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: 3
40
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:08 AM
link   
First of all, we don't need the FDR to prove that a Boeing 757, AA77, struck the Pentagon. There is an abundance of physical and other evidence to prove that it did.

Other than the erroneous statements that the original math formulas provided by R. Mackey and Myraid at the JREF are wrong, the entire premise of this video is based upon the assumption of a known exact longitudinal location of AA77. Pfffft and Cap'n BoB do not know the longitudinal location of the aircraft along it's flight path, they only pretend to know.

The NTSB did not do a typical Accident Investigation, they only did a flight path study for the FBI who was the lead investigator for this attack. All of the data that is now available in the way of Radar returns, etc was not available to the NTSB during their original flight path study. Several seconds of data are missing from the FDR, yet pffft denies this and uses the original NTSB calculated impact time for their entire premise of both altitude and position. Those who know and understand FDR's know that data can be missing and has been missing from FDR's in the past. Therefore, the calculations based upon altitude at the VDOT antenna are based upon a false premise. The altitude they use for the video calculations was PRIOR to the Antenna. Therefore, no matter how they calculated the descent or what formulas they use, it is all based on a FALSE PREMISE.

The statement and presumption that the aircraft was level across the Pentagon lawn is FALSE. The one video available is from a "fish eye" lens and it is impossible to determine the pitch attitude/descend rate of the aircraft. While it appears to be level, this in no way indicates that it actually was due to the distortion of the "fish eye" lens and the small pixel difference between a level attitude and a pitch down descent.

It appears that the landscape from the Navy Annex toward the Pentagon is too level in the animation. There is a constant slope from the Annex to the West Pentagon wall and it appears that this is not correct in the animation. There will be studied in more detail once the entire video is available online. I don't know of anyone who would pay $$ for this garbage and it's false conclusions.

There are no FDR experts at pffft. They are simply a group of hackers that managed to get the frame layout to decode the raw data. The data decode is in some cases different from the NTSB decoded data. In other words, there is absolutely no guarantee that pffft has the correct data from the FDR, particularly for it's precise use as a forensic tool.

No FDR company or FDR expert in the entire world supports their findings. No Pilot's Union or Airline supports their findings. No Mainstream Media outlet supports their findings. Due to their previous hostile and adversarial approach it is highly unlikely that the NTSB will ever respond to their findings.

No comprehensive technically oriented paper has ever been published by pffft, only videos for selling DVD's to the gullible are produced to report their findings.

Although Cap'n BoB boasts that their membership is growing by leaps and bounds it isn't. Their membership includes only a handful of all of the pilots in the world and very few have viable credentials. Most of those who belong to the group have Political motivations and are malcontents and activists in other areas, as well.

R. Mackey and Myraid will address the attacks on their math at a later time, but it won't take 5 months.




posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex

Originally posted by Reheat
He, he. Now, how could I or anyone else prevent you from getting a physical?



Originally posted by johndoex
You cant, but you sure did try to imply that you may know people who would prevent it...


No wonder you have trouble understanding why you are wrong. You can't even properly interpret a simple statement.

forums.randi.org...


Originally posted by johndoex
So tell us ReTreat, who exaclty would be "interested"?


I dare say any employer who would hire you to carry passengers would be quite interested in your "outside activities". Just ask "Captain Sherlock".


I don't care whether you derive you livelihood from Janitorial Services or not,



Originally posted by johndoex
You mean like your buddy Caustic Logic/Janitor who you think has a good grasp of the aviation information being argued? lol...


How do you know what I think about Caustic Logic? Are you clairvoyant?


but you certainly should never fly passenger carrying aircraft.



Originally posted by johndoex
The above coming from a man who never did and never will. Did you wash out of airline interviews ReTreat? Was it due to alcoholism?


Just how do you know my entire background? Why do you not have a job with a Major Airline or even have an ATP for that matter? You frequently refer to yourself as an "Aviation Professional", yet all of the people I know with your supposed flying time have an ATP. What? You can't pass the written or the flying test?

Let's see, you accuse me of being a sex predator and now alcoholism. But, it's all just a joke. Is there no level to which you will stoop to insult someone you don't know?

And you wonder why I wish to remain anonymous. Do you want to see your death threat to Mark Roberts quoted again?


It's your judgment that is in question, not the fact that you question the Government.



Originally posted by johndoex
Consider the source...


Sure, the source is scattered all over the Internet. Do you want to see your death thread to Mark Roberts quoted again?


Originally posted by johndoex
These are the people on my side.. for some reason the lists seem to grow...

patriotsquestion911.com...

Who is on your side? Got any names? Faces?


Sure, all of the thousands of Pilot all over the world who don't want to deal with idiots like you. Most can't be bothered with your kind of nonsense. In fact I'm pretty sick of it myself.


Why don't you keep posting and then everyone will know why I wish to remain anonymous.



Originally posted by johndoex
paranoid are we?


That's the most ironic statement I've read in a year or two.


In the first place, my credentials have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything.



Originally posted by johndoex
I agree, since it appears you dont have any.


If you think so....



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.



Originally posted by johndoex
Yep, we sell snake oil... thats why our lists grow with our peers.. and yours remain stagnant at 2 or 3 anonymous, paranoid, internet keyboard commandos who refuse to even debate P4T let alone register for P4T forums...


Keep kidding yourself, but it's not healthy. That's all it is to you, a debate issue? You are one pathetic excuse for a homo sapien, if that's all this is to you.

Hear it from me first. Pfft and your delusions will never amount to more than flatus in a hurricane no matter how many stupid videos you produce or how many challenges you issue for debate to gain attention for yourself.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

The statement and presumption that the aircraft was level across the Pentagon lawn is FALSE. The one video available is from a "fish eye" lens and it is impossible to determine the pitch attitude/descend rate of the aircraft. While it appears to be level, this in no way indicates that it actually was due to the distortion of the "fish eye" lens and the small pixel difference between a level attitude and a pitch down descent.



I cant talk for the rest of your post Reheat,but this I do not agree with.The video is clear enough to see the object is level,if there was a fish eye distortion then the building and other structures would be distorted in a fish eye effect,even if the building was distorted in a fish eye effect and the lawn was curved also, the plane would still follow the contour of the ground but at the same level from beginning to end,which is what the video shows it does.

No?

I just dont buy this flyover business.

No offense intended all round of coarse.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


So far all you have done is blow alot of hot wind and question people. I fail to see where you actually offered anything in support of your ideas or to refute the OP.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Th0r
 


I hear all kinds of people tell me that a jet did not hit the building. So what was it that hit the building. A low flying UFO? A AGM or SAM. Just saying it was not a jet is not helping.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
reply to post by Th0r
 


I hear all kinds of people tell me that a jet did not hit the building. So what was it that hit the building. A low flying UFO? A AGM or SAM. Just saying it was not a jet is not helping.


Good question. So, of course it was a plane. Everyone knows that. It is obvious by the wings. You do know what happened to the wings right?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:50 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by johndoex
You mean like your buddy Caustic Logic/Janitor who you think has a good grasp of the aviation information being argued? lol...


How do you know what I think about Caustic Logic? Are you clairvoyant?
but you certainly should never fly passenger carrying aircraft.


Another Pilot Truther with his CPL acting like they have their ATPL so they can play 911 expert about aircraft that they have never operated.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
The statement and presumption that the aircraft was level across the Pentagon lawn is FALSE. The one video available is from a "fish eye" lens and it is impossible to determine the pitch attitude/descend rate of the aircraft.

Complete and utter garbage.

Of course it is possible to determine the angle of inclination from the video. The properties of that camera lens should be known and adjusted for with video software.

Stop spreading bunk.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Meanwhile this simple 13 minute presentation...


Well, you're right about it being "simple". It is really an unverified, unvalidated and unaccredited "simple" cartoon of your interpretation of what happened.

Simple.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:02 AM
link   
The "calculations" in this "story" are laughable. TYhey are based upon nothing at all but someone's opinion.

If you are going to debunk something, at leasdt use a credible source, not some nutcase theory that doesn't prove what it purports to prove.

Keep in mind, accoding to aerodynamics, a bumblebee can not fly.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
with the fish-eye lens, the "plane" stays the same, even distance from the ground throughout, obviously proving it's level. do you realize how far that plane has to fly that close to the ground to hit from the angle it did?! those are big, heavy jets, that are sluggish to pull up from those kinds of descents/angles at that altitude; and i'm pretty sure pilots know more about them than i do. i'll take their word any day over government officials who've been known to lie through their teeth!

can anyone reverse the fish-eye lens effect through a video editing program??? i can only edit photos...



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally 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.


Hi acura,

Actually it most certainly does have to pull out of that dive to match the security video, but even more importantly, the physical damage.

Here is the fraudulent security video:


Clearly they deliberately depicted an "object" as low and level in this government supplied manipulated evidence.

Why did they falsify evidence to show this?

Because they had to in order to have it work with the physical damage that is pretty much limited to the first floor as stated in all official reports.

I go over this in detail in this important thread about the lack of damage to the foundation but here is the gist of it:


The ASCE Building Performance Report has meticulously documented the damage to the building and has come to the conclusion that all damage from the alleged plane impact was limited to the bottom two floors, but primarily below the 2nd floor slab so that 90 tons of jumbo jet would have slid on it’s belly across the 1st floor slab all the way through the C-ring.




The aircraft seems for the most part to have slipped between the first floor

slab on grade and the second floor.

pg. 28

This illustration is figure 6.1 from page 35 demonstrating this:



These images are also from the ASCE report depicting this perfectly low and level approach:




And don't forget the study from Purdue University:



Of course the actual images of the initial pre-collapse damage reflect this as well as shown in this composite image:



But really if there was any soft of measurable descent, there would most definitely be significant damage to the foundation/1st floor slab yet there is no evidence of this whatsoever.

No plane hit that building.

It was covertly implemented pre-planted explosives just like in the WTC.

The plane was on the north side of the gas station proving it COULD NOT have hit!




Just ask the FAA!





posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
reply to post by Reheat
 


So far all you have done is blow alot of hot wind and question people. I fail to see where you actually offered anything in support of your ideas or to refute the OP.


Precisely.

There is a clear pattern here.

I don't know why he thinks posters at ATS are stupid enough to fall for his pseudo-sketpicism and hollow authoritarian rants in rabid defense of the government.

This guy is a retired old man yet he spends his golden years talking like a teenager on the internet attacking people he believes to be "delusional".

If we're delusional, what does that make him for being so obsessed with us?

[edit on 18-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


I can see by this you really are getting frustrated.. you basically resort to labeling\name calling. It is clear that the flightpath would have been impossible with a boeing.. couple that with very little identifying debris...lack of damage to the lawn and the damage center, which shows office chairs and papers intact(signs of a concussion bomb) no damage from the steel\titanium engines and wings...I suppose kerosene just made the plane disapear
why do you continue to work for these people? is the pay really that good for you to continue lying? this is definelty not for your country.. Americans were murdered that day.. and not by Al Quada.. but you already know this... honestly how do you sleep at night?

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9/19/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



Exactly!! why would he spend so much time attacking "twoofers" the reason is because its his job... its sad really.. I wonder if people in these positions that knowingly know they were lying could be responsible for warcrimes and treason? its a good legal question.. Everybody I speak to nows feels something is wrong with 911... cointel,cia or whatever other agency can put as many of these people as they want online.. it won't stop the truth.. if anything by being so desperate it shows how close to the truth the op is..all I saw were attacks.. I never saw him refute anything directly . sad really.. and pathetic. surprised that post hasn't been taken down as all it does is attack and label..


[edit on 18-9-2008 by thefreepatriot]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I'm trying to figure out how people who have NEVER flown an airplane act like they know what it means to actually fly an airplane.

Does anyone know the steady G-force in a stable 60-degree bank turn??

No??? Well, it is 2 Gs. Two. At 45-degrees (the standard in Simulator training, when we conduct 'steep turns' it would be, in a real airplane, 1.3 Gs)

A steep-turn is a skill assessment, for pilots. It is a way to ascertain airmanship. Hold the altitude, +/- certain parameters, and airspeed +/- certain parameters....usually, +/- 100 feet and +/- 5 knots.

Now, having said this, the G-forces I referred to only apply in a STABLE turn, at that bank angle, while maintaining an altitude. A steep bank, in a descending turn, will not require the G-forces of a stable turn, at altitude.

People who have never flown an airplane simply cannot grasp this concept. People who cannot think in three dimensions simply cannot grasp this concept.

Folks, I used to Flight Instruct. I taught people how to do a 'steep turn'...at 60 degrees of bank...to show them that they could handle the airplane, even outside their comfort area. (It included knowing how to add a little power, to maintain airspeed, and to learn the basic 'Four Forces', and how they interract....and then to return to 'straight and level', on-speed, after the turn). We also taught 'turns about a point'....this, to show how to use a reference on the land, and to see how winds aloft affect the airplane, when you want to fly a particular track over the ground.

AND, these things we taught....all before the first Solo!!!! That's just the first ten hours, or, so, when you learn to fly.

So, give a guy, even a bad pilot, about 40 hours (minimum for a Private Pilot license) and he can (badly) fly an airplane.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Th0r
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.


not really, this is a little late reply but most ppl out there still deny something about 9/11 was either covered up or 9/11 was an inside job. Take my dad for instance, he's sort of an average Joe but he thinks I'm crazy for believing 9/11 or 9-1-1 wasn't terrorists or at least just terrorists



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



And your post has what to do with the topic? You made no comments on the g-forces involved in the pull up just before impacting the Pentagon. Do you agree with the calculations? Do you disagree? Why?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
hmmm...perhaps you might consider channeling Barbara Olsen, I am sure she will be able to tell you what really happened




top topics



 
40
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join