aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Now that's just crazy. I don't think a 757 can perform such a manouver.
That would be the PHP (Perpetual Holding Pattern).
Physics Response to Flight 77 Trajectory Speculation
- Thread starter R.Mackey
- Start date
-
- Tags
- flight 77 light poles pentagon
That would be the PHP (Perpetual Holding Pattern).
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,542
Just for the record, Mackey, your "lie" was that you said they "hid" the FDR data. Be prepared to hear about this "lie" for months and years to come. They missed your actual point by miles, despite the fact that I and others have tried to explain it to them.
"Twisting numbers", by the way, is JDX code for "scary math-stuff that I don't understand".
"Twisting numbers", by the way, is JDX code for "scary math-stuff that I don't understand".
Last edited:
Really?? Well, that makes no sense at all.
I never said anything of the kind. The FDR data isn't theirs to begin with, so how could they "hide" it?The closest thing I did say was, to TC329 (and not Mr. Balsamo, or "Pilots for 9/11 Truth," or anyone else) that he had not presented the FDR data. Which he hasn't.
What that means is this: You can't just say "draw me a flightpath consistent with the FDR data." The FDR contains measurements, and those measurements all have uncertainties in time, space, and accuracy. You have to go through those measurements and interpret them, calibrate them, make assumptions about uncertainties and lag and so on, and even then you have to make choices about what measurements to prefer.
For example, treating altitude, do you use radar or pressure alititude? Or a combination of the two? How do you account for the fact that radar is referenced to the ground level, and is therefore sensitive to position -- another uncertainty -- whereas pressure altitude is sensitive primarily to temperature and weather?
Mr. Balsamo, in his posts at 9/11 Blogger, proposed four different altitudes at the VDOT tower -- one based on the height of terrain (viz. the tower itself), two different ones based on FDR data (though I don't know precisely which measurements he picked or if he did any analysis at all), and one based on a separate animation. Clearly there's no one "right" answer. This is why I had to run six cases in my derivation. This is the nature of uncertainty in measurement.
The offer remains open to TC329 or anybody else: Give me some initial conditions, and we can find a trajectory. You can reason through the FDR several ways, and it doesn't matter to me which one you prefer, as long as it makes some kind of sense. The math is trivial, so go ahead and suggest a problem setup.
Last edited:
Well Folks, it's been over a week and the corrections haven't appeared yet. The last post I've seen in direct reference was on 21 March on the pilot lunatic site.
Since Ryan and Myriad used the wrong equations (according to Robbie) one would think they'd show theirs and declare victory. After all the original article/calculations were pwoof that AA77 did not crash into the Pentagon. I mean, they even knew about the error BEFORE Mackey's post, so one would think that original detective who noticed it would have the correct formulas posted by now.
They contend that their original premise is is still correct and they intend to correct that original article that used twoofer math to show AA77 couldn't hack the descent to the light poles and the "high" G pullout because of topography and obstacles.
Not only have they not corrected this original article about vertical obstacles, but they continue to post impossible turn radii for the CIT flyover delusion. Supposedly, as stated by the CIT loons, Robbie has approved their turn diagrams for those maneuvers, yet they are impossible turns for a B-757 to perform at the mutually accepted approximate speed.
One would think that with all of the expertise Robbie claims to have they could get something right. Speculation is one thing and subject to opinion, but aircraft performance within or not within capabilities when proven with correct math formulas are facts.
With this kind of delay on a grossly erroneous article posted in multiple locations on the Internet, one would think maybe they can't do the math or their premise is WRONG. Which is it and why is the article still posted on multiple sites? Wouldn't this type of thing be embarrassing to normal people?
Since Ryan and Myriad used the wrong equations (according to Robbie) one would think they'd show theirs and declare victory. After all the original article/calculations were pwoof that AA77 did not crash into the Pentagon. I mean, they even knew about the error BEFORE Mackey's post, so one would think that original detective who noticed it would have the correct formulas posted by now.
They contend that their original premise is is still correct and they intend to correct that original article that used twoofer math to show AA77 couldn't hack the descent to the light poles and the "high" G pullout because of topography and obstacles.
Not only have they not corrected this original article about vertical obstacles, but they continue to post impossible turn radii for the CIT flyover delusion. Supposedly, as stated by the CIT loons, Robbie has approved their turn diagrams for those maneuvers, yet they are impossible turns for a B-757 to perform at the mutually accepted approximate speed.
One would think that with all of the expertise Robbie claims to have they could get something right. Speculation is one thing and subject to opinion, but aircraft performance within or not within capabilities when proven with correct math formulas are facts.
With this kind of delay on a grossly erroneous article posted in multiple locations on the Internet, one would think maybe they can't do the math or their premise is WRONG. Which is it and why is the article still posted on multiple sites? Wouldn't this type of thing be embarrassing to normal people?
Last edited:
Because it's much more important for them to arm little 'truthers' with the comment "But it's been proved that AA77 couldn't have hit the pentagon. It defies physics", post the original cocked up calcs and trust that no one will bother to find out if they're correct or not.
After all, look how long the 'freefall' argument has been around for the towers.
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
I'm going to have to call "False Dichotomy" on that!
OK, then they just haven't had time to do it yet, I understand.
Last edited:
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
OK, then they just haven't had time to do it yet, I understand.
Well, that's true, but what I meant was, it could have been both!
I can only see two reasonable explanations for the behavior of "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" in this matter:
1. Having recognized the comprehensive nature of their technical shortcomings, they've enrolled in mathematics courses at a local community college. If this is the case, I support them and will be glad to help. It could understandably take a few months for them to learn what they need.
2. They're simply hoping we all forget this debacle ever happened. They also might expect this to take a few months.
Unfortunately, past experience with them biases us towards the second choice. This is what happened with their "smoking gun proof" of Airfone removal, as you may well recall. I never saw a retraction, and I haven't heard about this one since either.
I'm not interested in "Pilots for 9/11 Truth." This question and the calculations that resulted were interesting, and I hope some people took the opportunity to learn from it. Otherwise, I consider this matter closed.
1. Having recognized the comprehensive nature of their technical shortcomings, they've enrolled in mathematics courses at a local community college. If this is the case, I support them and will be glad to help. It could understandably take a few months for them to learn what they need.
2. They're simply hoping we all forget this debacle ever happened. They also might expect this to take a few months.
Unfortunately, past experience with them biases us towards the second choice. This is what happened with their "smoking gun proof" of Airfone removal, as you may well recall. I never saw a retraction, and I haven't heard about this one since either.
I'm not interested in "Pilots for 9/11 Truth." This question and the calculations that resulted were interesting, and I hope some people took the opportunity to learn from it. Otherwise, I consider this matter closed.
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
You two have over looked one other reason, they did it on purpose. It is one thing to be in error however if the important thing was to simply have a cadre of twoofers out there who could say in all honesty that the plane could not perform the manouvers, "Ive seen the calculation!" then it would matter not if those calculations are correct. Yes, that is a conspiracy mode thinking on my part. I do not believe it. I believe that P4T has recognized that both their premise and calculations are in error but are leaving the page up in order to prolong the "I've seen the calculations!" noise.
This reminds me of the premise that the plane could not have pulled the desending turn because it would subject the plane to 5, 6 or 7 g's laterally. That too is simple calculation, take the max forward velocity, the time it took to turn and the degrees through which the plane did turn and you can figure out angular velocity and determine the g force on the plane. Seems to me it was .3 g's or some such but that was a long time ago. One P4T poster had figured out an average desent rate and claimed it was in feet per second. I pointed out that he had actually calculated feet per minute.
IIRC it was 7000 feet divided by 3 minutes = 2300(+) feet/minute which he claimed was in fps. (which would be 1500 mph downward
) It took several posts before that guy, a pilot himself, could bring himself to acknowledge the error.
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
Or, perhaps, 3 pages of tinhat buffoonery disputing the necessity of learning math in the first place, and 12 pages of advertisements for pffft merch?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Large font in "Times New Crayon"
I'm predicting 15 pages of impenetrable double-talk and muddle based on unfounded speculations about unverifiable FDR data, without a single solid falsifiable claim or a single calculation more complex than addition, which will nonetheless be claimed to (1) supersede and "improve upon" the previous article, and (2) prove all criticisms of that article, including pointing out its patently obvious math mistakes, wrong.
You can feel the excitement in the air, as the crowd waits for the intellectual dishonesty parade to start.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Swing Dangler
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,050
I'm surprised that with all of the alleged witnesses to the impact, why have none described this drastic change in the flight path prior to hitting the Pentagon?
Are there any witnesses describing this maneuver? Surely with all of those who saw the plane, they could describe this high speed dive, eh?
Are there any witnesses describing this maneuver? Surely with all of those who saw the plane, they could describe this high speed dive, eh?
Your fellow liars have not risen to the occasion when asked about the DNA testing conducted at the Dover Port Mortuary. I tried to be helpful by pointing out that the remains of the passengers and crew of AA Flight 77 were always in the custody of the FBI. It seems clear enough that the agency is a major part of your imaginary conspiracy. How will your "investigation" proceed?
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Where has it been shown that such a maneuver was necessary? They never proved it didn't just miss/or clip the tower.
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,542
What high speed dive? No one here has described anything of the sort. Perhaps you care to elaborate.
Last edited:
R Mackey, please provide, based on your calculations, anything resembling 1.66 G's for a four second duration as you claim is needed for your least challenging scenario within the NTSB provided and plotted data.. The data provided by the NTSB, with an impact time as calculated by the NTSB of 09:37:45, does not show anything close to your calclulations (Case A through F) above for the previous 4 seconds as plotted by the NTSB.
"Opinion" noted. The NTSB has provided data who also states "[The NTSB wants] everything as accurate as possible when providing data through the FOIA" which conflict with your calculations/requirements for obstacle/topography navigation and of course conclusions. Its good you added the disclaimer as your conclusions are wrong when compared to the data as provided and plotted by the NTSB. Unless of course you can show us 1.66 G's (let alone 4.0 as required by the plotted altitude by the NTSB) for the last 4 seconds prior to impact time calculated by the NTSB.
(hint: the highest G load as plotted by the NTSB is 1.72 G, and is only for a 1/8th of a second duration. A far cry from your calculations above and completely contradictory to your conclusions).
Last edited: