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 R_Mackey
You admit your formula doesn't take into account initial velocity.
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".
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.
Originally posted by Swing Dangler
reply to post by cesura
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...
The error returned was:
Your account has been temporarily suspended. This suspension is due to end on Aug 4 2011, 02:13 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.
Originally posted by cesura
Originally posted by R_Mackey
You admit your formula doesn't take into account initial velocity.
Untrue.
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.
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%.
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]
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.
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
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.
Originally posted by turbofan
Where did your buddy TomK end up? 8 days and counting?
Originally posted by turbofan
Also let me know when you find the drop in EGT temperature due to
engine damage from light pole impacts.
Originally posted by trebor451
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!
Originally posted by turbofan
Again, we are assuming the official story is true.
[edit on 13-11-2009 by turbofan]
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]
Originally posted by Pilgrum
Are those figures more agreeable?
Originally posted by cesura
Plug 0 into final velocity.
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.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
@Dr P.
So you do not have a source from the P4T website. Pretty much what I thought. Thanks.
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.
Certainly appears to be a bombing run.
It would explain the physical damage and the FDR.
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?