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.

 

CIT is inconsistent when discussing G loads on AA77

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
You can prove 77 impacted using DNA. Try using some Sherlock Holmes stuff.

Why haven't you earnt your Nobel Prize for science, in that you used organic, human DNA to prove the identity of an inorganic airplane?

That in and of itself defies logic.




posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by beachnut
You can prove 77 impacted using DNA. Try using some Sherlock Holmes stuff.

Why haven't you earnt your Nobel Prize for science, in that you used organic, human DNA to prove the identity of an inorganic airplane?

That in and of itself defies logic.
Defies logic, but it works anyway.
People get on plane, DNA of people in the same plane is found. Plane never lands!

Passenger manifest required, shows dead people are the same who boarded, and those people DNA is found in the Pentagon delivered by a plane see flying into the Pentagon.

Proof by DNA, plane is 77, the same plane the people boarded.

By deduction or some means, proof 77 is the plane in the Pentagon. Obtuse but indisputable. An imagination and free thinking is needed.

FDR was found in the Pentagon from 77. Sherlock Holmes in not needed.
There are so many confirmations of 77 being in the Pentagon which one are you having a problem figuring out.

The passenger DNA could be used to confirm 77 hit the Pentagon for a lot of reasons.
The passengers got on 77.
The passengers never got off 77.
There is data supporting no one left 77.
ALL the passengers were found in the Pentagon, verified by DNA.
More points but you are going to fail to comprehend for some reason, and you just keep saying no, but you have no reasons why, just no. Not very helpful or able adapt to thinking out of the box.

Say no, no, no; but no substantive reasons or evidence to prove me wrong. I can identify the plane by alloy if it was needed. 4 airliners were missing on 9/11; guess where they went and their N numbers.
I understand planes have no DNA until they crash and DNA is all over them.


On topic, did you know? You can use 27,320 foot radius using the OP method of G force, and show 1.7 G can be used to impact the Pentagon. An actual value of G the terrorist pilot achieved. Bingo, it is possible to level off (77 did not level off) and hit the Pentagon.

Do you have an on topic comment, instead of my round about DNA 77 ident solid work?



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
I understand planes have no DNA until they crash and DNA is all over them.

Wow, ok. You keep on believing that. I wish the whole world could read your post to learn how organic, human DNA can be used to identify inorganic metallic wreckage. Wow.

I asked reheat for some serialised parts and all he gave me was an unsourced picture of something unidentifiable. Please, identify the alleged wreckage for me properly. Here's a tip - human DNA found at the scene only means that human DNA was found at the scene. It doesn't imply anything other than human DNA being found at the scene.



Do you have an on topic comment, instead of my round about DNA 77 ident solid work?

I don't know why a 'radius of curvature' is mentioned for any of these flight paths. Given the fact that none of them are perfectly circular, the radius figures quoted, only exist for that instant of the path that is being approximated by a circle.

I'd need to see a regression analysis which gives the 'best' equation for the flight path. It wasn't perfectly parabolic, circular or even exponential. It varied inconsistently, therefore any mention of radius of curvature will also vary inconsistently.

It would also be difficult to model the velocity vector with parametric equations, given the limited amount of alleged data points that are available to use.

There's too many filling of gaps required, which makes any analysis error prone. Best guesses are useless, unless there's also mention made of the error margin.

[edit on 23-9-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I don't know why a 'radius of curvature' is mentioned for any of these flight paths. Given the fact that none of them are perfectly circular, the radius figures quoted, only exist for that instant of the path that is being approximated by a circle.


The radius is critical to the calculation as is the angular velocity of the object moving along an arc described by that radius but I shouldn't need to go into a vast amount of detail regarding that. The centripetal force required to adhere to that radius is determined by a simple formula a=v^2/r.

Sure, the radii at all parts of the flight are complex and highly variable as are the 3 dimensional vectors of G forces but what's being claimed here relates to the peak instantaneous value of centripetal force required to be supplied by the wings of the aircraft at that point of maximum v^2/r. If that maximum is survivable then all the lesser values will be also (simply a GO/No GO test). If you feel a calculation of the resultant vector of G forces at all points in the flight is required please go ahead.

By supposing unrealistic and unnecessarily small values of radius unrealistic G forces can be hypothesised as we have seen.

Oh - I did get to view the video finally. Is it fact that the original 'calculations' were based on simplistic velocity/acceleration/distance formulae?

Nice graphics tho



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The radius is critical to the calculation as is the angular velocity of the object moving along an arc described by that radius but I shouldn't need to go into a vast amount of detail regarding that.

Yeah, obviously a radius is important - if the path is circular. However, the alleged plane did not fly a circular path.

Has there been a regression analysis of any type done to determine a best fit equation of the alleged plane's flight path?

How many points are used to determine the flight path? Six? Eight? Nine? I'm on dial-up modem, so I can't see how any flight path can be determined, using a handful of points, without a corresponding error analysis.

A radius is ONLY valid, across an interval, for a constant circle. Many here mention 'arcs' which also have a radius, but only if they are arcs from a CIRCLE. Any other flight path that deviates from a circle, does not have a constant radius, so there's little to no point trying to interpolate possible G-Forces between point markers by assuming a circular arc, unless the error analysis has also been provided.

Any tight radius can be interpolated to give any result at any instant within an interval, but not across the interval. However, using the few data points available, the best that can be achieved is an averaged 'circular arc' (which is BS anyway).

If I wasn't on dial-up, I'd take a closer look.

I know about fitting points to curves. The less points available, the less accurate the results.



new topics

top topics
 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join