It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# New FDR Decode

page: 19
12
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:11 PM
Executive summary: R_Mackey is no more able to deal
with mathematics and physics than is Rob Balsamo.

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Untrue.

Physics 101: s = 1/2 a t^2. Hence a = 2 s / t^2, and
the initial velocity is v = a t = 2 s / t.

The 2 in v = 2 s / t says the initial velocity is twice
the average velocity. That is why R_Mackey's initial
velocity was off by a factor of 2.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Exactly, therefore it does not take into consideration forward (horizontal) velocity. Just as explained in "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon".

Untrue.

The video's "explanation" is technobabble. Rob Balsamo
spoke the word "orthogonal" several times while denying
its most important consequence: that we'll get exactly
the same vertical acceleration regardless of whether we
solve the problem in one dimension or in two.

Just as demonstrated by my review.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
The proper analysis which incorporates all the variables as outlined in "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon", is circular motion. a = v^2/r. This according to an Aeronautical Engineer and Fighter pilot who has applied this formula in all his training and real world exercise. Including Air Combat.

As explained in my review, the a = v^2/r equation comes
from assuming air speed is constant, not ground speed.

As shown in my review, this makes hardly any difference:
the g-loads for the circular and parabolic solutions are
the same to within 1%.

Will
www.ccs.neu.edu...

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:17 PM

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...

Don't pretend to be naive, Swing. Robby Balsamo banned most of us for daring to ask questions about his claims. I was "suspended" last year:

The error returned was:

Your account has been temporarily suspended. This suspension is due to end on Aug 4 2011, 02:13 PM.

I figured by then Robby figures people will be focusing on the how "the Bush Administration planned the end of the world in 2012 and 9/11 was just a diversion" and won't be asked to support his claims anymore, eh?

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:28 PM

Originally posted by R_Mackey

The objective of the presentation is clearly spelled out. Can a 757 perform the maneuvers required to hit the Pentagon based on topography, obstacles and data.

Gosh. You forgot your own claims and their implications. Way to go!

Want some help yanking that boot out of your mouth, R_Mackey?

You just demonstrate once again that one can never underestimate the intelligence of a 9/11 "Truther."

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:28 PM

Originally posted by cesura

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Untrue.

Please show us, using your formula, a = 2s/t^2, the acceleration based on an initial velocity of 75 f/s, a vertical distance of 271 over a 4.4 second period.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Exactly, therefore it does not take into consideration forward (horizontal) velocity. Just as explained in "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon".

Untrue.

Please show us the acceleration, based on a 75 f/s initial velocity, 0 final velocity, with a vertical distance of 271 feet in a 4.4 second period using this calculator.

tutor4physics.com...

As explained in my review, the a = v^2/r equation comes
from assuming air speed is constant, not ground speed.

Airspeed and groundspeed are essentially the same. The winds were almost a direct crosswind and light. Therefore, there is no need to adjust for wind correction with respect to speed.

As shown in my review, this makes hardly any difference:
the g-loads for the circular and parabolic solutions are
the same to within 1%.

This was never disputed in "9/11: Attack on the Pentagon", nor here. What is disputed is the fact the parabolic analysis is not reflected in the data. Please review the analysis again.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 06:09 PM

Originally posted by R_Mackey

This was never disputed in "9/11: Attack on the Pentagon", nor here. What is disputed is the fact the parabolic analysis is not reflected in the data. Please review the analysis again.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Rob, I know this is hard for you, but unlike in the Maya graphics software, in the real world, in the vertical axis, there is ALWAYS a constant force (acting as a negative) resulting from gravity. Since regardless of the forces being applied in other directions, a path changing in the veritcal axis is going to be a parabola as a result of this constant force (go find a physics textbook and read up on projectile motion). A circular path in the vertical is a SPECIAL case of projectile motion when the forces actually balance the gravitational force along the entire path segment which only rarely would happen.

So please, help your credibility out and stop it with the circular path nonsense when talking about vertical motion over a distance. To be even arguing it as you are doing only continues to demonstrate your disconnect with reality.

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 10:23 PM

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Please show us, using your formula, a = 2s/t^2, the acceleration based on an initial velocity of 75 f/s, a vertical distance of 271 over a 4.4 second period.

Please show us the acceleration, based on a 75 f/s initial velocity, 0 final velocity, with a vertical distance of 271 feet in a 4.4 second period using this calculator.

The figure that doesn't fit here seems to be the 75ft/sec

Where did that come from?

a = 2.S/t^2 = 28ft/sec^2 (rounded)
v = a.t = 28 x 4.4 = 123.2ft/sec initial velocity

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 03:09 AM

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The figure that doesn't fit here seems to be the 75ft/sec

Where did that come from?

a = 2.S/t^2 = 28ft/sec^2 (rounded)
v = a.t = 28 x 4.4 = 123.2ft/sec initial velocity

Actually, the figure which doesn't fit here is 123.2 ft/sec.

See page 17.

Quote -

Your formula does not consider initial velocity, therefore your formula is also the wrong one to use based on the premise/objective of "9/11 Attack On The Pentagon" which is based on topography, obstacles and data. And no, P4T nor JREF use 61.6 f/s. I believe the number used was 75 f/s but was based on the same premise, vertical distance over time. "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" used NTSB data.

The vertical velocity for the last 6 seconds, based on Warren's decode -

68, 66, 67, 71, 75, 59

Will has the initial vertical velocity almost twice that. Matter of fact, as you can see by the trend above, there isn't any decrease in vertical velocity along the path until the very last second. The curve made by the above trend is virtually linear, or if we want to get technical, the inverse to what Will has provided in his paper. Therefore Will's numbers are once again moot. Don't forget the vertical distance is now closer to 330 feet based on Warren's decode.

After a bit more (brief) review -

Not only does Will's paper not take into consideration data provided by the NTSB as did "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" (123.8 f/s is no where to be found in the NTSB data for the final leg of the approach to the Pentagon), but Will also ignored obstacles. Will only considered topography.

Will's first flight path appears to miss Pole 1, Pole 2 and possibly Pole 3.

Will's second and third path appears to take out a tall tree line between the Annex and Citgo and perhaps a few more poles west of Pole 1.

The tree line being one of the main reasons the flight path was near linear from the top of the VDOT to Pole 1. Not to mention the NTSB data as well.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 04:27 AM

Just let me know when you, or TomK are ready to guess which devices
are connected to the PA port.

Until then, keep pretending you know while you make up crazy excuses
for your theory. What version of theory are you at now? Version 7?

Where did your buddy TomK end up? 8 days and counting? Maybe he
got scared when he saw the diagram of the 757-200 and couldn't figure
it out because I blacked out the middle area?

Let me know when any of you "internet pilots" can tell me the answer.

Also let me know when you find the drop in EGT temperature due to
engine damage from light pole impacts.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by turbofan]

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 07:14 AM

Originally posted by turbofan

Where did your buddy TomK end up? 8 days and counting?

It's been 3 years and counting since you went searching for "flyover" eyewitnesses. What's taking you so long, Turbo?

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 07:22 AM

Originally posted by turbofan
Also let me know when you find the drop in EGT temperature due to
engine damage from light pole impacts.

So you know for a fact the engine was damaged by a light pole element?

Boy...you PfT guys know everything! Even where exactly on the wing/engine cowling the lamp pole impacted, else you wouldn't know its action/reaction movement post impact!

I am in awe.

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:49 AM

Originally posted by trebor451
So you know for a fact the engine was damaged by a light pole element?

According to Intergrated Consultants and flight path obstructions, yes.

What else may have caused the white smoke trail to appear Trebor?

I mean, we're assuming that the OGCT is true...right?

Boy...you PfT guys know everything! Even where exactly on the wing/engine cowling the lamp pole impacted, else you wouldn't know its action/reaction movement post impact!

The wing span allows for knocking down pole 1 and pole 2...ummmm...it would have to be within a few feet of error at most to hit both. Have you
actually studied the pole distances vs. 757-200 wing span?

What systems on the wing area could produce white smoke?

IE: Engine, control hydraulics, etc.

Again Trebor, if the DoD video shows white smoke, and the Integrated
Consultants animation shows white smoke coming from the engine...
uhhh...what do you figure produced the trail? What could have caused
the damage to the wing area? Feel free to list off anything in the flight
path other than light poles.

Let's see if you can actually keep up with a debate and answer honestly

Again, we are assuming the official story is true.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by turbofan]

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 03:00 PM

Originally posted by turbofan
Again, we are assuming the official story is true.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by turbofan]

Who said Integrated Consultants have the definitive simulation about the event? I know it is a convenient strawman for you to beat up on, but last I checked IC was not commissioned by anyone - certainly not the US Government nor the Pentagon to develop such a simulation or theory. You can point to it and flog it all you want, but it is based on their own interpretation. You can beat it up all you want, refer to it all you want, worship it all you want, do whatever you want all you want, but it really is nothing but a very, very good simulation of their own interpretation of what happened.

You still cannot tell me with any level of exactitude the angle of bank, the degree of yaw or the precise wing position on impact with the lamp poles. If you do, you will be lying (go ahead...it hasn't stopped the others) because that data is not known. Since that data is not known, you (nor Integrated Consultants) cannot produce anything more than a reasonable concoction of what happened, something that is at best a digital invention of one's mind. Since you are not anything closely resembling a professional simulation programmer/developer, you can't even produce that.

Keeping up with you and your fellow PfT "experts" is not something I aspire to. I like my company to be intelligent, honest and truthful, unlike the crew from the clubhouse. On top of not being able to discuss with any credibility the Camp Springs 1 departure or the "vectoring" of Gopher 06 up along P-56 claim or the surface to air missiles at the Pentagon claim or the wings ripping off unless they don't issues, your leader flat out lied about something the real R_Mackey never said, a habit more and more of you people are taking as a preferred tactic of debate.

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 03:17 PM

Originally posted by R_Mackey

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

Hi Dr. P.

Although off-topic as usual, I am interested in this so I will reply.

Do you have a source link? I cannot find such statements on the P4T website, and we know from experience many people attempt to make things up which P4T never said.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Bob,

Are you denying you ever stated this? The source is Mark Roberts. I can write him and ask him. I don't want to waste his time unless your denying you said this.

Thank you,

Dr. P

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 03:34 PM

The last vertical speed in your list is 59 ft/sec, not 75
If we assume that's 1 second from impact and initial velocity is 59 ft/sec, final velocity 0:
(I'll include initial velocity here for completeness)
a=(v-u)/t = (0-59)/1 = -59ft/sec^2
So this pullup results in 2.8g if gravity is included for this example

S=ut + at^2/2 = (59 x 1) + (-59 x 1^2)/2 = 59 - 29.5 = 29.5 ft

Are those figures more agreeable?

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Are those figures more agreeable?

No. Your vertical distance is only roughly 30 feet. This doesn't match the data provided by Warren. If you accept Warren's data, the new vertical distance is 129 feet for the last data point. (by the way, if you use the excuse that the altimeter was "lagging", you also increase your vertical velocity for each second of travel.)

Using Will's formula,

a = 2s/t^2

Using your assumption of one second travel.

a = 2(129)

a = 258

G = 1+ (258/32) (rounded)

G = 9 (rounded)

Not too far off from what "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" concluded and again, impossible for a 757, especially at more than 130 knots over its Max Operating Speed. Anything over 1 G will most likely tear the airplane apart at such speeds over it's Max Operating if the speed alone hasn't already done so.

With that said, last PA was 174, 2.8 G required to arrest a 59 f/s vertical descent in one second covers 30 feet vertically (altitude), 174-30 = 144. Height of Pentagon roughly 110 MSL. 144 - 110 = 34 foot clearance from top of Pentagon in level flight. Pilgrim, you once again cross checked the flyover and debunked those who claim the aircraft would have hit the roof of the pentagon if it attempted to perform a flyover from 174' MSL.

@Dr P.

So you do not have a source from the P4T website. Pretty much what I thought. Thanks.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 05:48 PM

Originally posted by cesura
Plug 0 into final velocity.

This bit puzzles me.

The assumption of a final vertical velocity component of zero, means that the plane only achieved level flight at the instant it reached the Pentagon (the vertex of the parabola).

Doesn't this contradict the Pentagon Security Camera images, where official government story believers allege that the plane flew level across the lawn into the Pentagon?

If so, the vertical velocity of zero must have been achieved before the plane reached the Pentagon.

I haven't bothered to check all of the figures and calculations in this thread - yet. It's not worth doing so unless the parameters of the alleged flight path are consistent with all of the available evidence, including the Pentagon Security Camera images.

Is there any reason why the plane is assumed only to have reached a zero gradient at the Pentagon, instead of somewhere across the lawn before striking the Pentagon?

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 05:58 PM

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by cesura
Plug 0 into final velocity.

This bit puzzles me.

The assumption of a final vertical velocity component of zero, means that the plane only achieved level flight at the instant it reached the Pentagon (the vertex of the parabola).

Doesn't this contradict the Pentagon Security Camera images, where official government story believers allege that the plane flew level across the lawn into the Pentagon?

If so, the vertical velocity of zero must have been achieved before the plane reached the Pentagon.

Exactly tezz,

This was incorporated into "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" and the calculations done by Ryan Mackey. Unfortunately, Ryan ignored data for his analysis (the near linear trends observed in the FDR data for the descent along the last 4-5 seconds of travel)

But, for the purpose of this thread, we're giving those who make excuse for the govt story every possible advantage, it still doesn't add up to impact nor within the capabilities of a 757.

Again, in order for those who support the govt story to hold onto their "impact" theory, they must prove the PA was 150' in error (among all the other issues which need to be proven, one being that the data/parts/etc came from N644AA). They have not done so for 19 pages. Once they attempt to prove such an error, they are going to have a problem with vertical velocity.

This is what P4T has been saying all along, the FDR data cross checks the way it is. The conclusion being it doesn't support an impact. You cannot cherry pick one data point as in error without affecting numerous other data points.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 06:15 PM

Originally posted by R_Mackey

@Dr P.

So you do not have a source from the P4T website. Pretty much what I thought. Thanks.

I told you that Mark Roberts was my source. I NEVER said it was stated at PFT. That dance you do with your minions will not work with me.

I then proceeded to ask you if you were denying it. Since you are not denying it, I would assume you admit that this was a thought of Rob Balsamo (yours) back in 2006? Well, I have the source....
Have you ever heard of Google cache Rob?

This is a video game, but the HUD and sim effects are pretty accurate.. Depending on the type of guided weapon, its very possible the attack on the pentagon was some type of bombing run with some type of MOAB.

z15.invisionfree.com...

So, i will ask again. Is it STILL the opinion of the Core Members and or Bob Balsamo that it was possible that the Pentagon was attacked by a MOAB?

Thank you,

Dr. P

[edit on 13-11-2009 by ImAPepper]

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 06:29 PM

Certainly appears to be a bombing run.

It would explain the physical damage and the FDR.

z15.invisionfree.com...

There is another Rob Balsamo quote. Rob? You still speculation this?

Thank you,

Dr.P

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 06:32 PM

Originally posted by ImAPepper
z15.invisionfree.com...

So, i will ask again. Is it STILL the opinion of the Core Members and or Bob Balsamo that it was possible that the Pentagon was attacked by a MOAB?

1. The author of that post is "johndoex", not "Rob Balsamo".

2. It's from Oct 2006. More than 3 years ago. P4T was barely founded at that time. How can it be the opinion of its Core Members?

3. Are you seriously attempting to attribute a single post from more than 3 years ago on a forum which encourages discussion of theory (and is now closed) to an organization who clearly states on their home page, "We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time"...?

Dr. P.,

Come back when you see it posted on P4T as an official statement. Until then, it's clear what your motive is, to drive this thread off-topic cherry-picking a post from more than 3 years ago on a forum which is now defunct. Get real.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

top topics

12