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 911files
Yes, PA is off, but if you compare the slope of the change curve for PA with acceleration and RA values, it is clearly anomalous.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
TF, don't bother replying to people like trebor. For one, he has already lost quite a bit of credibility on this board, and two, it's clear he cannot debate the topic of this thread and instead attempts to bait the opposition using unsourced, off-topic strawman arguments in every-single-one of his posts.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
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:
I looked through it. I quoted it on the last page.
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.
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.
Edit: Here is a reply from Balsamo based on the above "paper" someone posted at their forum.
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.
Source
Looks like you wasted a boat load of time trying to prove something wrong which is already covered Will.
[edit on 11-11-2009 by R_Mackey]
Originally posted by R_Mackey
We are clearly in an "Info-War" at this point in time. I fear it may escalate.
Originally posted by .Sol.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
We are clearly in an "Info-War" at this point in time. I fear it may escalate.
Oh yeah, Balsamo, with all this PA smoke blowing around, it's almost hard to tell that P4T hasn't yet been right about a single point of any substance or consequences.
Almost.
Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Attack of the character noted and logged. Define substance and consequence in this case, please.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Please read this statement again.
From Rob Balsamo's narration at 6:02 in the G-Forces video:
The parabola scenario does present a possible descent through obstacle and topography, albeit not consistent with the FDR trends.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
You claim P4T only analyzed one "favorite" path, the one that is "impossible". This is false. P4T analyzed several paths all with varying variables, even those that are possible.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Your formula does not consider initial velocity, therefore your formula is also the wrong one to use...
Originally posted by R_Mackey
...based on the premise/objective of "9/11 Attack On The Pentagon" which is based on topography, obstacles and data.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
As for your rounding errors, I just plugged your numbers from your paper using your formula into a calculator and rounded the final result.
a = 2(271)/4.4^2
a = 542/19.36
a = 27.9958677685950.....
not 28.3
Anyone can do it, and they don't even need to take a course in calculus. Being an instructor, I'm sure you're familiar with this term? K.I.S.S.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Further, the calculator you offered to "debunk" P4T calculations is the wrong calculator and has been confirmed by an MIT PhD.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
And since you still call me "Rob", why is Will in conversation with me when he has already repeatedly claimed he doesn't want to discuss this issue with Balsamo? Yes, we know, everyone who has an aptitude to attract MIT PhD's for argument must be Balsamo, right?
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Farmer, it appears Will, a PhD from MIT, disagrees with you at every level of your argument. I'm not surprised.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
TF, don't bother replying to people like trebor. For one, he has already lost quite a bit of credibility on this board...
"...a NASA Scientist claiming .70M - .72M is above Mcrit for the 757..."
This "flutter" argument is even stupider, if that's possible. Boeing aircraft typically cruise above their critical Mach number. They're designed to do it. Up at altitude, they cruise around 0.8 Mach or so all day long. This is done using supercritical wing design, boundary layer control, large and carefully thought control surfaces, etc. So the idea that AA 77 suddenly became uncontrollable when it hit 0.72 Mach on the deck is... bewildering.
Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Ryan, since you quoted from the Pilots For 9/11 Truth forum, why don't you join and debate and confront them there with your claims? They have offered the invite numerous times.
They are extremely cordial to those who act the same way towards posters there. That way you and the certified experts can sit down and hash this out together. Well as least review it as they have already hashed it out and shown the discrepancies with the FDR and the official story.
Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Then why not discuss the issue with the pilots 4 truth at their forum instead of attacking them here?
That is what I don't understand...people will attack an organization at their own site, here, etc. but never at the pilots for 9/11 truth forum located here: pilotsfor911truth.org...
Originally posted by cesura
No, I respect John Farmer's research and agree with him at every
level of his argument with which I am currently familiar.
Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Then why not discuss the issue with the pilots 4 truth at their forum instead of attacking them here?
Originally posted by cesura
I love that sentence, and wish I had quoted it in my review.
It directly contradicts the video's primary thesis: that
"g-loads required to pull out of a dive from the top of the
VDOT antenna are impossible for a 757."
No, my formulas are correct and appropriate.
I'll conserve readers' patience by ignoring several points
that have already been refuted...
I have already explained that my calculations were performed
using full IEEE double precision, rounding to a single decimal
place in my review.
The calculator was not designed to
solve our specific time-restricted variant of the problem
That should not be blamed on the
calculator.
When air approaches the speed of sound, however, "compressibility" sets in. What it means is that under the right conditions, we can no longer assume density is constant, and thus neither can we assume static pressure is constant. .... But why does it happen?
Why is because the aircraft shape accelerates the flow. If the aircraft is traveling at the critical Mach number, which can be as low as about 0.6.. When that happens, we can no longer treat the air as constant pressure, or constant density.
Source
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Since Ryan feels the static system was experiencing Compressibility issues, he must also think .70M - .72M is above Mcrit for the 757.
IIRC, Mcrit (Critical Mach, or... Mach Critical) on a 757/767 is near .89-.91 Mach. Usually Mmo is structured around Mcrit. I'll double check with our 757/767 Capts.
Rusty also verified my recollection of Mcrit for the 757/767... the purpose of the call...
Captain Bob Balsamo
"It would be very easy for this aircraft to blast over the Pentagon, bank hard left, head up the river, and the people on the east side of the river Downtown DC were on chaos evacuating downtown DC."
"Its very possible the attack on the pentagon was some type of bombing run with some type of MOAB."
Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Originally posted by .Sol.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
We are clearly in an "Info-War" at this point in time. I fear it may escalate.
Oh yeah, Balsamo, with all this PA smoke blowing around, it's almost hard to tell that P4T hasn't yet been right about a single point of any substance or consequences.
Almost.
Attack of the character noted and logged. Define substance and consequence in this case, please.
Originally posted by ImAPepper
"R_Mackey", can you please ask Rob Balsamo and his "Core group" if they still believe this:
Captain Bob Balsamo
"It would be very easy for this aircraft to blast over the Pentagon, bank hard left, head up the river, and the people on the east side of the river Downtown DC were on chaos evacuating downtown DC."
"Its very possible the attack on the pentagon was some type of bombing run with some type of MOAB."
Thank you,
Dr. P