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.

 

What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01?

page: 12
20
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
[edit on 25-9-2009 by Nassim Haramein]




posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Originally posted by turbofan


Hi turbo...

I suppose it's partly my fault, trying to describe, in my own words and layman's terms, what is just second nature to me. Thus leading to the occasional cognitive disconnect.

Let's see if I can fix it.

I mentioned that the simulator uses hydraulics to simulate control feel.
But, I apparently didn't describe it adequately:



What does a hydraulic assist have to do with predicting the effects of air pressure on the airframe?


I am assuming here you're referring to, by the term "air pressure", the force of the relative wind as the airplane flies?

Well, the simulator mathematical algorhythms take that into account...I mean, it's a very sophisticated machine, far superior to the MicroSoft stuff for your desktop.

NOW, this sentence:


...over-stressing the airframe, and encountering air pressure beyond that which the wings were designed to fly?


...makes me think I'm on the right track.

See above.


But you stated up to a point! So what is that point? We already know the simulator cannot reproduce the g forces. Strike one.


Before you get to comfortable with baseball analogies, I'll explain "up to a point."

I don't have all the details of how the engineers program the simulators, and to what extent they extrapolate beyond the normal flight envelope parameters. Different sim manufacturers likely have different standards. That is technical beyond my knowlwedge.

Only way to find out is going to be going out, buying time, and seeing just how far you can take the computer....before it defaults to a "crash" mode.

These are $10 million+ pieces of equipment...


We already know that since you are not trained to fly 150 knots over VMo, you are not familiar with the behaviour of the aircraft in, "uncontrolled flight". Strike two.


Two things: First, two words: "Hoot" Gibson. Second, merely exceeding VMO does not equate to "uncontrolled flight."



You keep contradicting yourself however.


Not intentionally. Perhaps my poor communication skills are at fault. I will attempt to clairfy.



Here you say the aircraft is more responsive and requires less deflection at higher speed.


Yes. I think I jumped back and forth, describing on one hand the simulator controls, then described the actual airplane systems.



So how would any of these terrorists understand how to control a 510 knot 767...


Again, that is an invalid question. The actual "feel" if the controls, even at speeds exceeding VMO, is not notably different. There isn't some 'magic' change in the airplane's behavior by adding a hundred knots.



Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
23,000 hours
27 years in the airlines

Captain Ross Aimer
UAL Ret.
CEO, Aviation Experts LLC
40 years and 30,000 hrs.
BS Aero

B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings



I am puzzled by those two gentlemen's opinions. I have 20,000 hours, over 22 years at a major airline, and thousands of hours in the B757/767. Type ratings DC-9 (includes all versions - MD-80/B717), B737 (covers all versions) and the B757/767 (a comon type rating due to cockpit and systems commonality).

So, I obviously disagree with their assessments. I have found no colleagues who would seem to agree with them, either.



None came close to Mach 1? Are you sure about that?
My source says otherwise. Check your math against the NSTB reported
data for UA 175.


The speed of sound, near sea level standard day? 768 MPH/667 Kts.

I don't believe UA 175 approached a velocity of 667 Kts. What did you say....charitably UA 175 was estimated to be 551 MPH? OK, that's 479 Kts. That works out to 0.72 Mach (as I mentioned, the Mach window on the airspeed indicator doesn't even open at low altitudes).


BTW according to these pilots, you don't necessarily need to be 'close' to Mach 1 in order to observe the out of control aspects of flight.


See above. 0.72 Mach isn't even "close".



[edit on 24 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nassim Haramein
Can somebody please answer the following dumb questions? They are from some sheep I work with.....Don't have the time to put much into them. My thanks in advance.

__________________________

Why is the government not taking people out that are very publicly flaunting the "truth" behind the lies and deceit you claim were behind 9/11? Why is the government not running around killing tensof thousands of people all over the country? Or are they specifically asking about the witnesses that all turned up dead?

If the government so easily went through the hoops to make 9/11 happen, and then tell the story they wanted the public to know.... Why are the folks who "know the truth" getting these books out and....still drawing breaths?


Have your friends at work ever heard of a martyr? One person tells some friends he knows the truth about 9/11 and then dies. Another person tells friends he is writing a book about the truth behind 9/11 and then dies. You don't think this might make people look a little more seriously at these books? Send out Sean Hannity to call them all nuts and you convince a lot of people they are nuts. Off a would be whistle-blower and suddenly everyone wants to know what he was whistling.


If the US government can kill over 3,000 of their own citizens and make it look like a terrorist attack...why are these people able to provide "proof" of that deception?


They did not do a perfect job. The did not need to do a perfect job. There are 100s of people just on the pilots, engineers, architects for truth site. That is just one little circle of people that all decided they know why this was an inside job and many have at least enough education and experience to be worth a listen. Books and movies have been put out. No one is being arrested, charged, sued. There is nothing any truther can do. Why would they be afraid when they knew how easily fooled most of their little people are?


How are they still alive themselves if that a) know the truth, and b) are a threat to the "conspiracy veil" that you claim we're all living under?


Who? The conspirators? Why did they not kill themselves in order to stop themselves from turning on themselves?

Maybe someone else needs to filed these because these questions are hardly even worth thinking about an answer to.


[edit on 24-9-2009 by Lillydale]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
So here is my question...What hit the pentagon.


It was a a Boeing 757 aircraft, known as American Airlines Flight 77.


i don't know details but isn't it strange that Pentagon was not equipped with an advanced defense system in '01, not to mention having been capable of blocking kamikadze planes.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Originally posted by turbofan


Let' compare similar aircraft instead of a 727 (< which is smaller and more agile)?


No, Kemosabe.

The various sizes of the B727 and B767 are not relevant. Actually, from a weight standpoint, the B727 and B757 are quite similar.

But, no....the 727 is not "more agile". I have plenty of time in that airplane, it handles a bit differently than the 757/767 series. Takes a bit more pressure on the controls.


How about Egypt Air 990?! A 767! Look it up.


Well familiar with EgyptAir. Nice of you to bring it up.

A suicidal pilot, for what reason we may never know, exactly.



How far away was the first pole from the *cough*, " impact" point?


Well...I actually live here, and can see the terrain, the levels and such...so a shallow dive, from over Rte 27 (Washington Boulevard) is not out of the question. "Pentacon" seems to gloss over some salient facts.....


What was the last recorded DME, Speed and Altitude (



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



In that time, you have admitted it does things well, but not perfectly as well and does not involve the stresses on the mind and body that would actually have been involved.


I selected this paragraph as representative, in order to try to explain better.

First, to address the 'fooling' of the inner ear sense of balance and motion:

The programming of the sims is subtle. I have spent many times, waiting to go in because our briefing was finished, and the 'crew' ahead of us was running a few minutes late....trying to guess what was going on inside, just by observing from outside.

Usually, it's easy to tell when they've "landed"....the thing comes up on its hydraulic jacks (BTW, 'six-axis simulator' is a common term you see bandied about...self-evident when you look at the pistons and support beneath).

Anyway....to simulate the deceleration of a landing, it tilts forward....raising the aft protion, using the natural Eartyh gravity to have you hanging in the shoulder straps, and it does this subtlely....when it wants (man, I'm giving it human emotions!!!) to get ready to simulate something, it will slowly position, to use the gravity of Earth, and tilt the way it needs to, in order to provide sensory 'clues'...the intent, here is obvious --- once a 'cue' is initiated, the mind fills in the rest, per the visuals and/or the instruments...for pilots, at least. When you're focused on your tasks, it does its job.

I can tell you, however...having just ridden as 'observer' also...once you stop paying attention to the visual cues....the 'reality' is broken.

Then, it's just a bumby ride.

I know my words don't do this justice....has anyone ever been to DisneyWorld or Universal Studios, and been on those virtual rides???

Same principles.....



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


All this posturing about how you can fly a simulator without the burden of real atmospheric interaction is really interesting and all but I find it more interesting that you are in this thread, doing this much talking about something any of us can say without offering any proof either but does not matter because it is not a true analog, and you have not even tried to explain what hit the pentagon on 9/11/01.


you got that right M8

I've put that character on IGNORE long ago... you and anyone that wants to have intelligent discourse here should as well.

Wackweed has no coherent speech pattern or focus and writes just to see how much he can ramble and not go anywhere in one post.

I've attempted debate with him, but i've come to realize its absolutely beyond pointless and worthless to engage these people who are either shills, in denial or just trolls.

You've hit the nail on the head here with JTHOMAS...


Originally posted by Lillydale
Demanding proof of a negative is not "intellectually honest" by any stretch of the imagination. Cheerleading for the OS over and over whilst never finding any good reason to believe it yourself is clearly not being "skeptic."


Jthomas is not a skeptic nor has any interest in the truth... he is one of 3 types

1) in denial 2) troll 3) perp payrollee

its really that simple.

Once you know that, all you need to do is put him on IGNORE because nothing will ever be gained by engaging him in debate as he adds nothing. He's obsolete and irrelevant and most everyone here can see it. Its like talking to a rock or a dog trying to catch his tail.


[edit on 23-9-2009 by Orion7911]


This is correct. You have the stars on the post to prove it.
Also the mods want to know when members just yak to yak.
Sure they are typing encyclopedias of the most irrelevant horse mongus on ATS.
Maybe they have a financial stake.
911 is a day that has had not one trial, not one cross examined tid bit of testimony.
It is the biggest FARCE the American people have had to deal with in this century.
I showed you all how to stop these spook trolls in a post on this thread.
Check it out and you will be able to discuss this topic as it should be discussed.
This thread has digressed to useless banter.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to Lillydale's post #185, Part 1
 



Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by scott3x
I agree with a lot of what you have to say above, but is he truly trying to prove a negative? Or is it more that he's clinging to the fact that we haven't proven the official story is wrong?

d
At this point I have to ask you to go back and read his posts, perhaps back before you joined the threads he is on. Yes, he insists that I prove a negative. He expects me to prove that no passenger bodies were found. There is nothing else to call that.


Lilly, if there's one subject between you 2 that I've covered rather thoroughly, it's this one. Take a look:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

He keeps on assuming that you've said you have proof, I keep on pointing out that, despite what you said once, that's not what you actually meant; and so it goes :-p.


Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by scott3x
He believes it was the status quo. He also believes it's up to us to prove otherwise. I personally don't adhere to either of those beliefs, but we're talking about him here...


You believe that he is logical? You honestly believe it is logical to believe that the status quo is hijacked planes full of passengers crashing into the Pentagon. How does logic even allow that to happen? Do they have to crash one after another in rapid succession or does the building need to be repaired so it can be damaged all over again too?

See why I fail to see any logic in there yet?


You lost me here. What' s this about planes? Even the official story only believes that 1 plane hit the pentagon. Personally, I still think the best argument against this is Rob Balsamo's point regarding the 10g dive. The problem is that some people here, including a pilot (weedwacker) thinks it's no good. I've asked them why they think Rob's calculations aren't good, but to date I don't believe I've gotten a response to this yet.


Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by scott3x
It would seem that here we do indeed disagree. It seems clear to me that he thinks. Honestly, you wouldn't even be able to read, let alone write, without the ability to think.


OK, his not unconscious or in a coma, you got me there.


Come Lillydale, he can read, he can write, he can respond to points. Anyone who can read, write and respond to points is clearly far from being unconscious or in a coma...



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to Lillydale's post #185, Part 2
 



Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by scott3x
And I do believe he has -some- logic. I believe his logic is flawed and it can be irritating to see the same flawed logic trumpeted out again and again.


I guess the problem is that what you see as flawed logic, I see as an absence of logic. Logic is an English word that by nature either is, or is not. There are no levels of logic, good and bad logic, flawed and flawless logic. There is logic which tells us 2 + 2 = 4 and there is not. 2 + 2 = 83423 is not flawed logic, it is the absence of logic. See where I am coming from?


If this were as simple as a simple mathematical error, I'd agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, it's not. The post of mine that I linked to in my last post concerning this discussion of whether or not you stated that there was proof that no passenger bodies were found is, I think, a good one. jthomas likes to cling to the fact that certain elements concerning the official story haven't yet been proven false. But claiming that something hasn't been proven to be false is -not- the same thing as claiming that -because- it hasn't been proven false, it is therefore true. I know that he goes on about "mountains of evidence", and I've told him that what he calls "mountains of evidence", I generally call a bunch of unsubstantiated and contradictory claims. But I haven't seen him claim that there is "proof" that the official story is valid, and certainly not heard him claim that he believes the official story has been proven to be true simply because it hasn't been proven false.



Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by scott3x
But his insults are mild, which I am thankful for. I've suffered much, much worse. Also, the thing about flawed logic is that it can be revealed, given enough time…


You really need to go back and read. I am certainly not trying to be rude but if you still need time, you have not witnessed him enough.


I respect your view, but I don't agree with it. I'm reminded of what Jezus said in post #658 (www.abovetopsecret.com...):


Originally posted by Jezus
You repeat the same two points OVER and OVER again...

1. The majority believe the official story!

Argumentum ad populum

"If many believe so, it is so."

en.wikipedia.org...


I agree wholeheartedly with Jezus that jthomas employs this technique fairly frequently. However, note that there is no claim of proof here...



Originally posted by Jezus
2. You can't prove I have no evidence!

Negative Proof

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

en.wikipedia.org...


Here is where I believe both you and Jezus are mistaken. He's right that jthomas loves claiming that we can't prove that his alleged evidence isn't valid. No matter how improbable, given enough imagination, it can truly be hard to disprove a great deal of things. But I have never seen him claim that simply because we can't prove him wrong, the official story is therefore proven.



Originally posted by Lillydale
Yes his insults are mild but I could care less. Some stranger behind a keyboard can insult me all they like. I have no need to fear or be hurt by it.


I don't feel the same way on this one, and I doubt that you'd simply sit there and take it if things truly got nasty; I'm fairly sure that the reason that a fair amount of productive discussion is done here is precisely because the moderators are watching this forum fairly closely in an attempt to keep the discourse relatively civil.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to Lillydale's post #185, Part 3 (last part)
 



Originally posted by Lillydale
It is this constant avoidance of answering questions that he calls other people out for not answering.


Yes, here we agree and it's what I said in my last post to you; he loves going on the attack and avoids defending his own views. I also alluded to my view that if he would just examine the foundations for his views concerning 9/11 more closely, he might realize how flimsy they are.



Originally posted by Lillydale
It is this constant attitude he gives to anyone seeking the truth starting from a point of doubting the OS. He does not care about the truth.


I think you're being unfair here. While -unconsciously-, he might have a better understanding of the truth, consciously he seems to believe that the official story is the truth and we're the ones who are mistaken. But ask yourself this; why is he here? I mean, seriously, why spend so much time debating with people who disagree with him? I can't answer for him, but I -can- answer for myself. I'm here because I think I have a fairly good idea of what happened at the pentagon and I'd like to share my knowledge with others.


Originally posted by Lillydale
Bounce around. People are asking him for the truth and instead he is telling them to prove to him how I know something to be true. Does that sound like a logical truth seeker to you?


I think your question is too vague to be answered properly. I think it might be better to focus on a specific example.



Originally posted by Lillydale
When someone asks him for the truth and he uses it (repeatedly) to toss one of those mild insults my way, does it really seem like he cares, is interested, or is even paying attention?


Here we're going into motive speculation again; figuring out motive is, in my view, quite difficult; the whys are always the most difficult questions I have found. I believe the evidence of the 'no plane/missile impact' theory is strong, but if you were to ask me -why- they did it… well, there are theories, but it's -much- harder to find strong evidence for such things. The same goes for the motives of people posting here.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Let' compare similar aircraft instead of a 727 (< which is smaller and more agile)?


No, Kemosabe.

The various sizes of the B727 and B767 are not relevant. Actually, from a weight standpoint, the B727 and B757 are quite similar.


No? Did I just read that, " Weedwacker" a self-proclaimed pilot does not
want to account for weight, size, design of a 767 to compare against
the events of 9/11?

You would rather compare a 727, than Egypt air which had a suicide pilot
and the SAME aircraft in question?

Notice the similarities here? Suicide pilot. 767.



But, no....the 727 is not "more agile". I have plenty of time in that airplane, it handles a bit differently than the 757/767 series. Takes a bit more pressure on the controls.


Contradiction? It's not more agile? A smaller, light aircraft is not easier
to handle?


The video has some very established engineers and pilots with time-in-type
that say you're wrong "Weed".

Now, who am I going to believe? People with real names who have
flown both aircraft and can be verified on FAA.GOV, or some guy
claiming to be a pilot on the internet who contradicts these professionals?

Hmmm...



How about Egypt Air 990?! A 767! Look it up.


Well familiar with EgyptAir. Nice of you to bring it up.

A suicidal pilot, for what reason we may never know, exactly.


If yuo're familiar with it, why not tell all of us what happened to the
airframe as the plane reached 0.99 mach at 22, 000 feet?

Is this part of the reason you don't want to compare 767 structural limits
with the events of 9/11?






Well...I actually live here, and can see the terrain, the levels and such...so a shallow dive, from over Rte 27 (Washington Boulevard) is not out of the question. "Pentacon" seems to gloss over some salient facts.....


Repeat. The question was: How far are the light poles from the Pentagon?

I didn't ask if you lived in the area. Please answer.


The DME is irrelevant.


Wow!


Now I REALLY need to question your ability. Are you trying to tell me
DME is not accurate in stating the distance of the aircraft from the radio beacon?

Does this not tell us the approximate distance within +/- 1 nm?



Well over 2G would be with respect to AA77.


No. We have no data (that I've seen) on the G forces. Do you have some? I'd like to see it.


Pilots for Truth did an exceptional job figuring these forces based on
distances, topography, and FDR data. Look up some of their work like,
"Attack on the Pentagon"


I was trying to point out that when you said "well over 2 gs"...you reach THREE gs next!! So, is "well over 2 gs" less than 3 gs?? See my point?


The data from the pilots show about 10 g based on their analysis and
NTSB supplied data.

Do you have any other calculations to prove this figure incorrect?



I linked the description of EAS....it is the SAME AS IAS/CAS at sea level!!! Please review.


Maybe I'm not making myself clear then:

What is the IAS at sea level for UA 175?


I feel there is a situation, here, where a layman is reading material above his practical experience, and imputing incorrectly.


No. As a matter of fact, there are aero engineers and pilots discussing
these points and explaining them with data/graphs/animations.

It is not "me" misunderstanding the terms. Perhaps you will understand
when you see the video.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhackerI am assuming here you're referring to, by the term "air pressure", the force of the relative wind as the airplane flies?


No, more like dynamic pressure. IE: Air Density. Forces acting on the
structure of the aircraft as it INCREASES proprotional to INCREASE in SPEED.


I don't have all the details of how the engineers program the simulators, and to what extent they extrapolate beyond the normal flight envelope parameters. Different sim manufacturers likely have different standards. That is technical beyond my knowlwedge.


THank you for being honest and admitting that point.



Two things: First, two words: "Hoot" Gibson. Second, merely exceeding VMO does not equate to "uncontrolled flight."


Forget "Hoot". Look at a 767 exceeding VMo by 150 KNOTS





Again, that is an invalid question. The actual "feel" if the controls, even at speeds exceeding VMO, is not notably different. There isn't some 'magic' change in the airplane's behavior by adding a hundred knots.





You are freaking me out "Weedwacker". So you'd fly the controls THE
SAME at 200 knots as you would 400 knots if you were let's say, turning
the aircraft within the same radius?!




I don't believe UA 175 approached a velocity of 667 Kts. What did you say....charitably UA 175 was estimated to be 551 MPH?


THe NTSB SAID 510 KNOTS, not MPH.

Care to redo the math now, or shall I post the correct values?



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 



Personally, I still think the best argument against this is Rob Balsamo's point regarding the 10g dive. The problem is that some people here, including a pilot (weedwacker) thinks it's no good.


It is difficult, in a forum like this, to describe verbally concepts that are inherently understood, in non-verbal ways.....

(just for example....and bear with me here....try to describe ACCURATELY, using only words, how to tie a shoelace or a bowtie. Not using diagrams, JUST words. See???)

Flying is a lot like that.

You learn to fly...it is a skill set. Muscle memory. Et cettera.

"driving a car' in three dimensions....if that helps. It likely doesn't even come close....

Be honest...how many of you, when you are driving your car, are thinking ahead? I mean...WAY ahead>?

ABOUT your vehicle? You may glance at the fuel guage...and of course the speedometer....but does it cross your mind, at all, when driving..."How many miles are left, based on the fuel I currently have, before I run out?"

I only mention this, because....well, you sort of brought it up.

We want to define, and provide, the best descriptions possible. Words are limiting, in that aspect, compared to an actual 'demonstraton'...live, and in person. But, we are limited....because of the forum we are in.

Agreed?

OK.....I have NO IDEA why you wish to quote "rob balsamo"....I know who he is, and find his conclusions to be devoid of factual clarity. In aviation terms, at least.

Perhaps....it is the same difficulty we ALL face...tyring to put into words, in ways that ALL may be able to understand, concepts that only pilots will grasp?

Trying to couch terms in ways that the layperson will understand, leads to pilots misunderstnding, and thus attacking each other?

Add to this, the nature of the Internet....where ANYONE can claim to be an 'expert'....but, ultimately, the proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes...those who try to 'fake' it are easily caught out.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


YOU, sir....respectfully.....

HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I have been patient, and have responded with rational and well-understood (by fellow pilots) responses.

I'm sorry that your understanding of concepts that are well-understood by pilots is a shortcoming.

There are no words to convince you...it would seem.

YET!!!! You are apparently convinced by bogus info, and refuse to acknowledge a differing opinion??

Wow!



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Why shuold I believe someone who tells me to compare a 727 instead of
a 767?

Why should I believe that several registered pilots state that a 727 doesn't
fly like a 767 due to weight, size, design, etc...but some guy on the internet
says they are similar? Even a non-pilot can understand the differences
due to weight, size, design, etc.


Why should I believe someone who says he understands the effects of
dynamic pressure, but knows outright that a flight simulator cannot
reproduce such effects?

I guess any of us layman can pick up a 767 and hit a target at 510 Knots,
but pilots with several thousand hours in type have trouble doing it at
LANDING SPEEDS!?

Are you kidding me "Weed"?

What's that math you still owe us? YOu know Equivalent airspeed at
sea level for 510 Knots?

HINT: It's OVER mach 1!

[edit on 24-9-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 



THe NTSB SAID 510 KNOTS, not MPH.


OK...FIRST, show us where the NTSB determined the speed of UA 175. OK? BECAUSE, as you know...the SSFDR data was NOT recovered on UA 175, at the Towers.

(OH....and AGAIN!!!! EVEN IF "510 Kts"... still,

ANY estimated speed of UA 175 is based on observations of the video evidence --- POST impact. YOU KNEW THIS, correct??? (because....there is no recoverable SSFDR data...from EITHER UA 175 OR AA 11...)

ARE YOU not understanding, or are you actually just repeating what you've read?

THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!!

Not being rude...but it is a valid question.

Because, once again....510 Kts....EVEN IF that was ever indicated, on the airspeed indicator onboard UA 175.....AND....it was NEVER on the Airspeed Indicator since the instrument doen't go that high...so do NOT try to "catch" me on that...way ahead of you.....

The speed of sound, near Sea Level....is 667 Knots!!! OK....let us assume that UA 175 actually reached an IAS/CAS of 551 Knots....that is STILL, based on a STANDARD atmosphere...of SEA LEVEL....(and, well....1,000 feet ABOVE Sea level is not that significant, in this examination)....

551 Kts is STILL barely Mach 0.83!!!!! (It is accurately...Mach 0.826)

I rounded UP to a significant digit......

I just cannot emphasize how INCORRECT this stuff is....as "presented' by these "professonal pilots", when viewed from another perspective.

Look....I'm semi-retired, too....(medical reasons...)....because I have NOT reached the age that reqires permanent retirement. (This used to be age 60. The age limit has been extended, based on additonal medical requriements. I am still in my fifties....)

BUT....I have known quite a few irrascible cranks, in my time....

Just sayin'.......................
_____________________________________________________________

edit for minor mistakes....



[edit on 24 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 24 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x
 



Originally posted by weedwhacker
Personally, I still think the best argument against this is Rob Balsamo's point regarding the 10g dive. The problem is that some people here, including a pilot (weedwacker) thinks it's no good.


It is difficult, in a forum like this, to describe verbally concepts that are inherently understood, in non-verbal ways.....

(just for example....and bear with me here....try to describe ACCURATELY, using only words, how to tie a shoelace or a bowtie. Not using diagrams, JUST words. See???)

Flying is a lot like that.


Rob Balsamo's explanation sounded good to me. I think what should be done here is you should cite where, exactly, you think it's mistaken. Here it is again:

From Pilots for 9/11 Truth's video, 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon, starting at 8:52:


Placing the aircraft on the south path, lowered from the FDR altitude of 699 feet above sea level at this point in space to the top of the VDOT antenna, we can examine the pull up needed at pole 1 and measure the radius using a 3 point ark radius tool provided with this 3d animation software program.

...To get an idea of how we demonstrate this in 3d software, we switch to an orthogonal view. An orthogonal view is different than a perspective view in that it eliminates the effect of distance from a viewpoint. Therefore, we can accurately determine radius of an ark and precisely draw an ark based on the pull up needed in this view.

Here is the ark drawn in the orthogonal view. We will remove the topography and obstacles in order to get a better view of the ark drawn. Again, we we will demonstrate the accuracy of the scale and topography at the end of this presentation.

The radius of this ark is 20.85 centimeters. But remember the scale of this presentation is 1 cm= 100 ft. So we need to multiply 100 to 20.85 and we get a radius of 2,085 feet.

With the radius, we can use a simple formula required for measuring acceleration as "a = v^2 / r". This is the proper formula to use for such a problem.


Using the velocity as provided by the NTSB for both scenarios, 781 f/s, we need to square that, then divide by 2085, to get 292.5 f/s squared. We then divide that by 32 f/s squared to get 9.14 G.

[The math involved]:
781*781 = 609,961
609,961/2085 = 292.5 f/s squared
292.5 f/s squared/32 f/s squared = 9.14G

G force calculation for this pull up equals 9.14 Gs. We also need to add 1 G for earth's gravity, for a total of 10.14 Gs required.

Transport category aircraft are limited to 2.5 positive Gs. Although a 757 could perhaps withstand more G forces then 2.5, it's highly unlikely it could withstand more than 5 or 6.

Remember, this calculation is for the least challenging pull. If we hypothetically lower the aircraft altitude from the NTSB plotted altitude, to the lower height of the VDOT antenna.

As we can see G loads required to pull out of a dive from the top of the VDOT antenna are impossible for a 757. It is off the charts if we account for altitude as plotted and produced by the NTSB.

Placing the aircraft at the FDR altitude, the most challenging pull, we can measure the radius of the ark needed to pull out of such a dive.

Again, we switch to the orthogonal view, for accurate measurements and we get a radius of 576.9 feet. Plugging that radius into the same formula, and adding 1 g for earth's gravity, we get 34 Gs.

781*781 = 609,961
609,961/576.9 = 1057.3
1,057.3/32 = 33G

Impossible.

This is the proper way to determine G loads in a 2 dimensional problem such as aircraft pulling out of a dive.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


Sorry.

THEY use a lot of words...and I'm hardly one to criticsize that....

BUT....I completely have rejected the 'analysis' because it doesn't match other data....IF you only listen to one side...well...then you only hear from that one side!

I would prefer NOT to engage in the next, and obvious....ad hom...but just by suggesting it, I'm being a bit passive-aggressive ON that concept.....

Seems I'm losing before I even get started.

My only respnse to the "math" of Rob Balsamo,and the P4T (et a)l is.....

...they use MATH to obfuscate, and attempt to 'describe' what they really don't seem to understand.....using MATH to substantiate their pre-concieved "opinions".....

Mathematics is a precise science...when used properly. HOWEVER...it is terribly available for mis-use, and when it is MIS-USED, it should be noted.

I am still studying, so hang on.....I may need to ask for help....



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I can tell you, however...having just ridden as 'observer' also...once you stop paying attention to the visual cues....the 'reality' is broken.

Then, it's just a bumby ride.

I know my words don't do this justice....has anyone ever been to DisneyWorld or Universal Studios, and been on those virtual rides???

Same principles.....


That is still not "fooling the inner ear." At best you are fooling your brain into thinking that the signals from your inner ear are not correct. You are fooling your brain with what you see and feel, your inner ear could really care less.

What is it you are trying to prove now anyway? The simulator is not a true analog and your understanding of biology seems a little off. How does any of that explain what hit the pentagon at all?



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
You lost me here. What' s this about planes? Even the official story only believes that 1 plane hit the pentagon. Personally, I still think the best argument against this is Rob Balsamo's point regarding the 10g dive. The problem is that some people here, including a pilot (weedwacker) thinks it's no good. I've asked them why they think Rob's calculations aren't good, but to date I don't believe I've gotten a response to this yet.


Now I understand why you are trying so hard to defend this complete waste of bandwidth. At first I thought you were joking. Now I think it is because you are lacking a little of the common sense Jthomas seems to be missing.

The reason it says planes instead of plane is because in order for a plane crash to be status quo, there are going to need to be constant plane crashes which I am pretty sure would require more than one plane. A plane crashing is a single time event. It cannot be the status quo. If that is where Jthomas wants to go, fine but then he has to admit that means that a plane must be crashing into the pentagon over and over and over and over and over - thus the more than one plane sentence.



Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by scott3x
It would seem that here we do indeed disagree. It seems clear to me that he thinks. Honestly, you wouldn't even be able to read, let alone write, without the ability to think.


OK, his not unconscious or in a coma, you got me there.


Come Lillydale, he can read, he can write, he can respond to points. Anyone who can read, write and respond to points is clearly far from being unconscious or in a coma...


Are you seriously trying to have this debate in here? If you thing Jthomas has made any good points at all, please feel free to quote them. Please post any good points or at least good responses you have read from him. Jthomas is either a liar or incredibly deficient in mental capacity. There is no other way to read his incessant and blatant attempts to pretend he says things he does not and pretend he has proof he does not and pretends that logic need not apply in his world but he can certainly take it, twist it, make it null and void and then pretend it now somehow fits on the other side.

There is no logic, there are no good points, there is nothing but childish drive by attacks, lies, information that is horribly incorrect. If you honestly think that he has made any really logical statements, I would love to see them.

I would rather this thread be on topic for at least a little while but hey...I know that with the OS so hard to back up, distraction is a far better route to take.



new topics




 
20
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join