to get into this since it would only confuse more. But you are absolutely correct.

Keep in mind, Mackey claims the "4G's"is required for his full duration along the entire parabola. I dont think Mackey even realizes his own mistake in this manner....


Edit to add: Folks, we messed up on our initial article. We make no excuse. We noted it, updated it, and it stands. We wont delete our "mistakes". We work through them. It took a bit of time to shake off the rust on my physics knowledge, and to learn how to create a 3D scale model with the same animation programs which created Feature films you see today... but the fact remains, when we make a mistake, we dont erase it, we dont make excuses for it, we correct it as to not make the same mistake again. When our "opposition" makes a mistake? Well... you can decide for yourselves.



[edit on 9-10-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
\When our "opposition" makes a mistake? Well... you can decide for yourselves.

Yeah, kudos to you for doing so.

Wouldn't it be great if NTSB and FAA would admit to their own mistakes and correct them.

I should throw in NIST as well. They haven't fixed some of their mistakes either.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Wouldn't it be great if NTSB and FAA would admit to their own mistakes and correct them.



If you want my personal opinion and those of our core membership *SNIP* (Link to website removed) (although we try to refrain from giving opinion), there is a reason why the NTSB/FBI hasnt admited errors claimed by our "opposition" (eg, rotated map, missing seconds... etc), while the NTSB has admitted other errors/mistakes (clock annotation, MCP errors).


Keep up the good work tezzajw! *SNIP* (Recruiting comment removed)

Regards,
Rob

fixed link


[edit on 9-10-2008 by johndoex]

Mod Edit: Recruiting is not allowed as stated in the Terms and Conditions.

[edit on 10/11/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Three data points for a parabolic path? Seriously? Only three data points?

You really need to read his analysis, it is a direct comparison to the one done by P4T. The quote below indicates how you misunderstand the purpose of it, and hopefully when you have re-read it you will see the problem with your quote.


If the maximum load was 4g, at what point on the flight path did it occur?
Given that you (or Mackey) can answer the above question, how can you determine ANY pointwise data values, when none of us have a continuous data stream to analyse?

It's not poosible to obtain ANY pointwise approximations that are 'good', considering that we only have a discrete set of data points that define intervals.


JDX, I don't have time to reply to you right now, but suffice it to say we don't disagree much with the latest stuff you've posted. I will try and reply either in the next couple of hours or at some point tomorrow (work commitments)

edit:
Actually I should point this out to start with

Mackeys conclusion were that his calculations were consistent with the FDR data (when you reverse his double negative approach). This is false.

This is a bizarre position to take, and it is not accurate. Allow me to show the two statements and how they differ
  • Calculated data is consistent with FDR data
    This implies that
    • FDR data exists
    • calculated data matches it

  • Calculated data is not inconsistent with FDR data
    This implies simply that no data exists to contradict the calculations


Your characterisation of his statement implies FDR data exists, his original statement does not.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by exponent]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


Rob Balsamo....I began to see the whole thing, then the Google stuff said, it was about an hour long.

I appreciate your nice comments, and I acknowledge your recognition of my bona fides....but, I will have to go to bed, and see the rest later.

Hope you will understand.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



Ralph and others wondering about INS/IRS repositioning itself inflight,
It has been a while and I can't remember for sure about 757/767, but on 787/777 when TOGA is pushed for Take Off, the IRUs take a snap shot of the GPS position of the actual take off runway and update the aircraft position in all IRUs.
I hope this helps!
Ross Aimer



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

posted by tezzajw
The EXACT flight path was NOT parabolic. Fitting a parabolic flight path only approximates what might have happened. How many data points did Mackey use to obtain his parabola?

So, while Mackey's work looks like 'cute' mathematics to the untrained eye, it is NOTHING more than guess work, based on a poorly approximated flight path. Between the 'known' points of the flight path, there is no way to tell how many minor variations in flight path the plane experienced. There could have been many instants where the force loads could have peaked, due to the pilots over or under correcting their path.


posted by exponent
Mackey was not attempting to recreate the flight path exactly, he provided 6 different scenarios for different initial conditions, each path using only 3 data points as you must be aware by your mention of three points further on in your post.

4g is the worst case scenario, the maximum theoretical load if the plane flew a perfect parabola. We are all aware this was not the case, and indeed there's evidence that Hani Hanjour was in what I understand is known as PIO or Pilot Induced Oscillation at the last recorded point.

R Mackey's analysis is not designed to tell us exactly which path the plane took, simply whether it is possible for the plane to have taken any of these paths. His analysis shows that it was in fact perfectly possible under all initial conditions.

In other words, NASA scientist Ryan Mackey's work is complete nonsense?

No surprise there. Mackey must work for NIST also.



[edit on 11/6/08 by SPreston]




top topics



 
40
<< 22  23  24   >>

log in

join