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.

 

Another slant on G Force

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I found the CIT/PFT quoted figures for adhering to the 'official' flight path excessive by a huge margin which prompted this look at the possibilities. Don't expect to see a music video and fancy graphics here


Profile of the area and some measurements:
Height of VDOT antenna ~305' (93m) above sea level
Height of light poles ~80' (24.4m) above sea level
Pentagon ground level ~35' (10.7m) above sea level
Horizontal distance from VDOT to 1st hit light pole 2271' (692.2m)
Horizontal distance from 1st light pole to Pentagon wall 1024' (312.1m)
(Distances scaled from a 1:10000 map so the measurements may not be absolutely precise but they're close enough for this).
AA77's last logged airspeed 463knots, 463*6060*.3048/3600 = 238m/s

Now what physical indications are available:
The Pentagon was struck at ground level - witnessed fact
5 light poles were knocked down - witnessed fact
The damage path through the building supports an impact along a line at ~61 degrees referenced to true north (~72 degrees magnetic) which lines up with the damage along the approach path.
There's also the (as yet) unverified witness statement of the plane's wingtip clipping the top of the VDOT antenna. Other witnesses along the Columbia Pike placed the plane at a very low altitude at that point, a witness (Mrs. Deb Anlauf) on the 14th floor of the Sheraton stated it passed there at that height - about 56m above ground level give or take a bit which places it at close to 100m above sea level (~320') just west of the VDOT tower (305') which is reasonable correlation.

Altitude difference between VDOT and 1st light pole is 93-24.4 = 68.6m
Angle referenced to horizontal is atan(68.6/692.2) = 5.66 degrees

Altitude difference between 1st light pole and Pentagon ground level is 24.4-10.7 = 13.7m
Angle referenced to horizontal is atan(13.7/312.1) = 2.52 degrees

Obviously it's not necessary to pull up to level flight at the 1st pole and the actual change in pitch is only 5.66-2.52 = 3.14 degrees to stay on target to the impact point.

The chord of the required arc is 692.2/cos 3.14 = 693.2m
Radius of the arc (693.2/2)/sin 3.14 = 6318m
At a velocity of 238m/s: produces a centripetal force of 238^2/6318 ~9m/s^2 and adding gravity of 9.8m/s^2 results in 18.8m/s^2 or 1.9G - well within reasonability.
Granted this 1.9G only applies to a perfectly circular arc so consider it the required average for the maneuver. Time taken to do this amounts to 2.9 seconds.

The second section from the light pole to the building requires a descent of 13.7m in a horizontal distance of 312m = 2.52 degrees and using the same method I arrived at a minimum of 2.6G to arrive level at the building perimeter which also a reasonable (& very possible) figure.
IE chord = 312.4m, radius 3558m, ((238^2/3558)+9.8)/9.8 = 2.6G
A plane descending 13.7m (45') in a distance of 312m (1024') at ~460 knots would be barely distinguishable from level flight and this fits the witness observations and the notorious gatecam & Doubletree videos. Time taken to fly this section is 1.3 seconds.

I did another run to see if it was possible to fly a perfectly circular arc over the full distance from the VDOT tower to the building which passed near to the vdot tower top, intersected with the 5 light poles and arrived level at the wall - it's totally possible and only requires an average ~2G's to accomplish it.

Arc length 1008.8m, chord 1007.7m, radius 6167m, ((238^2/6167)+9.8)/9.8 = 1.94G taking 4.2 secs

Of all the conjectured flight paths I've seen suggested (quite a few), the 'official' path is the least stressful on the aircraft and therefore the most likely considering the fact the plane did actually get to the building.

No doubt controversial but it all seems to fit nicely unlike the alternatives.




posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
All these facts... booooringg...

Can't you throw together a cartoon with neat music like PFFT did?




posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   

posted by Pilgrum
Of all the conjectured flight paths I've seen suggested (quite a few), the 'official' path is the least stressful on the aircraft and therefore the most likely considering the fact the plane did actually get to the building.

Since a flight path over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo has been proven by numerous eyewitnesses and now admitted to by the FAA and the Bush Regime with their just released update on the actual path of the aircraft over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo, your conjecture and convoluted logic is irrelevant. The aircraft in question could never have possibly reached the light poles nor followed the flight path represented in your convoluted logic.

Download that update FAA video mpg and watch it on a large screen hi-rez monitor. It is much better than the YouTube version below. If you look at the aircraft just before it hits the Pentagon, (see photo below) the wings are at a 45 degree angle. With a wingspan of 124 ft 10 in, in order to hit the original very small 1st story hole, the entire 55 feet of starboard wing and the engine would have to be underground. The aircraft should have caught a wingtip earlier and cartwheeled across the lawn. The port engine should have struck the wall up on the 2nd story and the port wing should have struck across three or four storys on the facade. And of course it completely missed all 5 light poles and the generator. The light poles are a hundred feet to the south of the red flight path.

In actuality in the update FAA video, you can see that the aircraft is far too high to hit the 1st story because the right wing is not hitting the ground. They are essentially showing a flyover even though the animated aircraft disappears above the Pentagon wall in a scattering of pixels. Do any of you official conspiracy theory believers think that the aircraft struck up on the 3rd or 4th floor?

What a joke. Is somebody on the inside deliberately screwing them over? Of course they still have that fraudulent loop southwest of the Pentagon witnessed by nobody in the entire world, and they omitted the true flight across the Potomac, over DC, back across the Potomac, and banking around Reagan. But maybe their next update will correct that too.

FAA video screen capture - aircraft just before impact



Link to update FAA video source - 1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Find the file, right click on it, and download it to your hard drive



[edit on 10/5/08 by SPreston]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The chord of the required arc is 692.2/cos 3.14 = 693.2m

Where is the right angle in this triangle?





Edit: 312.2 should be 312.1. I'm not going to edit the .jpg file.


[edit on 5-10-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


I'm not sure if you have seen R Mackey's original analysis, but it is worth a look: forums.randi.org...

He creates 6 potential scenarios, each supported in some way by evidence, and considers the forces resulting from it. Even the worst case scenario is likely to be survivable in a modern aircraft:




posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Total g-loading: 4.0 g ???

Was there a load of 4g recorded on the alleged Flight AA77 data recorder?



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Yet another animation that fails to adjust for the difference between magnetic and true north. I'm puzzled as to why those who produce these persist with what is an obvious error far more significant than the UTC time display.

East of the Potomac?
First I've heard of that particular theory - anything substantial to support it?



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The chord of the required arc is 692.2/cos 3.14 = 693.2m

Where is the right angle in this triangle?


Not quite sure what your angle is here


If it's to do with the use of pythagorean geometry, just extend your axes a little and you'll find them. For the chords, bisect them and draw a line at right angles.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Thanks for that - I'd heard of his work in arguments but hadn't actually read it before. He's far more eloquent than I but interestingly I get comparable results with a far more simplistic approach to the problem.

Now if only we could get definite confirmation of the damage to the VDOT tower....
The Pentagon and light pole damage is undeniable I hope. I mean people saw it happen and the pieces had to be picked up afterward.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   

posted by tezzajw
Total g-loading: 4.0 g ???

Was there a load of 4g recorded on the alleged Flight AA77 data recorder?

Nope. Mackey requires a constant 4.0 Gs for that segment of the alleged official Flight 77 flight path down the steep hill, and through the five 247 pound light poles, and pulling up to level flight inches above the lawn.

But the alleged official Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder records an average of 1.17 Gs for that segment of the flight path.

Actually 4 Gs is nowhere to be found anywhere in the official FDR data; not even in the alleged high banking loop over Alexandria, Virginia southwest of the Pentagon which was not witnessed by even one person in all of Virginia. Not one photo of a big 757 in a high speed extreme bank diving down out of the skies above their homes; not one witness. But there are lots of witnesses to the true flight path across the Potomac and over DC and back across the Potomac and banking around Reagan. Even the NORAD tapes report the aircraft "6 miles southeast of the White House".

But regarding this flight path segment down the hill, the actual aircraft used has been proven over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo by re-interviewed and previously published eyewitnesses from the Center for Military History and others, and recently verified by the FAA, so this Mackey delusion is not even possible. There never was an aircraft descending down that hill and through the light poles and into the Pentagon. Those five 247 lb light poles had to be staged by hand because there never was an aircraft close enough to strike them. The alleged Flight 77 FDR differs greatly from the new released official FAA flight path which they have possessed since June 2002, and the FDR must be a fraud.

It is just more specious nonsense from the Forum of Magic and Illusion.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Total g-loading: 4.0 g ???

Was there a load of 4g recorded on the alleged Flight AA77 data recorder?

This entire section is not recorded in the FDR


Originally posted by SPreston
Nope. Mackey requires a constant 4.0 Gs for that segment of the alleged official Flight 77 flight path down the steep hill, and through the five 247 pound light poles, and pulling up to level flight inches above the lawn.

But the alleged official Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder records an average of 1.17 Gs for that segment of the flight path.

This is simply his most extreme case, if you read his analysis you'll find there are 5 other cases.

Again I ask, how can you selectively use parts of some evidence to attempt to support your claim? Isn't this a perfect example of bias? Everything that doesn't support your position is faked, but everything that does is not?

On the 'other side', we believe that nothing is faked, but some details are inaccurate. We have no 100% faith in the NTSB or eyewitness accounts, and strive to come to the most supported conclusion.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   

posted by SPreston
But regarding this flight path segment down the hill, the actual aircraft used has been proven over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo by re-interviewed and previously published eyewitnesses from the Center for Military History and others, and recently verified by the FAA, so this Mackey delusion is not even possible. There never was an aircraft descending down that hill and through the light poles and into the Pentagon. Those five 247 lb light poles had to be staged by hand because there never was an aircraft close enough to strike them.

posted by exponent
Again I ask, how can you selectively use parts of some evidence to attempt to support your claim? Isn't this a perfect example of bias? Everything that doesn't support your position is faked, but everything that does is not?

The accounts of the CIT eyewitnesses are not faked. They are quite certain of the aircraft flight path. Where have I stated that I believe the FAA released video is a true and accurate account? It obviously cannot explode into the 1st story hole with the right wingtip above the ground. The CIT eywitness accounts are so strong, that for some strange reason such as to enhance their plummeting credibility, the Bush Regime has decided to verify the over Naval Annex and north of Citgo accounts. Who knows what their devious reasoning is?

We have 13 verified and re-interviewed previously published eyewitnesses (actually more than that) placing the aircraft over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo. That alone renders the FDR a fraud and Mackey's little delusion an exercise in futility. There is no possible way in hell that aircraft could get over in front of the light poles and complete Mackey's flight path. It did not happen as officially scripted.

Now the FAA apparently tosses the FDR and releases the correct version of the flight path over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo in a mpg animation, as verified by the eywitnesses, AFTER the re-interviewed eywitness accounts have been published and debated repeatedly across the internet and air waves.


Originally posted by tezzajw
Total g-loading: 4.0 g ???

Was there a load of 4g recorded on the alleged Flight AA77 data recorder?

posted by exponent
This entire section is not recorded in the FDR

Actually, G forces were recorded all the way up to the alleged impact time of 9:37:45, and nowhere were there records of 4.0 G. The alleged official Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder records an average of 1.17 Gs for Mackey's segment of the flight path.


posted by Pilgrum
Yet another animation that fails to adjust for the difference between magnetic and true north. I'm puzzled as to why those who produce these persist with what is an obvious error far more significant than the UTC time display.

The Federal Aviation Administration released this mpg animation on 9-12-2008, and you think you know more about aircraft navigation than they do? The FAA is a Federal agency and can do nothing without the permission of the Bush Regime. So apparently this was a government decision to accede to the obvious truthfulness of the CIT eyewitnesses, despite the efforts of all you government official conspiracy theory apologists.

So the 9-11 planners have betrayed you faithful loyalists. Your bitter disappointment is with them; not with me.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   
The purpose of this thread was to demonstrate that the 'official' path past the VDOT tower, through the light poles and into the Pentagon does not require any excessive or unrealistic forces applied to the plane IE it's survivable by a large passenger aircraft (except for the sudden stop at the end of it). The CIT proposed 34G is extremely unrealistic to anyone who takes a few minutes to work it out for themselves.

About the FDR: there appears to be a partially written data frame at the end of the recording with at least 2 readable 1 second timestamps but the data itself would be garbage due to corrupted or absent sync markers in the final 4 second frame. 4 seconds amounts to a flight distance of 952m or about 3100'.

Did the FDR continue writing data after the crash?

No need to consider me as having any political agenda here - I live approx 20000km from Washington



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
The accounts of the CIT eyewitnesses are not faked. They are quite certain of the aircraft flight path.

They are also quite certain the plane impacted the building, therefore you are selectively using parts of their accounts.


Where have I stated that I believe the FAA released video is a true and accurate account?

You called it verification. How can it be verification if it is not accurate?


Actually, G forces were recorded all the way up to the alleged impact time of 9:37:45, and nowhere were there records of 4.0 G. The alleged official Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder records an average of 1.17 Gs for Mackey's segment of the flight path.

If this were true, you should be able to show the bank shown in the animation and the resultant G forces in the FDR. Can you?



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The chord of the required arc is 692.2/cos 3.14 = 693.2m

Ok, I'll ask again.

You're using cos 3.14 and 692.2 inside a right angle triangle to calculate a figure of 693.2.

From the diagram I have drawn, there is no right angle triangle that uses cos 3.14 and 692.2.

Are you claiming that the point to point distance from the top of VDOT to the top of LP1 (your arc's chord length) = 693.2?

From the diagram that I have drawn:
d(VDOT,LP1)^2 = 692.2^2 + (93-24.4)^2
d(arc's chord length) = 695.6

[edit on 6-10-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Again I ask, how can you selectively use parts of some evidence to attempt to support your claim? Isn't this a perfect example of bias? Everything that doesn't support your position is faked, but everything that does is not?


May I ask, do you agree with or disagree with the FAA's animation? How about CIT's eyewitnesses? Or even disregard?

Now, I don't support the flyover theory (not completely yet at least) but to me, it is quite obvious that something flew over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo.

Also, are people taking into account the 3 dimensional space with all vectors while dealing with the 4 forces on an airplane? Just curious from those who've read the theories. I haven't had time to delve, but even so, I'm more of a statics guy.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The purpose of this thread was to demonstrate that the 'official' path past the VDOT tower, through the light poles and into the Pentagon does not require any excessive or unrealistic forces applied to the plane



Pilgrim,

Please watch the video again and pay particular attention to the 6 min mark. Specifically the curve under the red line representing FDR trends. Also pay close attention to the narrative. All of the above is addressed.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   

posted by Pilgrum
The purpose of this thread was to demonstrate that the 'official' path past the VDOT tower, through the light poles and into the Pentagon does not require any excessive or unrealistic forces applied to the plane

posted by johndoex
Pilgrim,

Please watch the video again and pay particular attention to the 6 min mark. Specifically the curve under the red line representing FDR trends. Also pay close attention to the narrative. All of the above is addressed.


Google Video Link



posted by tezzajw
Total g-loading: 4.0 g ???

Was there a load of 4g recorded on the alleged Flight AA77 data recorder?

Nope. Mackey requires a constant 4.0 Gs for that segment of the alleged official Flight 77 flight path down the steep hill, and through the five 247 pound light poles, and pulling up to level flight inches above the lawn.

But the alleged official Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder records an average of 1.17 Gs for that segment of the flight path.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


You're absolutely right

Made a dog's breakfast of that one when typing in what I scrawled on a piece of paper. It only influences the resulting G's by about 0.3% (lower) though.

Perhaps a CIT rep can explain why they proposed a pull-up in a distance short enough to produce 10+ G when it doesn't appear to be necessary.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
May I ask, do you agree with or disagree with the FAA's animation?

I disagree with the FAAs animation yes. It is obviously incorrect by anyone's standards, and I doubt it was prepared with any sort of forensic accuracy. There doesn't seem to be any FDR or radar information for this portion of the flight, and so it was simply estimated. The plane's bank may have been automatically entered, but it's hard to know.


How about CIT's eyewitnesses? Or even disregard?

I can disregard a fair number of CITs eyewitnesses with relatively simple logic, there are only three eyewitnesses who can reliably state that the plane passed north of the Citgo station, and those are the three at the Citgo station. It is interesting that they all corroborate each other, but even so simply assuming they've all been fooled into believing the plane impacted the pentagon is a huge leap. There are well over 100 eyewitnesses to the plane impacting and R Mackey said it best:

According to the Citzen Investigation Team, the Government or whomever wanted to fool the world into thinking American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, along a certain heading that took it through several light poles and low over the freeway just prior to impact.

To do this, They executed the following:

  • They flew an aircraft over the Pentagon
  • The aircraft traveled along a different heading entirely, on the opposite side of a visible landmark (viz. the Citgo station)
  • The aircraft passed nowhere near the light poles in question
  • The light poles were sabotaged anyway, in some completely different fashion than aircraft impact
  • One light pole was staged to penetrate the windshield of a car, in traffic, again despite the actual aircraft not passing anywhere near overhead
  • A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by
  • The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual
  • The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77
  • A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft

And, finally,
  • The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.

I am reasonably certain that the above is the stupidest hypothesis ever conceived for any purpose, including parody, intentional humor, or even stress tests of human perception in psychological experiments.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join