CIT is inconsistent when discussing G loads on AA77, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 03:51 PM by beachnut

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

If you average the made up position 34 Gs, you get 4 Gs. You can not average the FDR which stopped 6 seconds before impact. Proved by the FDR which shows flight 77 over 6 seconds away and confirmed by RADAR, multiple RADAR sites.

Here is 77 from the INS position, accurate to 1500 feet and checked by the RADAR position seen, reporting the time of 77 at the blue dot as 13:37:47.

The averaging of the G force on the FDR does not mean anything when you see 77 was descending, never levels off. Trying to use an average G force from the FDR does not mean anything your 34 Gs averages to 4 Gs.

So you are over 6 seconds away using the wrong data. Now what; the FDR proves this position.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9/22/2008 by Hal9000]

reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 03:57 PM by exponent

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Oops!

I guess it's not so impossible after all!

Just ask your jref buddy exponent.

Why do you think you are correct and he is not?

It's entirely possible Beachnut is correct, looking at the difference between my proposed path and the path in blue, it is much more severe than I thought. I could of course do the calculations and confirm he is correct if you like.

You are still ignoring my questions, why is that?

reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 03:58 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by beachnut

The FDR did not "stop" before alleged impact otherwise you are calling the NTSB liars.

The notion that they are so stupid that they accidentally reported the alleged impact time as being when the data mysteriously "stops" will not fly.

You are not smarter than the NTSB.

You are simply reaching desperately to make excuses for why their data and their specific statement regarding alleged impact time is irreconcilable with their story.

We know why.

The plane was north of the citgo.

reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 04:00 PM by beachnut

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Now you need 14 Gs, and the FAA animation is also impossible.

Over 14 Gs, and 86 degrees of bank.

No, Morin did not see an 86 degree bank.

No one saw big bank angles and the big killer, less than 10 degrees of bank in the FDR. The same data you use to say 77 is too high.

You could check these paths and use physics to see they are impossible...

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9/22/2008 by Hal9000]

reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 04:00 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by exponent

You can't do the calculations and neither can he unless you make up all the values.

That is not very scientific.

Morin and Boger are both professional witnesses and BOTH report a much slower approach as does Middleton.

reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 04:02 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by beachnut

No one saw big bank angles

Yes they did.

All of the ANC workers did.

Have you even watched the interviews?

reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 04:05 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by exponent

Your illustration shows a 1g descent immediately prior to the 34g pullup. Is this consistent with the data you have from the FDR? Can you show us?

The data does not show the necessary descent at all.

The illustration is a hypothetical scenario assuming the plane DID descend from the last reported altitude in order to pull up to be perfectly low and level a few feet above the lawn as necessary to cause the physical damage.

reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 04:13 PM by exponent

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You can't do the calculations and neither can he unless you make up all the values.

The only value that needs to be determined [ed: for my least force approach] is speed, I posted a graph on your forum with both variables accounted for (for whatever approach you propose):

Morin and Boger are both professional witnesses and BOTH report a much slower approach as does Middleton.

Boger also reports the plane impacted the building, but ignoring that for now, what speed do they report?

The data does not show the necessary descent at all.

The illustration is a hypothetical scenario assuming the plane DID descend from the last reported altitude in order to pull up to be perfectly low and level a few feet above the lawn as necessary to cause the physical damage.

What is the difference in initial conditions between your hypothetical model and Mr Mackey's hypothetical model?

[edit on 22-9-2008 by exponent]

reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 04:15 PM by beachnut

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by beachnut

The FDR did not "stop" before alleged impact otherwise you are calling the NTSB liars.

The notion that they are so stupid that they accidentally reported the alleged impact time as being when the data mysteriously "stops" will not fly.

You are not smarter than the NTSB.

You are simply reaching desperately to make excuses for why their data and their specific statement regarding alleged impact time is irreconcilable with their story.

We know why.

The plane was north of the citgo.

The FDR and RADAR put 77 here. At 13:37:44 and 13:37:47

The INS position is accurate at this time to 1500 feet. This means the closest 77 is to the Pentagon on the last data in the SECURE CHIP, is over 6 seconds to impact.

This means there are over 6 seconds of flight not in or recovered from the secure chip for some reason; and this has happen in many accidents where, even this type of FDR, FDRs have missing data.

The RADAR is more accurate in position, and shows 77 near the blue dot at 13:37:47. BTW the 1500 feet could place 77 even further back. The altitude at this area from just the RADALT is 400 MSL to 440 MSL, with over 6 seconds to hit the Pentagon at about 40 feet MSL. This mean 77 can cruise in at the 66 feet per second descent and level off with 1.7 g to impact level, but to hit the lamppost and impact the Pentagon can be done all with 43 feet per second descent after hitting the first post. This lowers the G force to a late pull up of still 1.7 g. A G force the terrorist did, and you can see the resultant reduction in the descent rate consistent with what I have presented. This is abased on actual dynamics of the plane and terrorist flying. Not some idealized circular motion estimation of G manipulated to say it can't be done and at the same time logically killing your own flyover pull-up as impossible based on your own methods.

reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 04:16 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by exponent

Boger also reports the plane impacted the building, but ignoring that for now, what speed do they report?

Excuse me??

Haven't you watched the new interviews?

reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 04:22 PM by exponent

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Excuse me??

Haven't you watched the new interviews?

I don't remember anyone mentioning specific speeds other than people such as Morin(?) who indicates a speed too fast for the bank angles to match up. I may be mistaken as it's been a while since I saw them.

I'm asking you because you have obviously talked for a lot longer than is presented with the various witnesses and I'm debating you here specifically. I'm not about to start being accused of constructing straw men.

You still haven't replied to my other question too

reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 04:26 PM by beachnut

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by exponent

You can't do the calculations and neither can he unless you make up all the values.

That is not very scientific.

Morin and Boger are both professional witnesses and BOTH report a much slower approach as does Middleton.

It is called physics, math, geometry, things we learn in high school. FAA animation, based on who knows what, is impossible for a 757 to make and keeps the wings.

They are your paths, the physics shows them impossible, not me, it is physics.

The FDR shows less than 10 degrees of bank until the data stops 6 second from impact, not one single witness sees bank angles greater than 10 degrees. The FDR shows the speed at 463 KIAS.

At 10 degrees to get the turns you want, the plane stalls.

reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 04:35 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by exponent

I answered all your questions.

I simply don't believe you have watched the interviews in full because they were only released within the passed 60 days so it couldn't have been that long ago that you watched it.

Did you watch all of parts 1 and 2 of The North Side Flyover?

If you have watch it again and pay special attention to William Middleton and Sean Boger.

reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 04:46 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by beachnut

You have no problems accusing the NTSB of being wrong about the alleged impact time and accusing the FAA of creating an "impossible" animation yet you are happy to go with what "John Farmer" says about the radar data even though he said it was manipulated??!

NEADS 25.3 Second Time Difference Explained (Or, "I hate it when Craig is Right")

I told my nemeses at CIT that if I found evidence of tampering in the 84 RADES data that they would be the first to know and I am a man of my word. The NEADS clock was NOT running slower on 9/11. Rather its radar data was being collected, altered, and then fed into the system.

-John Farmer
Friday, April 11, 2008 3:31 AM

Not only has Farmer said that the 84 RADES data was manipulated, but he said this about the security video AND the NTSB data also!

Are you sure you are going to go by what he says?

"I've caught them lying out the teeth buddy! (laughs) I mean what really convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt was the NTSB data. That is such an obvious misinformation campaign right there it isn't even funny. That stuff is so doctored. It just isn't even funny."

[...]

"The first thing I noticed in 3Ding is the Pentagon gate cameras....no way, no way. Ok that plane came in and hit those two poles, it had a certain angle of attack coming in. Ok...the Pentagon gate cameras have the thing sittin' on the ground. Naw naw naw that's not even reality."

-John Farmer via recorded phone call

Listen to call here

Are you sure you want to go with what this guy says?

[edit on 22-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 04:47 PM by exponent

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I answered all your questions.

You missed this one:

Originally posted by exponent
What is the difference in initial conditions between your hypothetical model and Mr Mackey's hypothetical model?

I simply don't believe you have watched the interviews in full because they were only released within the passed 60 days so it couldn't have been that long ago that you watched it.

2 months is a long time, and without meaning to be offensive I haven't paid too much attention to your theories. I will make sure I rewatch them shortly, but I am off to bed now. If you could reply to the question above I would appreciate it.

reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 04:55 PM by beachnut

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building." "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

CIT has to say he did not see it. Boger says, he saw 77 impact the Pentagon.

CIT is revising Boger first testimony from nearly 7 years ago to match their fantasy based on a working copy animation by the NTSB. And a pack of different paths impossible to fly due to bank angles and Gs.

The rest of Boger, testimony 6 years after 9/11, has to be vague, as in left or right and not referenced to any direction to support the new fantasy impossible paths. They failed to get a bank angle estimate from any witness.

The G loading problem can give you many different answers by changing the radius of the circular motion.

The G loading pull up, is based on 77 leveling off.
There is no level off required all the post and impact can be done at 2600 feet per minute, 43 feet per second. The terrorist is lined up towards a target, not even trying to level off, he is trying to impact the biggest building in the world and he almost clips the over pass and crashes. He is only 50 feet from impacting the ground on the overpass.

This is not unusual, everyone who flies comes over the runways threshold at 35 feet, the terrorist is steeper than a normal approach, people called it a dive, these people near the Pentagon are use to seeing planes approach at the normal 3 to 2.5 degree down, the terrorist is 6 to 7 degrees down, this is a dive! Twice the normal angle down.

reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 04:59 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by exponent

What is the difference in initial conditions between your hypothetical model and Mr Mackey's hypothetical model?

Frankly I don't know as I didn't create the model.

That's a better question for Rob.

2 months is a long time,

That's assuming you watched it in full the very first day it was released. Your next statement proves this is unlikely.....

and without meaning to be offensive I haven't paid too much attention to your theories. I will make sure I rewatch them shortly, but I am off to bed now. If you could reply to the question above I would appreciate it.

Theories?

The first-hand interviews are evidence, not "theories".

If you haven't "paid much attention" to the evidence then you have no basis from which to discuss it intellectually.

Come back once you have actually viewed the evidence and are able to knowledgeably discuss the information presented.

reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 05:02 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by beachnut

CIT is revising Boger first testimony from nearly 7 years ago to match their fantasy based on a working copy animation by the NTSB. And a pack of different paths impossible to fly due to bank angles and Gs.

Huh?

Nothing was "revised".

We asked him where he saw the plane fly and he told us.

It just so happens he saw it BANKING on the north side of the gas station just like everyone else.

It's not our fault.

We simply provide the recorded interview so you can hear for yourself what he said.

Have you even listened to it?

reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 05:19 PM by beachnut

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

You record people and quote mine. Cherry pick. Use what you want, make up fantasy. You have shown how you operate.
The camera?, the lens is so bad it makes a 2600 feet per second descent look flat and cars look like fat cars warped.

Good thing the blue dot is from the DCA RADAR. not RADES.

You have to say every thing is false, to make your fantasy come true. You use 34 Gs in an impossible pull up modeled with circular motion. Then you average the FDR Gs to make non-points and publish false paths impossible to fly.

The yellow dot is FDR INS position, accurate to 1500 feet.
The blue dot is a RADAR from a nearby RADAR site, not RADES!; showing 77 at 13:37:47.

I used physics, you say I make up numbers.

Boger saw 77 hit the Pentagon, 77 was going so fast he could not move, he watches it go into the Pentagon. This is his first testimony, and there are many other who saw 77 impact the Pentagon, you missed them.

You say RADES is wrong, it is not, but I used DCA, and there are more RADAR data from different sites; they confirm RADES, Farmer still has some issues with RADES, but the other RADARS and witnesses confirm the real flight path of 77 and close to the FDR.

Mod Note: Please use the Reply to button instead of quoting entire posts, and if referring to a part of a post, trim the quote down to the relevant part.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9/22/2008 by Hal9000]

reply posted on 22-9-2008 @ 05:28 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by beachnut

You are going by what Farmer said.

Do you really trust a guy who claims the 84 RADES, NTSB, and security video data is all fraudulent??

The only official data he trusts is the CITGO video but he thinks that proves a plane flew north if the citgo!

From: John Farmer
To:
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:40:52 AM
Subject: Citgo Flash Analysis Update

All,

I have posted two new posts on 911files.info that may be of interest to you. The most recent is a summary and may be an easier read.

911files.info...
(no longer active because he nuked all info in his earlier blog)

In short, the “flash” observed in the Citgo video beginning at 09:40:37 is consistent with sunlight reflecting off of a plane described by the eyewitness accounts documented by the PentaCon video. In short, this is the first physical objective evidence that corroborates their accounts.

Regards,

John Farmer

So if you REALLY want to go by what this guy says that means you accept that virtually all the official data is fraudulent and that the citgo video proves a north side flyover!

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^