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.
Originally posted by turbofan
If you're a math major, then figure out the error in your assumption:
1.5 DME +/- 1 nm from the airport beacon intersecting the damage path
with an aircraft moving at 462 knots is how many seconds to "impact"?
If you believe your assumptions (IE: errors) on your page, then
you cannot agree with Warren's data; specifically SIX SECONDS OF
MISSING DATA.
Originally posted by cesura My review does not even
mention DME
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Let us know when you confront Balsamo with your claims and his reply. Till then, you're just another self-proclaimed "brain" who makes excuses for the govt story attempting an argument from authority with increased "technobabble" obsessed with Balsamo and his work. You also may want to look at their list of members. Many engineers listed, including an Aeronautical Engineer who helped with the project you say wasn't reviewed by Engineers.
Contrary to Balsamo's statement above, the missing seconds are implied by the flight data recorder's own positional data, which end well short of the Pentagon, about twice as far as the Navy annex and VDOT antenna. The missing seconds have been confirmed by correlating the FDR's positional and altitude data with independent data obtained from ground radar and other sources. That correlation was performed by Rob Balsamo's former collaborator, engineer John Farmer (who should not be confused with attorney John J Farmer, Jr, senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission). Farmer's most important conclusion: "The FDR file positional data ends 6 ± 2 seconds prior to the reported impact location."
Originally posted by turbofan
There's your first mistake. You're not accounting for positional data,
and then you claim there is six seconds +/- 2 sec. missing from the
FDR file.
Originally posted by turbofan
You are aware Warren's data decode includes four additonal seconds
which you claim are "missing"?
Originally posted by turbofan
P4T never made the 6 seconds of data missing claim. That came from
people who have no clue about INTEL's FLASH EEPROM and L-3's FDR product
intergrity.
Originally posted by turbofan
The analysis is flawed. A simple trace back from the "impact" point along
the "damage path" puts the aircraft too far off track for the DME values
last recorded at a speed of 462 knots.
Originally posted by turbofan
LAstly, you cannot use a separate data source to verify the aircraft's
positional sensing system (DME data). Each source has it's own set of
tolerances and pros/cons. Furthermore, these systems are not sync'd
in any fashion.
I hope you understand this SIMPLE TECHNICAL concept.
Originally posted by cesura
It sounds as though neither you nor turbofan have even read
my review of the PfT/CIT video and Rob Balsamo's physics of
conspiracy:
Hi Swing,
One of our forum members sent me an email awhile ago with the above link. Although the above paper appears to be intended as mostly an ad hom attack and as such, the author refuses to confront us directly, basically, the above paper shows what we have already demonstrated in our presentation, that it is possible for a 757 to hit the pentagon when removing all the variables. See the 6 minute mark here.
pilotsfor911truth.org...
What the above paper fails to address is that our analysis was based on topography, obstacles AND data. The above paper does not account for data and the near linear trends provided and plotted by the NTSB.
Hope this helps.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
I just checked your first calculation using the same online calculator offered by Farmer, Ryan Mackey and Myriad.
tutor4physics.com...
(ignore the units on the above calculator as long as you keep all numbers in the same unit feet, they will solve for feet, but you should already know this)
Plug 271 into the top window for distance.
Plug 0 into final velocity.
Plug 61.6 into Initial Velocity. (271/4.4 seconds)
Click solve.
Acceleration = -7.0 f/s^2 (rounded)
Divde by 32 = .2G
Add 1 for earth = 1.2 G
You claim 1.9 G for the same numbers.
Solving for your 28.3 f/s^2 using the above calculator, the initial velocity required is 123.8 f/s. No one has claimed this descent rate. You just pulling numbers out of thin air to meet your agenda Will?
Originally posted by R_Mackey
You're doing something wrong Will. This is why I personally will not spend too much time on you and your "paper" and certainly will not spend the amount of time you spend on Balsamo.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Again, let us know when you confront Balsamo with your claim and his reply. But you may want to first check your work, or have someone else do it for you.
Originally posted by cesura
With that particular calculator, you can't compute the
acceleration without first knowing either the initial
velocity or the acceleration.
Originally posted by cesura
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Solving for your 28.3 f/s^2 using the above calculator, the initial velocity required is 123.8 f/s.
I suggest you use the 28.3 ft/sec^2 deceleration from
my review. Plugging in 271 for the distance, -28.3 for
the acceleration, and 0 for the final velocity, the calculator
will tell you that the initial velocity (rounded) is 123.85 ft/sec,
roughly twice the value you assumed.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Please see the edit I made above. We may have cross posted.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Will, read the above quotes and where they originate. Do you even read the posts you quote before you reply?
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Will, the initial velocity is known and it is the velocity that has been used from P4T and those at JREF. This is your mistake. And a big mistake it was.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Also, you need to check your arithmetic.
a = 2 s / t2
a = 2(271)/4.4^2
a = 28.00 (rounded up from 27.99...)
not 28.3
...basically, the above paper shows what we have already demonstrated in our presentation, that it is possible for a 757 to hit the pentagon when removing all the variables. See the 6 minute mark here...
pilotsfor911truth.org...
I confess that I can't follow the math....
Originally posted by turbofan
On top of that, you still need to find evidence of at least ONE pole strike
in the FDR data. First place to look would be EGT of the "damaged" engine.
Originally posted by .Sol.
Has anyone else noticed that the more we learn about all this stuff, the lamer P4T's excuses get for being wrong?
Originally posted by turbofan
Lame excuses? Like:
- 2,4,6 seconds data delay
- transient erase miracle
- Bird strikes
- Multiple devices accessing the static port
Notice your 'boys' have not come back since I sourced the Boeing documentation.
Their EXCUSE about the static port is actually a lie. They don't have any
documentation about the 757-200 and continue to make up stories to
explain why the flight data should fit their fantasy.
Let me know when TomK and/or Reheat want to tell us which devices
are connected to the PA static port. It has been about a week since
they ran off...
Originally posted by R_Mackey
We are clearly in an "Info-War" at this point in time. I fear it may escalate.
To put it simply, it is good people are still debating this topic (9/11 in general), even if it takes 30 years to find the truth. When the debate/communication stops, is when you/me/they/we have to worry. Perhaps this is all by design? You decide.
[edit on 12-11-2009 by R_Mackey]