Physics Response to Flight 77 Trajectory Speculation

[beachnut]

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 the 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).

Oops, you should take a class in physics before you expose you failure to understand anything about 77.

Did you say 4 Gs? Got Physics? Or, like Rob, you have not idea what 4 is, G or feet.

Just spewing what Balsamo has you post, shows you lack physics and math. Rob failed to use physics to come up with 11.2 Gs, he waved his hand divided numbers he thought fit into other number, failed to keep track of what the units were, and failed. You have failed too, and you don't even know why.

I see you and rob are plotting this carefully in secret. Was that the delay?

OMG, there is 1.66 G! Holy 77 FDR! G whiz.
These are the G listing for the 160 plus samples at the end of the FDR, and you clearly can see 1.6 plus G! There are what 8 samples of G per second listed in the FDR? That is close!

Oh, you are saying it is too short? Wowzer, from a group who posts 11.2 G and mutilates physics, you missed the point of Mackey's paper. You also missed the fact p4t made up some silly altitude, and 77 could have been lower, next the tower not over it. Fact is one of the CIT witnesses thinks 77 hit the tower and knocked off 6 feet. So Mackey gave you an extra 200 fee high for the 4 G scenario, an extra 200 feet even witnesses refute. 77 was very close to the top of the tower based on witness statements alone, leave the 4 G at the far end of possibilities, and still possible, blowing your ideas out of the sky. Further, the pilot was in a PIO, it appears after his last push over a larger excursion was possible and fits perfect with his PIO, some peak to peak of 4 to 5 seconds, it fits, he pushed over and pulled some Gs and impacted. Darn, the more you p4t guys show up the more I can see Hani at the control impacting the Pentagon before he PIOed the wings off! It is ironic, Hani was having problems controlling a jet at 500 mph and it was getting worse, good for him he only shoved the throttles to the firewall 20 seconds before impact. It is sad how you can basic understanding of things but be off by a few seconds and since Boeings can fly faster than their limiting airspeeds at low altitude below MACH 1, it is funny how many silly ideas your small group of pilots make up, but are off.

If Mackey is looking at an average of 1.66 G, it can happen easy, but for someone who likes the 11.2 G fiasco, it may be hard to discuss something you don't understand. (1.6 g for a half second above and he pulled 1.4 plus Gs for over 1 second, and at the end of the FDR he makes the biggest down stick input yet!. just what was the last g manuver? not 11.2 G)
Darn, foiled again;

 

[hxstamper]

Beachnut,

Why are almost all your posts exactly the same? You do know the definition of insanity, do you not?

Did you say 4 Gs? Got Physics?

Back to the topic. R Mackey came up with 4.0 G's for four second duration required to navigate/be consistent with obstacle impact, based on the NTSB plotted altitude for that time frame. The NTSB provided and plotted data is inconsistent with Mackey's calculations and conclusions. Please read the OP.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

You do know the definition of insanity, do you not?

Insanity:

1: a human being that drinks the kool aide that PFFttt idiots sell.

2: anyone that purchases a PfffT Coffee Mug or BBQ Apron.

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut,

Why are almost all your posts exactly the same? You do know the definition of insanity, do you not?



Back to the topic. R Mackey came up with 4.0 G's for four second duration required to navigate/be consistent with obstacle impact, based on the NTSB plotted altitude for that time frame. The NTSB provided and plotted data is inconsistent with Mackey's calculations and conclusions. Please read the OP.

Sorry Rob, you forgot to label your units, like the 11.2 G error. As you can see, it was most likely a smaller G experienced, but it could have been 4 Gs, you are no expert, you let 11.2 G errors slide as if you were physics challenged, like Rob. But then will less than 0.0001 percent of all pilots, you have limited resources to choose from, all of who seemed physics challenged. It does take a maturity to understand physics, amazing in my case, I do!

Take your time an label stuff. At least 4 Gs is doable, unlike the 11.2 G when wings snap off. The 777 was tested to 7 G when the wings snapped, I expect the 757 can pull 5 or 6 Gs once. But who would do that unless you were avoiding a SAM.

I guess you missed where the terrorist did pull 1.7 G. Need that chart I added above again?

Do I need to erase some of post so you make up stories about it. And what did I lie about, you called me a liar, and you offered no evidence. Are you just parroting what Balsamo is telling you to?

Good luck, you could just take Mackey's work and replace Balsamo's failed stuff.

 

[hxstamper]

Oops, you should take a class in physics before you expose you failure

I see you edited your post after a reply, again, without a notation. Typical...


Again Beachy, R Mackey calculated 1.66 (Case A) and 4.0 G (Case F) required for a four second duration (bolding second time just for Beachy).

If your graph above is based on the data provided by the NTSB, it is inconsistent with R Mackeys requirements for all cases.

 

[hxstamper]

Insanity:

1: a human being that drinks the kool aide that PFFttt idiots sell.

2: anyone that purchases a PfffT Coffee Mug or BBQ Apron.

Try again..

 

[hxstamper]

I guess you missed where the [the data shows] 1.7 G.

I guess you didnt read this...

(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).

Bolding since Beachy missed it the first time.

 

[Turbofan]

Subscribing!

More contradictions with the NTSB data and member theories I see.

You guys should all get together before posting and come up with one
solid theory before you post. It makes you look less foolish that way.

P.S.

Hey, if I shake my computer up and down real hard and create enough
negative g's, will the power go out?

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Hey, if I shake my computer up and down real hard and create enough
negative g's, will the power go out?

Try bouncing it off your head. I can guarantee your lights will go out.

 

[WildCat]

Back to the topic. R Mackey came up with 4.0 G's for four second duration required to navigate/be consistent with obstacle impact, based on the NTSB plotted altitude for that time frame. The NTSB provided and plotted data is inconsistent with Mackey's calculations and conclusions. Please read the OP.

Perhaps you should read the OP again, this time for comprehension.

 

[hxstamper]

If Mackey is looking at an average of 1.66 G, it can happen easy, but for someone who likes the 11.2 G fiasco, it may be hard to discuss something you don't understand. (1.6 g for a half second

Beachy, how many times are you going to edit your post, without notation, after people have already replied? Are we going to come back tomorrow to see more added? (people, please note times of post and times of edit).

The NTSB provided and plotted data averages just over 1 G for the same four second duration Mackey claims 1.66 G's is required (and you claim is averaged by Mackey). Of course Mackey hypothetically lowers the aircraft to VDOT height for this requirement. If taken into account actual altitude as plotted by the NTSB for that specific time stamp (tell us again how the NTSB is in error?), Mackey is completely inconsistent with the NTSB in Mackeys 4.0 G (Case F) requirement for his four second duration "pull". Considering Mackey has concluded all his calculations are "consistent" with the data plotted and provided by the NTSB (FDR), Mackey is intellectually dishonest to anyone who takes the brief time to actually look at the NTSB data.

 

[beachnut]

Beachy, how many times are you going to edit your post, without notation, after people have already replied? Are we going to come back tomorrow to see more added? (people, please note times of post and times of edit).

The NTSB provided and plotted data averages just over 1 G for the same four second duration Mackey claims 1.66 G's is required (and you claim is averaged by Mackey). Of course Mackey hypothetically lowers the aircraft to VDOT height for this requirement. If taken into account actual altitude as plotted by the NTSB for that specific time stamp (tell us again how the NTSB is in error?), Mackey is completely inconsistent with the NTSB in Mackeys 4.0 G (Case F) requirement for his four second duration "pull". Considering Mackey has concluded all his calculations are "consistent" with the data plotted and provided by the NTSB (FDR), Mackey is intellectually dishonest to anyone who takes the brief time to actually look at the NTSB data.

Mackey's work shows it possible to hit the Pentagon, at a reasonable G even at unreasonable p4t fantasy initial conditions. The math and physics is correct with a quick look, but it will take you years to understand it. You better stop trying to tie my failed posts to Mackey's work that stands. Your lack of evidence to support your failed ideas make it pathetic that Mackey did in minutes what it has taken over 4 months at p4t, not to correct, just complain and fail at making a point.

Your posts are false insinuations that rob appears to be feeding you because he is banned here. Threads like this at p4t are closed as soon as someone shows competence to mess up the fantasy world you p4t guys live in.


Oh, you are Rob, what, do you have a new IP scramble program! Only Balsamo watches my posts being edited, and I caught you again. Or Rob is telling you want to post. Which is it? So you both do talk about me! Why?

Anything I need to correct? I was going to say you left out how the terrorist pulled some Gs over 1.2 and 1.4 for more than a second. But who cares. hi rob, p4t is growing at a fantastic rate, it will only take 100 years to get 0.001 percent of all pilots on board. More to come on G, I am sure? Have you corrected that page yet?

Sorry, I have to edit them! My grandson was screaming. My dog ate my paper. A deer is eating the rose bush. A cat needs feeding... the mouse trap is sprung. To catch Balsamo commenting about it all over the internet. Only Balsamo cares to comment on my edits, he hates it! If you spent your time on physics and 9/11 information instead of worrying about catching others making errors or edits, you would not be in p4t spreading false information so you can fool other people into conclusions of pure lies; while you have "no theory" and pathetically attack other work which you can't do yourself.

 

[hxstamper]

Only Balsamo watches my posts being edited, and I caught you again. Or Rob is telling you want to post. Which is it? So you both do talk about me! Why?

Do you mean to say, "Only those with keen observation skills catch those who are intellectually dishonest in editing their posts after replies"?

Isnt it against JREF rules to accuse others of a sock?

And since you missed it numerous times in the past, "Rob Balsamo" was never banned here. Lisa Simpson denied his registration under his real name.

The rest of your post is exactly like your thousands of other posts, essentially saying the same thing again and again, over and over, expecting different results. Its pointless to address.

Edit to add: Beachy, Rob and P4T never talk about you. You arent that important. P4T represenatives only address you here on the JREF to expose you for who you are among your peers. You seem to be a lurker at P4T forums, please post the numerous posts Rob and P4T talk about you. Dont flatter yourself.

 

[WildCat]

And since you missed it numerous times in the past, "Rob Balsamo" was never banned here. Lisa Simpson denied his registration under his real name.

Yes, "he" is. "He" was caught using weedwacker's account. That's why "he" was not allowed to register.

 

[WildCat]

Edit to add: Beachy, Rob and P4T never talk about you. You arent that important. P4T represenatives only address you here on the JREF to expose you for who you are among your peers. You seem to be a lurker at P4T forums, please post the numerous posts Rob and P4T talk about you. Dont flatter yourself.

Oh, stop it! You are obsessed with beachnut!

 

[HyJinX]

Do you mean to say, "Only those with keen observation skills catch those who are intellectually dishonest in editing their posts after replies"?

Isnt it against JREF rules to accuse others of a sock?

And since you missed it numerous times in the past, "Rob Balsamo" was never banned here. Lisa Simpson denied his registration under his real name.

The rest of your post is exactly like your thousands of other posts, essentially saying the same thing again and again, over and over, expecting different results. Its pointless to address.

Edit to add: Beachy, Rob and P4T never talk about you. You arent that important. P4T represenatives only address you here on the JREF to expose you for who you are among your peers. You seem to be a lurker at P4T forums, please post the numerous posts Rob and P4T talk about you. Dont flatter yourself.

Grasp for straws much? Why don't you concentrate on actually presenting evidence, Rob? So far, from what I read here and on Pfffft...you have yet to make a case. What's the matter...the evidence and truth not in you favor? It's ok. We understand that you have a whole bunch of t-shirts and mugs, that have your logo on them, to sell. You'd do better, as a marketer, not to post here, in order to fulfill those potential orders. (oh...btw, I have a masters in marketing and consumer hehavior. If you need help, let me know).

 

[stateofgrace]

The rest of your post is exactly like your thousands of other posts, essentially saying the same thing again and again, over and over, expecting different results. Its pointless to address.

And your insane theories? How many times do you post the same drivel over and over again?

 

[hxstamper]

Yes, "he" is. "He" was caught using weedwacker's account. That's why "he" was not allowed to register.

Did JREF Mods determine the IP address used by weedwacker was owned by "Rob Balsamo"? If they did, where is this posted?

If they did, did the mods here determine "Rob Balsamo" was sitting at his computer?

Or did you all just assume "weedwacke" was "Rob Balsamo" because "weedwacker", the banned poster, told you so? Do you only believe information if it suits your bias? (love that AMR page fakery thing you people tried to prove by the way )

Hmmm.. that pesky "Critical thinking" issue again.

I also notice the JREF doesnt require a real name and zip code to register anymore.. .hmm.. why do you think that is?


WC, i know you love to derail topics, but please, try to stay on topic.

(sorry folks, i had to expose WC for his 'critical thinking" skills, or lack thereof. Its fun once in awhile.. )

Have a great night folks!

 

[beachnut]

Do you mean to say, "Only those with keen observation skills catch those who are intellectually dishonest in editing their posts after replies"?

Isnt it against JREF rules to accuse others of a sock?

And since you missed it numerous times in the past, "Rob Balsamo" was never banned here. Lisa Simpson denied his registration under his real name.

The rest of your post is exactly like your thousands of other posts, essentially saying the same thing again and again, over and over, expecting different results. Its pointless to address.

Edit to add: Beachy, Rob and P4T never talk about you. You arent that important. P4T represenatives only address you here on the JREF to expose you for who you are among your peers. You seem to be a lurker at P4T forums, please post the numerous posts Rob and P4T talk about you. Dont flatter yourself.

You have mentioned me almost 100 times, you talk about me 3 or 4 times a post sometimes. Your keen observation is really showing. This is one more time. If you had something you would present proof that Mackey's work is not correct, you can't. Big problem, Mackey is correct and you do not understand it.

If you are not Rob, you sure act like him! Rob and you complete each other, or are pure duplicates; or say hello to rob, the only sharp pilot on the whole Patriots pilot page, all the rest just spew the same drivel, so Rob is the only one you can be; who cares if you are rob, I don't. Now I can type and watch the game in few minutes.

All Rob is good for is whining when DVD sales are down. Post to the physics or move along with your hearsay and talk.

Topic please, back the topic. Try hard, now, most sharp pilots can concentrate, but you are distracted due to... lack of evidence?

Prove Mackey is wrong with some physics or math. Hurry, up, we can't wait 4 months for nothing.

I was just looking at the facts, if you draw a straight line from the tower to the first pole, you need 4439 feet/minute to the pole, and from the pole to the Pentagon, you need 1866 feet/minute. The terrorist have had excursion up to 6600 feet/minute descent rates. Why is p4t making a big deal about this. Mackey's work uses different initial conditions and shows what force the plane would have to withstand. Mackey's work looks good, why has hxstamper not shown a single piece wrong. It is only math and Physics.

To level off from either of these "horrendous G" scenarios take 3.3 G, and 1.9 G. But you can just hit the Pentagon without leveling off, there goes the 1 1.9 G level off there, and you don't have to level off for the pole, you just have slow your descent rate, there goes the 3.3 G for 1 second level off! Oh my. Why is math so simple? So you only need 2.33 G for a second to hit the impact descent rate from the tower. This is simple. I have left out the actual calculation to do the path, but have done a quick, back of napkin drinking 22 ounce at the neighbor hood beer post while using free wifi stuff, proof of concept, engineer stuff. But the good news for G sensitive people! The terrorist has 3 seconds to adjust, or luck out to reduce his descent rate for the final impact from the 1st lamppost. Seconds and that means Hani could have missed the tower, increased his descent rate to 6600 feet per minute and then his PIO let him reduce that to near 2000 feet a minute by the fires post! This is 4600 feet per minute change with 3 seconds to make it happen. That is 1.798611 G for 3 second, or larger g for shorter times with above 1.2 and 1.4 G to fill in the average. But that takes math, you may just want to rant about it.

Stop! Think! This is predicated on the fact 77 was over the tower, 77 could have been lower than the tower beside the tower on either side, and the path is in the ballpark to impact!!!


With the terrorist pulling close to 1.8 G already and the large stick input yet on the FDR at the last stored data, Mackey's work is excellent, and you really have to look at it to understand all of it. So far hx, you have failed to really explain why you have problems with his work using math and physics. Typical p4t rant is not hacking it. Bring the math next time. Or do you stand by the 11.2 G junk? (more added to help hx talk about me again)

I like Mackey's work! Considering the rant of p4t is fantasy, and they refuse to form theories or conclusion due to lack of evidence and lack of understanding 9/11. Mackey's work is more than enough to show p4t are not very good at math, and have missed the fact 77 impacted the Pentagon. p4t still have no theory. (darn, more)

WC, i know you love to derail topics, but please, try to stay on topic.

Great advice. Back to physics. Oops, guess not

You claim only, you have "no theories"...

 

[hxstamper]

You have mentioned me almost 100 times,

How many times have you mentioned P4T or Rob Balsamo in your almost 8000 posts? I bet its more than 16,000 times.

Again Beachy, i dont expect you to understand that when people are conversing with you, they address you by name. If that strokes your ego, so be it.

As for the rest of your post, we dont claim Mackeys' math or physics are wrong. Do you understand the difference in what is being said above?