• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flight 77 obstacles

It's honestly absurd. I've calculated it before that a 30 foot per second descent across those 5 frames as we see them would be about 1 pixel difference in the original image. 1 extra pixel.

The idea that those 5 frames mean it's at 0fps is so seriously absurd that it makes my head hurt.

If the truthers actually cared about the truth, they'd sit down and -demonstrate- that these absurd assumptions of theirs were even remotely equal to reality.

Here's the math, by the way:
For there to be a 1-degree descent across that image... 1-degree away from horizontal... it'd be tangent(1-degree)*850 feet per second = 14 ft/second.

0-degree slope across the image = 0 fps descent
1-degree slope across the image = 14 fps descent
2-degree slope across the image = 30 fps descent
5-degree slope across the image = 74 fps descent

So will one of you truthers tell me how you've decided that the plane was flying 0 degrees.. horizontal... in stead of... 2 degrees down.. from those 5 images. Someone please tell me how you can determine 0-degrees is right, and 2-degrees is wrong, from those 5 frames.

I've repeated this so many times that I'm this close to making an image for you guys so I can paste it. I'll draw a 0-degree line and then a 2-degree line, and ask you to tell me why you believe the 0 is right and the 2 is wrong.
 
Last edited:
What TC fails to understand is that to us the FDR is one small piece of evidence and the conclusions we make along with the scientists are based on assessing ALL the evidence. As opposed to PFT who cherry pick only data that will support their already decided conclusions. When it doesn't support those conclusions it's just dismissed.

Not much unlike the unavoidable results that are the result of the conclusions they do make which they dismiss because those results leave 1000 times more holes than the theories they try to point out as having holes.
 
Couldn't take it anymore...

ctlz1.png


Now, can one of you truthers _PLEASE_ explain to me why 0 feet per second is the correct final vertical velocity? PLEASE give me a reason to think that -30 fps is utterly impossible give the above image. I'm not seeing it. It doesn't make _any_ sense to me at all.

Maybe my math is wrong. Maybe I screwed up the angles. But can one of you, for the love of all that is right and holy in the world, _please_ come up with a reasonable estimate range of the descent and stop pretending that 0.000000 fps is the only possible interpretation of the above evidence.
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
I'm curious of the claim that the descent rate needs to be arrested at all. Given that the aircraft hit at about ground level (and according to some witnesses, part of it hit the ground just before impact) and given that it clearly was not at ground level immediately prior to hitting the Pentagon (otherwise it, well, would have crashed before the Pentagon) it goes without saying that the aircraft was in a descent at the time of impact.
Click to expand...



While a final descent rate off 0 is probably not an accurate description of what really happened, it is a lower bound we can work with, and as Myriad has shown, even with that absurdly favourable assumption, the PfT calculations are still wrong, and the plane would have been entirely able to make this maneuver. So with the more reasonable assumption that the plane was still descending at some non-zero rate, their claims are even more unlikely.

Not that they'll ever admit it. "Velocity, acceleration, what's the difference?" :rolleyes:
 
gumboot said:
I'm curious of the claim that the descent rate needs to be arrested at all. Given that the aircraft hit at about ground level (and according to some witnesses, part of it hit the ground just before impact) and given that it clearly was not at ground level immediately prior to hitting the Pentagon (otherwise it, well, would have crashed before the Pentagon) it goes without saying that the aircraft was in a descent at the time of impact.
Click to expand...
Yes, the descent rate did have to change over the last 3/4 mile (4 seconds), *if* the plane flew over the VDOT tower.

The rate from the tower to the first pole would have averaged 80 ft/s, the rate from the light pole to the Pentagon wall was about 20 ft/s.
 
Do JREFers condone other JREfers deleting their post content when proven their numbers do not add up to the govt story? The FDR positional data has been shown using JREFers own claims.


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread335956/pg1

Im sure this thread will now disappear into the abyss since we have shown in your own words that your claims still do not add up to the govt story. Some JREFers even delete their own posts.

So, which JREFers condone such action?
 
Last edited:
there goes TC ignoring that P4t has been shown to be faulty. deleted? please. when someone makes a correction in their calculations, they do so, so that their calculatiosn are correct. unlike the fraud Rob who continues to post faulty math.
 
Anti-sophist said:
It's honestly absurd. I've calculated it before that a 30 foot per second descent across those 5 frames as we see them would be about 1 pixel difference in the original image. 1 extra pixel.

The idea that those 5 frames mean it's at 0fps is so seriously absurd that it makes my head hurt.

If the truthers actually cared about the truth, they'd sit down and -demonstrate- that these absurd assumptions of theirs were even remotely equal to reality.

Here's the math, by the way:
For there to be a 1-degree descent across that image... 1-degree away from horizontal... it'd be tangent(1-degree)*850 feet per second = 14 ft/second.

0-degree slope across the image = 0 fps descent
1-degree slope across the image = 14 fps descent
2-degree slope across the image = 30 fps descent
5-degree slope across the image = 74 fps descent

So will one of you truthers tell me how you've decided that the plane was flying 0 degrees.. horizontal... in stead of... 2 degrees down.. from those 5 images. Someone please tell me how you can determine 0-degrees is right, and 2-degrees is wrong, from those 5 frames.

I've repeated this so many times that I'm this close to making an image for you guys so I can paste it. I'll draw a 0-degree line and then a 2-degree line, and ask you to tell me why you believe the 0 is right and the 2 is wrong.
Click to expand...



The absurdity of this argument is compounded by the fact that the aircraft only appears in one frame. We do not know if the camera is level, or even what the "level" line is in the frame, we cannot determine the approach angle of the aircraft in the single frame it appears, and we do not have an additional frame of the aircraft from which to determine a change in approach angle.
 
TC329 said:
Do JREFers condone other JREfers deleting their post content when proven their numbers do not add up to the govt story? The FDR positional data has been shown using JREFers own claims.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=10905
Im sure this thread will now disappear into the abyss since we have shown in your own words that your claims still do not add up to the govt story. Some JREFers even delete their own posts.

So, which JREFers condone such action?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but all PfT does is post fiction and lies.

If what they say seems so important to you why is it that all they do is sell cheap DVD's and troll message boards?
 
Arus808 said:
there goes TC ignoring that P4t has been shown to be faulty. deleted? please. when someone makes a correction in their calculations, they do so, so that their calculatiosn are correct. unlike the fraud Rob who continues to post faulty math.
Click to expand...

Only problem is that JREFers never "corrected" anything. They just keep spouting the same thing which still doesnt add up to the govt story. Click the link to see for yourself. Others have.. and others do.

By the way, Why are R Mackey's numbers so much different from Myriads? You also may want to tell R Mackey to add 1 G for earths gravity. R Mackey has the aircraft pulling 3.49 G's starting at the VDOT antenna to the pentagon. You people contradict each other and dont even realize it.
 
Yeah it's those JREFers spouting the same thing that doesn't add up over and over. As opposed to PFT. What? The FDR again? How many years has this been going on?
 
TC329 said:
Only problem is that JREFers never "corrected" anything. They just keep spouting the same thing which still doesnt add up to the govt story. Click the link to see for yourself. Others have.. and others do.

By the way, Why are R Mackey's numbers so much different from Myriads? You also may want to tell R Mackey to add 1 G for earths gravity. R Mackey has the aircraft pulling 3.49 G's starting at the VDOT antenna to the pentagon. You people contradict each other and dont even realize it.
Click to expand...

3.2 vs 3.49 is "so much different"?
They started with different assumptions. Ryan did a curve fit to the available data, Myriad did a straight linear derivation.
Not much different at all.
BTW, "Pentagon" is a proper noun, and don't and doesn't are contractions. The apostrophe is that little key over by "Enter"
 
TC329 said:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread335956/pg1
Click to expand...


Darn, I'm not a "player." :(

I suppose it makes sense. I'm not a pilot, a veteran, or a NASA engineer. I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. All I did was pay attention in High School math class (that's "maths" for all you people who append an "s" to the word "math").

Im sure this thread will now disappear into the abyss since we have shown in your own words that your claims still do not add up to the govt story.
Click to expand...


The most likely way to make this thread disappear would be to derail it into discussion of old long-resolved FDR issues. So, we can judge who wants the thread to disappear by who brings up old long-resolved FDR issues.

I'd kind of like to keep it around, so that all the work I put into correcting the high school mathss that Rob Balsamo got wrong won't go to waste. So, I hope other members will refrain from discussing FDR issues with you on this thread. (However, the FDR thread has been bumped for your convenience.)

Speaking of that math, do you still stand by Rob's conclusion that a plane descending at 75 fps from an altitude of 80 feet, that begins pulling 11.4 G's at that point, would descend another 35 feet in 1.3 seconds? Because when I apply the formula for the positioning of an accelerating object:

altitude = altitude(initial) + v(initial)t + 1/2at^2
where
altitude(initial) = 80 feet
v(initial) = 75 fps
a = 333 feet/second-second (32 fps * 10.4)

...Then the altitude and vertical velocity over time does this:

seconds --- alt (ft) --- rate of descent (fps) (negative = ascent)
0.0 --- 80 --- 75
0.1 --- 74 --- 47
0.2 --- 72 --- 13 <--- about to level off above 71 ft. still way above impact height
0.3 --- 72 --- -20 <--- plane has already leveled off and started climbing
0.4 --- 77 --- -53
0.5 --- 84 --- -87 <--- plane is now higher than it started at t=0
0.6 --- 95 --- -120
0.7 --- 109 --- -153 <--- plane is now higher than the Pentagon roof
0.8 --- 127 --- -187
0.9 --- 147 --- -220
1.0 --- 172 --- -253
1.1 --- 199 --- -287
1.2 --- 230 --- -320
1.3 --- 264 --- -353

At .24 seconds the plane has leveled off. At that time it reaches an altitude of just over 71.5 feet, which is less than 8.5 feet lower than it started at t=0. Clearly, that is a far more extreme maneuver than what is needed just to avoid going below 40 or 45 feet. Rob Balsamo is claiming that this trajectory is somehow also the minimum necessary to avoid running into the ground. This is what told me, even before I looked for them, that there had to be errors in his calculations.

Now, here's what happens when you use my figure of 3.2 Gs, starting from the same conditions:

altitude(initial) = 80 feet
v(initial) = 75 fps
a = 70.4 feet/second-second (32 fps * 2.2)

seconds --- alt (ft) --- rate of descent (fps) (negative = ascent)
0.0 --- 80 --- 75
0.1 --- 73 --- 68
0.2 --- 66 --- 61
0.3 --- 61 --- 54
0.4 --- 56 --- 47
0.5 --- 51 --- 40
0.6 --- 48 --- 33
0.7 --- 45 --- 26
0.8 --- 43 --- 19
0.9 --- 41 --- 12
1.0 --- 40 --- 5
1.1 --- 40 --- -2 <--- plane is now level with impact point
1.2 --- 41 --- -9
1.3 --- 42 --- -16

See? My results make sense when you perform the simple test of putting those results into effect and calculating what would happen. Rob's don't.

Even if I were wrong about where and why his calculations are wrong (and I am not), this is absolute proof that they are in fact wrong.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
TC329 say what you want, agree or not, but what you CAN'T say is that the folks here haven't addressed in detail your OP
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
TC329 say what you want, agree or not, but what you CAN'T say is that the folks here haven't addressed in detail your OP
Click to expand...
At this point, the attempts at education must be judged futile and all we can do is watch in fascinated horror as the freight train, despite all heiwa logic, somehow does not maintain its course as he stands beneath the bridge he has blown...
Ignorance is not a sin, nor is it something to be ashamed of--unless you maintain it in the face of overwhelming reality. At that point it becomes stupidity, and while it is to an extent pitiable, we need to let nature take her course.
Darwin will win...
 
TC329 said:
Do JREFers condone other JREfers deleting their post content when proven their numbers do not add up to the govt story? The FDR positional data has been shown using JREFers own claims.

So, which JREFers condone such action?
Click to expand...


Do PfTers condone other PfTers lying?

So, which PfTers condone such action?



Beachnut is their star "FDR Expert"
Click to expand...


Not even close, not even when he tries a pathetic attempt to explain why this isn't a blatant lie.
 
Beachnut is their star "FDR Expert"
Click to expand...

I don't believe Beachnut claims this. This statement implies that there is an "FDR Expert" at the pilot loon site. That is a big fat joke.

The ONLY true FDR experts at extracting and interpreting the data are at the NTSB and perhaps the manufacturers.

I find it amusing that they tout their consultation with Ed Santana (a salesman) as their evidence of "proven" FDR performance. As AS has indicated there is no guarantee that it will perform as advertised when slammed into a blast resistant reinforced wall at 500+ mph.

The pilot loon site has no clue where the aircraft is in it's flight path using the data they have, they are simply guessing to support their theory and touting it as data supplied by the NTSB as if the NTSB endorses their intrepretations. It's about as much proof of an InSiDe JoOb as is CIT's claims of a flyover. Both are as valid as a.....

 
TC329 said:
Only problem is that JREFers never "corrected" anything. They just keep spouting the same thing which still doesnt add up to the govt story. Click the link to see for yourself. Others have.. and others do.

By the way, Why are R Mackey's numbers so much different from Myriads? You also may want to tell R Mackey to add 1 G for earths gravity. R Mackey has the aircraft pulling 3.49 G's starting at the VDOT antenna to the pentagon. You people contradict each other and dont even realize it.
Click to expand...

The reason our numbers are slightly different is because we used different assumptions. I in fact provided two different numbers -- according to your ignorance, I am therefore disagreeing with myself. However, had you actually read the posts, you would have been able to understand.

Both of our derivations are reasonable solutions to the problem, using your measurements. All are well within the performance limits of the aircraft.

In addition to being a ridiculous hypothesis, Mr. Balsamo couldn't even get the mathematics right. These are very basic, first-semester Physics concepts, so it absolutely boggles the mind that someone so scientifically inept (and you, who follow him) could still be attempting to salvage some kind of face from this trainwreck. Let me reiterate:

  • You provided your measurements of aircraft position
  • You said that proved the flight path was impossible
  • Your calculations were wrong
  • Those measurements are, in fact, quite reasonable
  • You still fail to understand our explanations
Game, set, match, go home.

Two other points: Whether or not you add 1 g depends on what you're trying to do. I computed the true acceleration of the aircraft, whereas Myriad computed the actual g-loading. It's very simple to go from one to the other, and it was inherently clear what my numbers were from the text. Either add one, or don't, depending on what you're calculating. Both are perfectly reasonable. I'd be equally justified in castigating you for not using meters, but you'll notice I didn't do that.

And finally, your posts here appear to be a conduit for previously banned posters, in specific Mr. Balsamo. I doubt the moderators would look kindly on such behavior. I would much prefer you stay around and at least have a chance of learning something rather than being booted out, so please, avoid giving this impression in your future posts. Thanks.
 
Thank you for your replies.

R Mackey has the aircraft pulling 3.49 G's from the VDOT antenna to the pentagon

Myriad has the aircraft at 1 G from the VDOT antenna to pole 1 and then pulling 3.2 G's from pole 1 to the pentagon.

R Mackey numbers make more sense. However, very different requirements from what the FDR shows. Same with Myriad numbers.

When told JREFer G requirements do not appear in the FDR data, Anti-Sophist drops in for his usual "Debunked" speech.

Anti-Sophist says there is up to "2 seconds missing" - He was shown his own words do not add up to the govt story.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2237875&postcount=337
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2239284&postcount=341
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2002910&postcount=43


When confronted with FDR data, Anti-Sophist drops a link to the above thread (as do many of his "colleagues" at JREF) and yells "Debunked!".. He refuses to acknowledge the fact that his own words place the aircraft too high.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=4801

Anti-Sophist is unable to address Radar Altitude and passes it off to Beachnut.


Beachnut has claimed the aircraft is 2600, 2800, 3000, and 3000+ feet from the wall when the data ended. He claims this is why the altitude shows too high. His claimed distance is based on 1.5 DME from DCA VOR. He keeps changing distance due to the fact each position is still too high if data terminated at each point. When shown the altitude is still too high quoting his own words at those points, he goes back and deletes his post/claims.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102924&page=3 (starts at post 102)

Video presentation based on 1.5 DME
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8467167311585730947


Beachnut impersonates the NTSB leaving his typical debate style comment - "Pilots For 9/11 Stupid". Its possible it wasnt Beachnut, but the signature is there.

R Mackey's or Myriads numbers do not show up in the FDR data at all. The last second of data shows less than 1 G. Myriad and R Mackey both require more than 3 G's sustained over a period of time. Mackeys requiring more time based on speed (VDOT to Pentagon). Some may make the excuse that the FDR is missing data (as seen above from Anti-Sophist and Beachnut), yet the NTSB themselves have refused to explain "time missing" and in fact say they want everything "as accurate as possible when providing information through the FOIA". They account for the clock annotation error and Autopilot MCP errors. They do not account for any other possible errors or "time missing".

The NTSB produces this type of information on a regular basis. They show vertical accel recorded up till time of "impact" in which they calculated based on FDR, Radar and ATC transcripts.This data shows less than 1 G. The fact that the vertical accel was recorded up till time of "impact" as calculated by the NTSB is consistent with claims made by the manufacturer, ED-55 and TSO-124.

Since it was mentioned in this thread, the FDR recovery and location are also in question.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/FDR_location_091607.html
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/location_2.html

It would be interesting to see R Mackey plug in the numbers based on NTSB plotted altitude at VDOT Antenna (699 MSL), last data sample (480 MSL) and Radar Altitude (273+135= 408 MSL) in place of VDOT Antenna height.

With that said, we do thank R Mackey and Myriad for your time critically analyzing the math and we will be re-checking our calculations and revise the article if required. The english police can save their criticism for your regulars on this board. The rest, feel free to continue the ad homs.

Regards

D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom