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: 5
40
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Sorry it just seems like at least a 1/4 mile to level out , Just covering my thoughts .
So its not eve plausible at all then ?

weedwhacker I'm sorry i don't quite understand. It's not for lack of reason . Just allot of data to crunch .


Not here to debunk . Just tossing out what seems possible from a laymen point of view.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]




posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by d11_m_na_c05
 


At the reported speeds of 785 feet per second a quarter mile is less than 2 seconds.

It's impossible and it was not recorded in the other values anyway.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


I need to do the math, I'll admit.

I am used to speeds of the Take-off range....about 140 to 160 KIAS.

Compared to a normal landing speed of, say...110 to 140 KIAS. (Depending on airplane, and Vref gust additives...)

So, to confuse the issue with fps....well, I can math that out, I'm not stupid.

If you wish to discus terms like 'V1' and 'Vr', and 'V2', and try to explain to our audience what those terms mean....then by all means, go ahead.

The actual airline pilots who know what those terms mean will tell you, once you try to tangle with them.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Th0r
 


Well I see the world forging ahead with a fraudulent war on terror that slaughters more innocent people every day so as long as they continue to get killed with my tax money,


Don't pay your taxes then, you don't have to anyways.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by d11_m_na_c05
weedwhacker I'm sorry i don't quite understand. It's not for lack of reason . Just allot of data to crunch .


If you are wondering about what WW said in the post just before yours, he is saying that once the pilot brings the aircraft beyond certain limits, the instruments start giving a lot of warnings. Examples of this would be audible warnings for altitude, attitudes towards the ground, (possibly) fuel low, etc. I'm not sure about warnings for G-forces, though there probably are.

The way I understand the video, is that the FDR data indicates a very small number of G's, about 1.17, which is approximately 1.6 m/s^2 acceleration and that of gravity itself, bringing up a total of 1.17. Obviously, for the proposed flight path, the actual figure must be higher for a rather small radius of turn, a low calculation giving around 4, a high one giving 34. While airliners are limited to 2.5 for their flight envelope, the actual frame can probably withstand a bit more, though whether the structural damage on the aircraft would be of the immediate destruction type or the damaged but still flyable is anyones guess.

And of course, 34g is a large force, about the equivalent of accelerating from 0 to Mach 1 in a second, which is high even for a missile.

With that information in mind, it would seem that the FDR data seems suspect, though personally I would quite like to see a pdf of the relevant information and analysis, rather than a video made to persuade people of the less informed about aerospace variety.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


Ok i get it .. IF it had banked . It would have surley raised the G's to higher than claimed.. Makes sense.
Thnks for the briefing



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Awesome!

So what does any of this have to do with bringing the perps to justice? When will your focus shift from internet forums to actual action? After all, you don’t need to waste time convincing all of us; you only need to convince one jury, one time.

Will PFT use the proceeds from their video to sponsor court action?

Again, why engage in this kind of internet debate? To what end? For what purpose? To accomplish what? It’s a legitimate question: are you more interested in DVD sales, or actually brining the perps to justice?

One focus lacks the conviction of your professed beliefs and the other doesn’t.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Obviously you haven't never flow in any aircraft of any type. So dispel with the rant. Do the math or go get a license yourself. Then come back and discuss the issues at hand..

Better yet.. go take a FAA APPLIED MATHEMATICS CLASS from your local community college AND SCORE AN 'A'...without retaking the test .. then you can start down the rabbit hole...



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Starflag for yas! Been waiting on this video for quite sometime..I knew there was a G problem.. just was waiting for it all to come together..

based on that video.. ALONE.. tells me the whole 9/11 is "NWO.. coming into view.."



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Again, why engage in this kind of internet debate? To what end? For what purpose? To accomplish what? It’s a legitimate question: are you more interested in DVD sales, or actually brining the perps to justice?


I always wonder that, since if the focus is getting the 'truth' out, then what's with the charging money for it? If it's just to cover operating costs then fine, but otherwise shouldn't such important information be free?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Ok. I've been reading thru these posts for the last 10 minutes. I don't know who is right. I am a pilot (private) so I can wrap my head around most of this stuff, but there are just too many variables, and I have no doubt that if I had the controls I could put the plane into that building. It seems like the majority of people on this site WANT there to be a conspiracy. And from a problem solving point of view, are only attacking this from one side...the conspiracy side. Instead of trying to prove why the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, what if everyone had to prove it DID hit the Pentagon? Could there be enough data and evidence to create a video or presentation of that fact?...and it be compelling?? Undoubtedly.

I want to believe too, and maybe if I'm presented iron-clad proof I might switch camps, but the big question that would have to be answered for me would be:

1) what did eyewitnesses see/hear/feel on the ground, in the vicinity, etc...? Was there not a single eye-witness/s? There would HAVE to be...people out in the parking lot, gas stations accross the street, drivers on the highway, limo drivers, etc...Does anyone really believe that in this information age that all of them could be shut-up? I find that hard to believe.

and

2) if it happened, where did the plane and people actually go? I mean, surely, all real-time flight data from the radar stations was stored and later back-tracked and reviewed, right? And surely that data was cross referenced and sorted until all flights and planes were accounted for, right? Even if the transponder had been turned off, radar would have still tracked the flight and had an unaccounted for plane and flight. I don't recall hearing that. And all of the perpetrators of this fraud would have to be silenced too. Again, I find it hard to believe.

I used to buy all of these conspiracy theories hook, line and sinker...look, I still wander this site!...like I said, I want to believe. But the older I get, the better I get at separating fact from fiction. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm going to stick with Occam's Razor, which is often paraphased as:

"'All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.' In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood." (Wikipedia.com)

Meaning, the simplest explanation is that the terrorists flew the plane into the Pentagon.

Jeremy



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Awesome!

So what does any of this have to do with bringing the perps to justice? When will your focus shift from internet forums to actual action?




It takes a really big man to admit that this is a concern of yours since of course you are unable to refute this definitive proof.

Please keep us updated on progress you make with this.

I wish you the best of luck and certainly I will be happy to help in any way that I can.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I posted earlier on this topic about whether there were eyewitness accounts. There are, and here is the link:

www.geocities.com...

Is everyone saying these are ALL shills??

Jeremy



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jsoder
 



Jeremy,

The eyewitnesses saw the plane in a place completely different than what the 2006 released alleged black box reports and the physical damage requires.

The alleged black box reports values that are also irreconcilable with the physical damage and the security video.

This is definitive proof of a military deception on 9/11.

The fact that many people were deceived as intended during this operation does not mean they are all "shills".

Most of the witnesses in that list couldn't even see the Pentagon at all.

They saw the plane and heard the explosion.

The fact is that out of context media quotes do not equal evidence.

It equals hearsay.

If you are really a pilot you should be able to verify or refute the evidence presented.

Please stay on topic because as it is your faith in the official story does not refute the evidence presented proving it false.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   

We show you how the eyewitnesses prove a deception and people scream "where's the math!?" we show you how the math proves a deception and people scream "but what about the eyewitnesses??!".

The eyewitnesses unwittingly yet unanimously prove the impossible official flight path false and therefore that the plane did NOT hit.


What sort of weirded out logic do you run on?


So again.. please pay attention.. your eyewitnesses, because you interviewed them, are all magically correct, telling the truth, and PROVE your point. And yet.. the MUCH larger # of witnesses that said they saw a passenger jet physically fly into the Pentagon are all LYING, stupid, or David Copperfield was on hand, and he utterly bamboozled them with a huge magic trick featuring fireballs and apparently earplugs that everyone must have been wearing, when they failed to see or hear it fly away.

Do you know how hypocritical your theories are? You are basing your entire premise on eyewitness reports. That's IT. And in that light, you'd think you would take the eyewitnesses who saw the plane fly into the Pentagon in a more serious light. But no.. that doesn't work very well in your fable, does it.

Why were ALL the witnesses who saw the plane fly into the Pentagon wrong.. not seeing what they thought they saw.. but YOUR witnesses all saw EXACTLY what they said they saw? That's mighty convenient.

You keep telling people to open their eyes... perhaps you should take your own advice. If you insist on doing an investigation like this, don't do it half-assed, as it clearly has been.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex
If it's just to cover operating costs then fine, but otherwise shouldn't such important information be free?


Did you pay anything to view the information?

Did you even bother to view it?

If not please click the link here.

I promise you won't be charged.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 



I understand there is a lot of information and it's hard for some people to concentrate but let me try to explain once more......

The placement of the plane on the north side of the gas station is unanimous by all the witnesses in a position to tell.

No witness directly refutes this.

This proves a military deception on 9/11 as does the fact that the official data is ALSO irreconcilable with the physical damage as proven in this thread.

You have provided zero evidence to refute any of this.

The fact that most witnesses were deceived as intended regarding the alleged impact has nothing to do with where the witnesses unanimously place the plane proving it did not hit.




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



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by apex
If it's just to cover operating costs then fine, but otherwise shouldn't such important information be free?

Did you pay anything to view the information?
Did you even bother to view it?
If not please click the link here.
I promise you won't be charged.


Yes, I did watch all of that, but it wasn't particularly great quality since it's on google video. And I wasn't really aiming it at you, but the general truth movement when it decides to charge however much for a DVD.

And in case you didn't notice, I wasn't disagreeing with you on the conclusion.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


Ok good.

Glad to hear it!

Thanks for helping to spread the word regarding this important evidence proving the war on terror fraudulent.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join