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: 8
40
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


You better start demanding an answer to those questions from the government since the information in the OP of this thread proves they lied about 9/11 and obviously you, Reheat, Boone, or any of those anonymous pseudo-skeptics who use airplanes as avatars can't refute it!

It's a great list of questions though!

Let me know if you ever get any answers from them.


Nice Dodge! Do you play that game professionally?

Before you go bragging about no refutation of the OP, you need to read this post again.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then look over your shoulder for the other one.




posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


I see a lot of huffing and puffing and bluffing in that post but nowhere do you demonstrate how the NTSB data is reconcilable with the required g's to pull off this maneuver in any way shape or forum.

Oh and did I mention how Ryan Mackey has been proven a liar?



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Craig, you could be right of course, there are a number of possiblities but the DOD vid revealed something moving from the right of the picture. A missile travelling at least mach 1 would be a blur on that footage, but again you could be right why go to all that trouble when you could just blow the place up.

I was off work that day and I remember watching the attacks. At the Pentagon site there were a number of "Witnesses" in suits that said they "saw a plane" these people were never seen again on the news, they looked like the guys that were picking up "wreckage on the lawn".

What I found very interesting was that whilst America was reeling in shock and horror and did not have a clue as to who was behind the attack Emperor Blair was on UK TV telling us all the were all going to join in the WOT and named Bin Laden and AlQaeda as those behind the attacks. How the hell did he know who was behind the attacks when the US Goverment initially knew nothing.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Reheat
 


I see a lot of huffing and puffing and bluffing in that post but nowhere do you demonstrate how the NTSB data is reconcilable with the required g's to pull off this maneuver in any way shape or forum.

Oh and did I mention how Ryan Mackey has been proven a liar?


You don't know what the FDR data shows. That's the whole point. The cartoon also does NOT show the required G. It shows troofer G.

Only in you dreams have Mackey's calculations been shown wrong.

Edit: I guess we'll have to wait for your cohort to explain the chart to you. I doubt if he or you like what it shows.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by Reheat]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Craig, you could be right of course, there are a number of possiblities but the DOD vid revealed something moving from the right of the picture. A missile travelling at least mach 1 would be a blur on that footage, but again you could be right why go to all that trouble when you could just blow the place up.



The point of this thread is that the DoD video is irreconcilable with the NTSB data.

Which do you trust?

Neither of course since both were controlled and released by the suspect.

Only independent verifiable evidence is acceptable and as of yet that only proves that a large commercial looking jet airliner did a relatively slow and drastic banking maneuver north of the citgo station and continued past the building.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Only independent verifiable evidence is acceptable and as of yet that only proves that a large commercial looking jet airliner did a relatively slow and drastic banking maneuver north of the citgo station and continued past the building.


And NOBODY saw the drastic (read impossible) bank and NOBODY saw it fly over. Some impress "stuff" you have there......



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat


You don't know what the FDR data shows. That's the whole point. The cartoon also does NOT show the required G. It shows troofer G.

Only in you dreams have Mackey's calculations been shown wrong.




Yes I do know what it shows because which is why I am citing numbers and you are not.

YOU clearly don't know what it shows since you weren't even aware that the pinned lat/long's depicted in Farmer's image came from ReadOut2 from the FDR!


How could you really be that ignorant yet still act like you know what you are talking about?

You have demonstrated your complete lack of understanding. You're no pilot. I bet you lie about that just like you are lying about Mackey being correct.

Mackey calculates a constant 4 g's required for 4 seconds based off the NTSB reported altitude.

The data shows an average of 1.17 g's for that segment proving him a LIAR.

You can't demonstrate otherwise because you are lying to cover up for him.

People aren't buying it Reheat.

You look REALLY bad.

I suggest you take up another hobby like fishing or something because your daily devotion to people you think are delusional isn't a productive or healthy way to spend your retirement.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat


And NOBODY saw the drastic (read impossible) bank


Umm yes they did.

That is EXACTLY what all these guys describe.




Funny how FAA/NORAD reported the same allegedly "impossible" flight path don't you think?



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I suggest you take up another hobby like fishing or something because your daily devotion to people you think are delusional isn't a productive or healthy way to spend your retirement.


Yawn!!!


Yes, I know you'd like me to go away, but that's not going to happen over the long term.

Why are you referencing a device that you think is fake anyway? Do you really have "faith" in a device that you consider fake and that was supplied by the suspect. Wow, you Internet sleuths are mighty smart to have outsmarted the perps who faked all of this stuff. I'll bet they all lay awake at night in fear of your next discovery.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Craig I don't trust my own Goverment never mind Bush and Co. They and others have conspiried to kill thousands of their own citizens and others on 9/11. In turn these same people are now waging wars on the peoples of two nations that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Its quite obvious even to a layman that the plane could not have done the manouver that it was supposed to have done and details that were given by the official fairy story tellers are just that fairy tales.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


I think you left off a few smileys.

As someone who defends the government YOU are the one who has to answer to the fraudulent NTSB data.

If your official fantasy does not fit with the official data, you should be right next to us demanding congressional hearings, inquiries, and indictments.

We have already proven the data fraudulent which in turn proves 9/11 was an inside job.

You simply ignore the evidence while devoting your golden years to defending the government's lies based on nothing but pure faith, ignorance, and blindness to the facts.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


That's for sure!


The fact that guys like "Reheat" are willing to devote their retirement to spin and obfuscation of this while looking like complete fools is all the more proof we are on the right track!



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


In the absence of the figures I was asking for I got hold of an Arlington County street map and scaled the distance which turns out to be ~700m from the VDOT tower to the light poles, a further ~250m to the Pentagon wall and a total flight time of ~4 seconds to cover the whole ~950m at 238m/s.

Do you agree with these figures (approximately) ?

If you see where I'm going, my earlier G figure is going to be proportionately lower due to the distance being some 40% greater than my 500m figure.

Could you explain briefly why the figures you quoted are so 'inflated' ?



[edit on 19/9/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Sorry man but since you are unable to view the presentation you are unable to understand the model, the formula, the equations, or the situation here in full in order to have an informed discussion on the matter.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you are trying to use a 1 dimensional formula to solve a 2 dimensional problem.

Are you calculating based on 1 velocity vector or 2?

Are you figuring both the horizontal and vertical velocity vector to get the total velocity vector or no?

Furthermore are you basing your calculations using altitude, vertical speed, and considering the g forces reported by the NTSB?



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Hay, Cap'n Bob

One of my friends send me this graphic and requested that I ask you explain the data points shown. Would you be so kind as it accommodate him? Thanks in advance.
Edit: I see the graphic is too wide for the display here, so I've posted a link to it:

i286.photobucket.com...

[edit on 19-9-2008 by Reheat]



Your "friend"? What.. did Beachnut get banned here? Wouldnt be surprised...

Anyway...
video.google.com...

Also, you may want to tell Beachy to quote the whole AIM reference before he looks even more a fool and intellectually dishonest. He has a bunch of jetBlue pilots in stitches over here with his DME claims..lol. Especially those of us who shoot LOC/DME, arcs.. step downs, crossing restrictions... you get the idea.... Its almost as good as his "FDR loses power at 0.2 G" BS... lmao.

As for "obsession". I think i can count on my fingers how many times i've referenced you ReTreat since you "came on the scene". Hmmm.. how many times a day do you reference us?

Get a grip.

Regards,
Rob

typo

[edit on 19-9-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Sorry man but since you are unable to view the presentation you are unable to understand the model, the formula, the equations, or the situation here in full in order to have an informed discussion on the matter.



I havent had the time to read through all the replies, but is someone trying to offer a reply to our presentation without ever having seen it? Really?



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


No I don't need to do any such thing. I am not questioning the 'official story'. You are. You are suggesting the plane flew elsewhere, are you not?

Then it is up to you to answer those questions and provide a cohesive narrative on what happened. If you're going to make the assertion you're making then it is incumbent upon you to answer the easy, obvious, glaring questions.

Honestly Craig, can you not see how all of this is a mental gymnastics game if you can not explain the implications of what you're suggesting? If you're sole point is that the plane flew NOC but still wound up in the building.........who cares? The darn plane still wound up in the building, correct?

So again either:


  1. You agree the plane hit the building making the entire NOC issue really a moot point. That is, the plane wound up in the building, what difference does it make if it was SOC or NOC?
  2. Your contention is the plane did not hit the building in which case you need to address, obvious questions around all the evidence that does not support that notion.


The list of ten questions I pose barely scratches the surface of what your narrative would need to establish.

So, in conclusion, you either believe the plane hit the building, or you don't. Based off of a couple of years of posts, you clearly believe the plane did not hit the building. Since this is the case, my personal assertion is there are much larger questions than a NOC approach.

Hence the ten questions:

(1)What happened to flight 77?
(2)What happened to the passengers and crew?
(3)How do you explain the phone calls from loved ones physically on the plane, to other loved ones?
(4)How do you explain the wreckage found in the building?
(5)How do you account for the wreckage found on the lawn?
(6)How do you reconcile the impact location, as it relates to the evidence?
(7)How do you reconcile the bodies of the passengers and crew being positively identified through DNA evidence collected from within the Pentagon?
(8)How do you reconcile personal effects, positively identified by family members as belonging to their next of kin, found within the Pentagon?
(9)How do you reconcile the bodies of passengers found within the Pentagon, some still strapped into their seats?
(10)How do you explain the impact zone damage being completely in-line with a fast moving commercial airliner?

EDITED for bad typos and clarity

[edit on 19-9-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Besides all that....who cares what I think and what you think is my burden of proof?

Get to it, get on with it! Stop wasting time here and on JREF! Get your 'smoking gun' evidence before those that matter. As I have said elsewhere, you don't have to convince me.....just one jury, just one time.

Or, as before, are they all "in on it" too?



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


We provide evidence proving the plane flew on the north side of the citgo showing how the witness accounts are irreconcilable with the official story.

The evidence in this thread proves the NTSB data is also irreconcilable with the official story.

If you were a true patriot this would concern you and you would join us in demanding an answer from the government regarding all the questions you are asking.

Of course there is ZERO logic in asking us to answer them for you.

We are not the government.

We are merely concerned citizens who provide evidence proving the government lied.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex

I havent had the time to read through all the replies, but is someone trying to offer a reply to our presentation without ever having seen it? Really?


Yeah he says he has dial up and can't watch it.




top topics



 
40
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join