As said elsewhere, is not the entire 'issue' of a NOC flight path utterly moot? Unless, of course, you are suggesting the plane did not hit the building. I notice that here, and elsewhere, you deftly side-step this basic question. However, the question remains. Do you, or do you not, think the plane (FLT 77) hit the Pentagon, or not? If so, then who gives a rats butt about NOC/SOC/EOC/WOC? The darn plane ended it's flight in the building, correct? If not, then (as before) these ten questions are for you. No, they aren't for skeptics. If you're going to make assertions that challange the widely accepted narrative then you must be able to answer the implications of those assertions.
No, they always refuse. And they will always continue to refuse to answer any questions about the implications of their claims and the evidence inconvenient to them.
For instance, Ranke, Marquis, and Balsamo are on record for refusing to interview, or provide any statement from, the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage inside the Pentagon, those who either saw it, handled it, or openly sorted through it outside of the Pentagon. I hounded them for two years on that question and they won't touch it.
They won't touch it because Ranke, Marquis, and Balsamo know full well they are lying through their teeth about AA77.
Think about it this way: Why does it matter whether the clock comes from the FDR or pre-FDAU?
If there's no potential for lost data, either one should give you the same thing. Timestamps are, in fact, essential because there is a delay. Otherwise, it would make no difference.
P4t have no data in :45. The last data point decoded by p4t was :43; NTSB has :44 with data. There was smoke and impact damage to the secure data storage unit.
You have no idea where 77 is at 13:37:44.
FDR have missing data, data not recorded for many reasons; some of them have nothing to do with the FDR itself. But then you have little system knowledge on a 757.
Oh my. Climb, dive or level. So 100 MSL to 40 MSL at 2600 feet to you is a gradual decent? Funny stuff. Flying is not your field. You should study some.
There will usually be damage to plane hitting at 2600 feet per minute your gradual decent (dive), and you will fail your flight if you live to fly again.
Greg, you have to pick one. A climb, a dive, or level flight. 77 hit a VOT camera post, and then impacted the Pentagon in 1.33 second. 77 goes from 100 MSL to 40 MSL in 1.33 second, this is a dive of 2600 feet per minute, which is 3.5 times the decent (dive) rate of a landing plane as it approaches the runway. So our 77 dive into the Pentagon is 3.5 times more dive than approach to landing.
Accident report, with only 12 to 14 feet per second impact, oops, fire and damage! Are you really an engineer?
Now imagine a 60 foot per second impact. You slight decent comment is an uneducated effort, like "ample evidence"! The truth movement saw you coming!
You should join p4t, they lack knowledge in flying too, just like you. I am not an expert pilot, I am the expert pilot, after reheat, pinch, and a few thousands others. But the best pilots and best people I know died before their time; they were better than i.
Did you say 60 feet per second was a gradual decent? High rate is 12 to 15 feet per second. Turbofan is off by a factor of four sometimes; is this truth trait?
Did you study the lens stuff? You have confirmed what I knew the first day you showed up as a member of multiple truth groups, you talk first and find out later. Use some research first, or ask one of the pilots on these issues.
60 feet per second is gear breaking stuff, and compared to landing at .5 to 1 feet per second, 60 feet per second is a crash. Stop diving at the runway, you will not be a pilot! lol Pinch lands at higher rates, but he has extra strength.
This question basically answers itself -- 3600 ft/min / 2 seconds = 60 ft/sec / 2 sec = 30 ft/sec2 = 0.96 g. Add that to 1 g for flat and level flight, and you have a g load of 1.97. Not a remarkable maneuver.
Also, for what it's worth, my derivation predicts that the flight path was basically flat for the last thousand feet or so. I can't tell if that's a smoke plume or not in the photo, but I expect the smoke trail to be almost horizontal if there was one.
Do you understand the landing gear is designed for about 12 feet per second at max weight? So your slight decent rate is 5 times the design of landing. 12 feet per second is also near the normal final approach descent rate, then we flare to land.
77 hit the Pentagon at 2600 feet per minute or so. So the G loading for pulling out of steeper dives is less because the feet per second at impact are not zero VVI, more like 44 feet per second. Not level. fisheye
did you see the fire?
The cause of the accident was the commander’s inability to arrest the high rate of descent existing at 50 ft RA.
It depends. The caber-throw is low velocity with a slight upward component in the force. A low velocity impact with the top end of a pole will cause the behavior you are describing and would look different. On other hand, a high velocity impact as would occur in an airplane hitting a pole near the top can actually give the center of mass of the pole an slight upward trajectory due to the rebound of the flexing of the pole. My understanding is that this would look more like the caber throw and the pole would likely go end over end a few times.
Do you understand the landing gear is designed for about 12 feet per second at max weight? So your slight decent rate is 5 times the design of landing. 12 feet per second is also near the normal final approach descent rate, then we flare to land.
77 hit the Pentagon at 2600 feet per minute or so. So the G loading for pulling out of steeper dives is less because the feet per second at impact are not zero VVI, more like 44 feet per second. Not level. fisheye
2 Gs. Would that would mean 4 Gs for a flyover if they started pulling up 4 sec in advance? Can a 757 do that? Rest assured I'm no flyover fan.
I'd like to see your analysis of the distortion caused by the fisheye lens. Is the visible protion of the lawn actually curved and only looks flat in the video?
2 Gs. Would that would mean 4 Gs for a flyover if they started pulling up 4 sec in advance? Can a 757 do that? Rest assured I'm no flyover fan.
I'd like to see your analysis of the distortion caused by the fisheye lens. Is the visible protion of the lawn actually curved and only looks flat in the video?
The 777 was tested and I think the wing cracked near 7 Gs. Tested on a test rig in a hanger. 77 was 757, I expect it could handle 6 Gs for a one time event; may be broke for the next flight.
Any rolling moment and pulling lots of Gs, more than 4 would be more Gs on the rolling up wing. Complications set in when you are really flying. So pilots try not to roll and pull too much depending on their plane, but airliners would not even think of it unless you knew someone was trying to shoot you down, then what the heck throw in a roll, a loop and try to get away, you would be surprised at what a big jet can do with the right crazy pilot behind the wheel.
A 4 g pull-up is possible, but you have to have the right speed and enough space for a big plane to move to 4 Gs.
The lawn slopes down to the Pentagon. The lens is distorted, the distance horizon is above the Pentagon. The lamppost hit can all be done at an angle consistent with 2600 feet per minute descent. I think Mackey is saying his calculation give p4t a flat approach and his numbers are still possible by the terrorist albeit the terrorist is not smooth, his stick inputs are terrible, but if you shake the plane it still flies some what straight.
If you want to level off, fine, but where? The overpass is in the way. I don't care if you level off, it is still possible to hit the Pentagon. If you level off at 60 feet you hit too high and hit cars on the overpass. Based on the terrorist flying and hitting the one post, a decent of 2600 feet per minute is possible and most the energy of impact will not make a big hole in the foundation, which is p4t excuse for saying 77 was level. As seen with Mackey G profile, a level off is possible, and still fits the rates the terrorist could do.
Show me why they have to level off, and gee, the lens is not useful for altitude at all.
Nope. CRC, parity, etc. require the full word to be received and checked
before writing to CPM. Values stored in CPM are time stamped along
with the corresponding parameters.
You do know that when you are recording data in real time there is is no data resend cycle. Kinda like a UDP data packet. If the data frame is corrupted coming in the data is not resent. The corrupted data is either recorded as is or it is dumped. Either way the data is lost.
As explained, the Flash memory itself requires address lines and electricity
applied for an extended period of time to erase the contents.
Sudden impacts, or loss of power do not contribute to the erease process
of EEPROM.
This article here shows how voltage noise can corrupt data already stored in memory on an EEPROM. So your claim that data already stored on a chip can't be erased is bunk.
These protection measures are not indestructable. If the voltage spike is high enough or fast enough it can actually destroy the filter caps or fry the voltage regulators. I've replaced many a motherboard that had popped filter caps ue to voltage spikes.
As a non-expert - perhaps. No one saw anything like that happen of course.
I'd like to see your analysis of the distortion caused by the fisheye lens. Is the visible protion of the lawn actually curved and only looks flat in the video?
FWIW I looked at that once, I found two passes with the spherize filter on Photoshop, set to -100% applied twice corrects it. Is that double-fisheye? Lens and a second lens? The white blur still, if anything, looks more level.
Also, in case it affects things, do consider the white "smoke trail" may well be the plane, given that a silver 757 in sunlight would not be dark in color or invisible, like the plane ahead of the "white smoke" as seen above. Smoke is probably gray in color, like this:
From that white blur, I agree it appears essentially level, there at app. the position of pole #5. A pitch down of perhaps 3 or even 4 degrees can't be ruled out. Back at poles 3&4, 1&2, at the Citgo, etc., the pitch was almost certainly steeper. Beachnut's graphic is a good visualization. Also consider ground effect. That forces the nose up, doesn't it? So a plane descending at 2-4 degrees may actually appear completely level? Thoughts?
2 Gs. Would that would mean 4 Gs for a flyover if they started pulling up 4 sec in advance? Can a 757 do that? Rest assured I'm no flyover fan.
I'd like to see your analysis of the distortion caused by the fisheye lens. Is the visible protion of the lawn actually curved and only looks flat in the video?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I think a pull-up time of 4 seconds would result in (60 ft/sec)/(4 sec) = 15 ft/s2, or 0.5 g.
Added to the Earth's gravity, this gives a total force of 1.5 g.
More time = less acceleration.
One second of pullup would resuly in 2 g + gravity = 3 g.
One=half second of pullup would result in 4 g + gravity = 5 g of pullup.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I think a pull-up time of 4 seconds would result in (60 ft/sec)/(4 sec) = 15 ft/s2, or 0.5 g.
Added to the Earth's gravity, this gives a total force of 1.5 g.
More time = less acceleration.
One second of pullup would resuly in 2 g + gravity = 3 g.
One=half second of pullup would result in 4 g + gravity = 5 g of pullup.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
It's all just FWIW.
