What JohnDoeX thinks we are afraid to post

[T.A.M.]

Sorry to barge in without first introducing myself, but there is an important point that everyone seems to be over-looking in this thread. JohnDoeX worked backwards from the height of the impact into the Pentagon to calculate the altitude of Flight 77 as it passed over the locations of light poles using a constant rate of descent. But since witnesses claimed that Flight 77 actually hit the ground before hitting the Pentagon, his conclusions are obviously invalid. If someone can find out how far away from the Pentagon Flight 77 hit the ground (it reportedly struck a helipad), it should be possible to work backwards from that point.

Of course, all this seems irrelevant. Theories are required to fit observations, observations are not required to fit theories.

Welcome Telly to the JREF Forum on Conspiracy Theories. Your opinions here will always be allowed, if not always accepted.

As for the issue of the plane hitting the ground, I am not sure this is accurate. I do not believe there was any damage done to the Helipad from the plane, and I think the angle that the plane came in on, may have misled people to think that the plane hit the ground before impact. I think most agree now that it didn't hit the ground prior to impact, but I could be mistaken.

As for is data, ands working back, you make a good point, in the sense of what his starting elevation was. I am not sure what he used as the starting elevation in his calculations was (the elevation at impact). Anyone? Does it make any difference?

TAM

 

[Dragonrock]

Sorry to barge in without first introducing myself, but there is an important point that everyone seems to be over-looking in this thread. JohnDoeX worked backwards from the height of the impact into the Pentagon to calculate the altitude of Flight 77 as it passed over the locations of light poles using a constant rate of descent. But since witnesses claimed that Flight 77 actually hit the ground before hitting the Pentagon, his conclusions are obviously invalid. If someone can find out how far away from the Pentagon Flight 77 hit the ground (it reportedly struck a helipad), it should be possible to work backwards from that point.

Of course, all this seems irrelevant. Theories are required to fit observations, observations are not required to fit theories.

Earlier in this thread someone mentions "ground effect". Rather than get into the exact physics I'll sum it up; in this case, "ground effect" refers the plane getting more lift as it gets closer to the ground. The final moments of the flight would have been a curve rather than linear descent so the decent could have been originally steeper than shown in the numbers given by the CTer.

 

[Hellbound]

It might make a difference, depending on where the altimeter probe is on the aircraft. For example, if the probe is on the bottem of the aircraft, but JDX used the top of the impact area as the start point, then everything will be off by the height of the fuselage.

Just one example I could think of off-hand...and something that should have been spelled out in his anal-ysis (a clear definition of what he chose as the impact point and why).

 

[CurtC]

IIRC, a wingtip it the ground. I think that an engine hit a fence, and maybe a few other things were hit but only the wingtip actually hit the ground, but almost at the Pentagon.

These guys put together a pretty convincing case that the wingtips did not hit, but the starboard engine slammed the big generator, and the port engine clipped a short concrete footing near the cable spools.

 

[Hellbound]

These guys put together a pretty convincing case that the wingtips did not hit, but the starboard engine slammed the big generator, and the port engine clipped a short concrete footing near the cable spools.

Discovery (or National Geographic channel) had a documentary on where they talked about this. I haven't spent much time looking for it, but I'll have to see if I can find it. Basically, they agreed with that, but their theory was that when the right engine hit the generator.structure, it tilted that side up from the impact, dipping the left wing slightly, so the left wingtip touched ground right as the nose was entering the building. The documentary stated that pieces of the wing were found buried in the ground just outside the wall.

I'll have to find that, and see if they source that info anywhere. It's entirely possible I'm recalling it incorrectly, as well.

 

[CurtC]

Huntsman, I have a hard time buying that. If the generator impact was the cause of the leftward tipping, at that point it had something like 1/10 of a second before impact. Imagine putting enough upwards force on the right wing of an airplane so that the left wing dips down by ten feet in 1/10 second. I don't think you could do it.

Also, I think the left wingtip might have passed over one of the cars that you always see pictures of, plus you can see in this photo (from Killtown's site) where the wing apparently hit the wall, a few feet off the ground.

ETA: bits of the engine cowling buried in the ground just outside the wall, now that I can believe.

 

[Hellbound]

Huntsman, I have a hard time buying that. If the generator impact was the cause of the leftward tipping, at that point it had something like 1/10 of a second before impact. Imagine putting enough upwards force on the right wing of an airplane so that the left wing dips down by ten feet in 1/10 second. I don't think you could do it.

Also, I think the left wingtip might have passed over one of the cars that you always see pictures of, plus you can see in this photo (from Killtown's site) where the wing apparently hit the wall, a few feet off the ground.

ETA: bits of the engine cowling buried in the ground just outside the wall, now that I can believe.

May have been engine...I'll have to find that documentary and see what it said.

 

[Peephole]

I have seen JDX suggest that Flight 77 did a flyover of the Pentagon. The search function at the LC Forum is pretty much useless, so I can't provide a link, but I have seen him suggest that.

Rumsfeld: ...so then, we fly the remote controlled aircraft over the Pentagon and launch the cruise missile. Everyone got it?
Wolfowitz: I don't know, i think it could use a little more oomph.
Cheney: I've got an idea! Why don't we jump a couple of light poles?
Rumsfeld: Haha yeah, great stuff.
Bush: Uhm, guys?
Cheney: Yes George?
Bush: I don't understand. Why don't we just fly the plane into the Pentagon?
Cheney:...
Wolfowitz:...
Rumsfeld:...
Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld: Shut up, George!

 

[DavidJames]

It looks like Russell in his never ending search for the truth (as long as it's a CT truth) is leaning towards 77 hit the Pentagon, with all the passengers, but, it was remotely controlled and not piloted by a human. Why? who the **** knows. Because as a CTists, Russell is bound by some alien, lizard like oath to not support, 100%, any official stories about 9/11.

sheesh.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It looks like Russell in his never ending search for the truth (as long as it's a CT truth) is leaning towards 77 hit the Pentagon, with all the passengers, but, it was remotely controlled and not piloted by a human. Why? who the **** knows. Because as a CTists, Russell is bound by some alien, lizard like oath to not support, 100%, any official stories about 9/11.

sheesh.

Just to keep the info readily available, especially for our newer posters; apathoid was kind enough to address this idea and 911myths to host his analysis: http://www.911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf

 

[Nevermore]

Hello

This is my first post here (second if you count the one in the computer section). I post using the name Nevermore in the LC forms as well. I've become fascinated with the events of 9-11 and have read many of the theories presented there and elsewhere. I try my best to remain open-minded about things and weigh evidence as it is presented. I hope you won't dismiss me as a tin-foil hat wearing loony immediately.

TellyKNeasuss asked about the plane striking the ground before the Pentagon. Frank Probst provided eyewitness testimony about the impact:

Frank Probst, 58, is a West Point graduate, decorated Vietnam veteran, and retired army lieutenant colonel who has worked for the Pentagon Renovation Program Office on information management and telecommunications since 1995. At approximately 9:30 A.M. on September 11 he left the Wedge 1 construction site trailer, where he had been watching live television coverage of the second plane strike into the World Trade Center towers. He began walking to the Modular Office Compound, which is located beyond the extreme north end of the Pentagon North Parking Lot, for a meeting at 10 A.M. As he approached the heliport (figure 3.2) he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him. According to the Arlington County after-action report (Arlington County, 2002), this occurred at 938 a.m. The aircraft pulled up, seemingly aiming for the first floor of the building, and leveled off. Probst hit the ground and observed the right wing tip pass through the portable 750 kW generator that provides backup power to Wedge 1.The right engine took out the chainlink fence and posts surrounding the generator. The left engine struck an external steam vault before the fuselage entered the building. As the fireball from the crash moved toward him, Probst ran toward the South Parking Lot and recalls falling down twice. Fine pieces of wing debris floated down about him. The diesel fuel for the portable generator ignited while he was running.

His account seems legitimate based on images of damage to the generator, fence and retaining wall taken after the incident.

Would it be possible to use the port engine's impact with the retaining wall as a reference? Is it feasible to say the port engine struck the retaining wall rougly 100 feet before impacting the wall? (I base this estimate on a photo I can't link to and a measurement using the admittedly questionable Google Earth with a satellite image now substantially altered by construction)

Secondly, in order to calculate an accurate rate of decent wouldn't you have to account for the apparently level approach shown in the video released by the government from the guard shack? Is it fair to say the plane appears to be level as it moves from right to left? If so, how does that impact the rate and angle of decent?

Note: Sorry, I've tried to include web references but I do not have enough posts yet

 

[DavidJames]

Hello

This is my first post here (second if you count the one in the computer section). I post using the name Nevermore in the LC forms as well. I've become fascinated with the events of 9-11 and have read many of the theories presented there and elsewhere. I try my best to remain open-minded about things and weigh evidence as it is presented. I hope you won't dismiss me as a tin-foil hat wearing loony immediately.

TellyKNeasuss asked about the plane striking the ground before the Pentagon. Frank Probst provided eyewitness testimony about the impact:



His account seems legitimate based on images of damage to the generator, fence and retaining wall taken after the incident.

Would it be possible to use the port engine's impact with the retaining wall as a reference? Is it feasible to say the port engine struck the retaining wall rougly 100 feet before impacting the wall? (I base this estimate on a photo I can't link to and a measurement using the admittedly questionable Google Earth with a satellite image now substantially altered by construction)

Secondly, in order to calculate an accurate rate of decent wouldn't you have to account for the apparently level approach shown in the video released by the government from the guard shack? Is it fair to say the plane appears to be level as it moves from right to left? If so, how does that impact the rate and angle of decent?

Note: Sorry, I've tried to include web references but I do not have enough posts yet

Welcome to the board.
I'm not knowledgeable in that area although many others are so I expect you will get the answers you seek.

A word of caution though, there have been a few "interesting" new members the past few days who've raised some eyebrows and have not received the usual warm welcome (possibly socks from LC).

Very good form commenting about your participation in LC and giving your username. Honesty is a great trait and will serve you well here.

Welcome again.

 

[T.A.M.]

Nevermore:

Yes, welcome to JREF Forum on Conspiracy Theories. Unlike over at the LC board, your opinions will not get you banned, no matter how opposed to the majority here they maybe. Proof of this, as others have pointed out, is a 100 page long thread a poster by the name of Christophera has been posting in, where he contends the WTCs had a concrete core. He has been able to spue over and over again the same stuff, debunked, time and time again...Here at JREF they promote debate and having your own opinion.

You will find that most who haunt this house, however, are of the Debunking nature. That in mind, if you have views that are in favor of any of the 9/11 CTs, and you bring them up here, be prepared to back them up, or suffer the wrath of all the debating spirits that roam the halls of JREF.

TAM

 

[TheGrunion]

Secondly, in order to calculate an accurate rate of decent wouldn't you have to account for the apparently level approach shown in the video released by the government from the guard shack? Is it fair to say the plane appears to be level as it moves from right to left? If so, how does that impact the rate and angle of decent?

Hi Nevermore,

I'm new over here as well. We've posted in some of the same Pentagon threads over at LC. I was Grunion over there......then I got banned and some posts deleted for painting Merc in a corner.

If I am interpreting what is being said in this thread correctly, the decent was most likely generally parabolic, which would account for the plane's decent being "flatter" at impact.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65369

 

[eeyore1954]

I almost can't stand the plane was too high to hit the poles argument.
Why in the world would anyone believe they would have bothered faking the poles being knocked down. How in the world would this have been done on a busy highway. Although I am happy to see people checking out the claim and trying to find his error. Very unlikely that John DOe will accept he could be wrong. IMHO it is far more unlikely that he could be correct

One thing I'm 99% sure of is if the poles had not been knocked down they would be arguing that was proof that no plane hit the pentagon and there would probably be calculations showing exactly why it would have been impossible to hit the pentagon without knocking down the poles.


If johndoe really believes in his calculations and interpretations and he is interested in the truth why doesn't he find a third party who actually make black box devices to check his data. They would be qualified to know about the margin of errors ,time lags , methods of measurements and other items that could account for the supposed discrepency. i think there are several companies that make similar devices.

BTW I believe John Doe is interested in the truth but he is so blinded by his hate of the current administration that he would never be able to see anything but the truth he has decided on.
I have seen him mention many times how wrong it is to be going to Iraq and killing innocent babies because of this fact attack. I guess if the WTC actually was brought down by terrorists then it would be OK to kill babies.

Since I base my opinion on not actually knowing the person and I no training in any psycological field (probably can't even spell it correctly) my opinion should be treated skeptically or septically.

 

[R.Mackey]

Earlier in this thread someone mentions "ground effect". Rather than get into the exact physics I'll sum it up; in this case, "ground effect" refers the plane getting more lift as it gets closer to the ground. The final moments of the flight would have been a curve rather than linear descent so the decent could have been originally steeper than shown in the numbers given by the CTer.

Yeah, that might have been me that brought up "ground effect." What it means with a little bit of added scientific detail is that when the aircraft is close to the ground, it changes the circulation around the aircraft, which is necessary to provide lift. Air can't flow through the ground. This leads to a local increase in pressure (the air "piles up") between the aircraft and the ground.

This has several relevant effects. One is the aircraft will experience more effective lift, which will help it pull up slightly, though not much. Another is that, at the speeds the aircraft was travelling, the added pressure will buffet the plane and make control less precise. A third is that the air data probes, including the airspeed indicator and altimeter, will suffer more from compressibility and produce less accurate readings.

 

[CurtC]

His account seems legitimate based on images of damage to the generator, fence and retaining wall taken after the incident.

Would it be possible to use the port engine's impact with the retaining wall as a reference? Is it feasible to say the port engine struck the retaining wall rougly 100 feet before impacting the wall?

Welcome, Nevermore.

This CGI video that I linked to earlier seems to be a pretty well supported idea of what happened, including the light poles, the smoke visible in the Pentagon camera, the generator struck by the right engine, and the left engine's striking the little steam vault wall.

 

[Hellbound]

I'll have to withdraw my earlier statements and through my hat in with CurtC's CGI interpretation.

I know I saw that documentary, but I'm having toruble finding a reference...and it's not that big of an issue anyway

As long as I don't start talking about the Pentagon having a concrete core, I think I'm okay...

 

[Anti-sophist]

Secondly, in order to calculate an accurate rate of decent wouldn't you have to account for the apparently level approach shown in the video released by the government from the guard shack? Is it fair to say the plane appears to be level as it moves from right to left? If so, how does that impact the rate and angle of decent?

Note: Sorry, I've tried to include web references but I do not have enough posts yet

Define "level", and define "appears to be". How much margin for error are you allowing? If you want to do this properly, you'd take the camera, calibrate the scene, correct for lensing effects, find the projection matrix, and interpolate some points. Has anyone done this? Has anyone done the math to draw a line or show what we _would_ see if the plane wasn't level? What is the framerate of that pentagon video? How many frames is the position of the plane known, and to what precision is all of this.

If you mean "level" as in, "in this one frame, it's pretty close to the ground", then you after you run all those numbers, you'll see that your idea of level is like + or - 15 degrees.

 

[Nevermore]

Welcome, Nevermore.

This CGI video that I linked to earlier seems to be a pretty well supported idea of what happened, including the light poles, the smoke visible in the Pentagon camera, the generator struck by the right engine, and the left engine's striking the little steam vault wall.

Thanks to everyone for the welcome. I think you'll find that I'm not one to present outlandish propositions without evidence. However, I cringe every time someone defers to an "expert" or "official" explanation without probing that position for flaws.

One question about the CGI video linked above. In your opinion, does it accurately reflect the decent of the plane as it approaches the Pentagon?