Why does FAA/Norad animation show NoC flightpath?

Cl1mh4224rd said:
He's assuming a dive. Two seconds to level out; two more seconds to pull back up.
Click to expand...

I was confused about that myself, but I get it now.

In that case, to get the flyover track, the aircraft has to double its vertical acceleration. But this doesn't double the g load.

Before we had 2 g, or 1 g to keep flying plus 1 g of true acceleration. To fly over, we'd need 3 g, since we don't double the amount needed to keep flying.

3 g is well within the limits of a 757, as this Iceland Air incident demonstrates irrrefutably.
 
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.
Click to expand...

However AA planes aren't actually painted silver, they are polished aluminium, so they have a mirror-like finish. Mirrors reflect things. The top of the plane would have been reflecting what was above it, the bottom of the plane would have been reflecting what was below it. Thus instead of a "silver plane" try looking for a blurred (from high speed) plane that is blue on top, green on the bottom, and has a red stripe between those colours. You might actually surprise yourself by finding it.
 
Last edited:
GregoryUrich said:
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.
Click to expand...
Consider the angle of the pole as the top hits the ground- there is no way the angle is even close to 90 degrees, and certainly 90 degrees or greater is impossible for a completely horizontal collision on level ground. I guess the difference is just a matter of degree. The reason I asked was to put to rest the idiotic notion that the poles could fly like javelins with no downward velocity.
 
TLB, I think you keep thinking of the bottom being the pivot point instead of the center. Your drawing which also shows the pole changing size as it turns seems to demonstrate this misunderstanding.
 
Anyhow, Hey TC, I notice your silly pal Craig made the incredible error of posting a thread over at LC talking about how PFT "has the math" to contradict the "official flight path."

Uh OH CIT!

Put aside the silly errors in CIT/PFT's math, Craig's mistake is that he has now conceded that flight paths can be calculated!!

I expect the CIT/PFT math for CIT's North of Citgo flight path immediately.
 
16.5 said:
Anyhow, Hey TC, I notice your silly pal Craig made the incredible error of posting a thread over at LC talking about how PFT "has the math" to contradict the "official flight path."

Uh OH CIT!

Put aside the silly errors in CIT/PFT's math, Craig's mistake is that he has now conceded that flight paths can be calculated!!

I expect the CIT/PFT math for CIT's North of Citgo flight path immediately.
Click to expand...

And Craig, don't forget to show the flight path extending beyond the Pentagon so you can find all those eyewitnesses to the flyover and tell us what they saw.
 
16.5 said:
Anyhow, Hey TC, I notice your silly pal Craig made the incredible error of posting a thread over at LC talking about how PFT "has the math" to contradict the "official flight path."

Uh OH CIT!

Put aside the silly errors in CIT/PFT's math, Craig's mistake is that he has now conceded that flight paths can be calculated!!

I expect the CIT/PFT math for CIT's North of Citgo flight path immediately.
Click to expand...

Craig may have posted this already, but I haven't seen it. Here is PFT's new math. I haven't checked their math yet, but assuming their interpretation of the FDR data is correct, their arguments seem compelling.
 
GregoryUrich said:
Craig may have posted this already, but I haven't seen it. Here is PFT's new math. I haven't checked their math yet, but assuming their interpretation of the FDR data is correct, their arguments seem compelling.
Click to expand...

Hmm, when said you were posting to Pffffttt's new math, I expected an article outlining the calculations. Did you link to the correct site? That one has Craig pimping Pfft's video, which has been systematically debunked elsewhere.

I do note that old Craig has stuck his neck out through. If he thinks that pulling up to flat and level piles on the G's, I can't wait to see what they come up with the pull up over the Pentagon!
 
GregoryUrich said:
Craig may have posted this already, but I haven't seen it. Here is PFT's new math. I haven't checked their math yet, but assuming their interpretation of the FDR data is correct, their arguments seem compelling.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that statement, as far as it goes. :D The problem is that their interpretation of the FDR data is just plain stupid.

They're assuming the aircraft travels in a straight line from the VDOT tower to the final light pole, and only pulls up in a fraction of a second. (This is the "hockey stick," as I can think of no better way to describe this hypothetical trajectory.) No pilot in their right mind would do that, and that certainly isn't what the FDR shows.

If you relax this restriction, and let the aircraft pull up over a period of a couple of seconds, the g load drops to as low as 1.62, as I've shown before. This is doable by the worst pilot in the world, flying the flimsiest aircraft.

Why do they draw a straight line from VDOT tower to light poles? There's no reason to expect this whatsoever. That assumption alone is responsible for their idiotic conclusion.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
I'd agree with that statement, as far as it goes. :D The problem is that their interpretation of the FDR data is just plain stupid.

They're assuming the aircraft travels in a straight line from the VDOT tower to the final light pole, and only pulls up in a fraction of a second. (This is the "hockey stick," as I can think of no better way to describe this hypothetical trajectory.) No pilot in their right mind would do that, and that certainly isn't what the FDR shows.

If you relax this restriction, and let the aircraft pull up over a period of a couple of seconds, the g load drops to as low as 1.62, as I've shown before. This is doable by the worst pilot in the world, flying the flimsiest aircraft.

Why do they draw a straight line from VDOT tower to light poles? There's no reason to expect this whatsoever. That assumption alone is responsible for their idiotic conclusion.
Click to expand...

If I have understood Beachnut's post on the other thread, the FDR data ends roughly 7 seconds prior to impact and prior to passing over the VDOT tower. That would mean that any path from the last FDR reading would be possible as long as it passes above the tower and is low enough to clip the poles. However a steeper dive would be required for a parabolic path. Does the G measurements go < 1 just prior to the end of the FDR data?
 
It is PfT's assumption that the aircraft even flew above the tower in the first place. One could not position the aircraft with enough precision to determine if it indeed was directly above the tower or to one side of it.
Furthermore, they assume that the end of data equals the time of impact in some renditions of their contentions. In others they assume that the end of data is over the first lamp post to be hit. At any rate they then view the data as indicating that when the plane was over the tower it was several hundred feet above it. They only use the idea of it just passing over the tower as a thought experiment and define a trajectory after that which suits their own purposes, the one that MacKey describes as 'hockey stick'.

Mackey and others have pointed out that if one looks at the general situation of the plane passing just over the tower and assumes a desent rate at that time then there are many possible easy trajectories for the aircraft to take. It is PfT's lack of physics and mathematical skill that requires them to limit themselves to the trajectory they use.
 
Last edited:
GregoryUrich said:
If I have understood Beachnut's post on the other thread, the FDR data ends roughly 7 seconds prior to impact and prior to passing over the VDOT tower. That would mean that any path from the last FDR reading would be possible as long as it passes above the tower and is low enough to clip the poles. However a steeper dive would be required for a parabolic path. Does the G measurements go < 1 just prior to the end of the FDR data?
Click to expand...
Last 20 seconds of G or so, at 8 hertz
77g.jpg

The last twenty six descents. Take your pick for the terrorist to hit the Pentagon.

30, 24, 48, 54, 58, 58, 48, 44, 50, 52, 50, 62, 70, 100, 104, 110, 94, 86, 82, 102, 92, 96, 98, 92, 68, 65.
Gs at 8 samples per second last data on the right at 13:37:44, with 65 fps the last descent.

You do not have to pass over the tower, and you don't have to level off.

What is useful with the fps stuff. Look at the difference in seconds, that rate of change is possible, you can piece possible vertical paths using these changes the terrorist provides.

With the 8 hertz G, you could refine values for decent, and piece in a backward descent.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Last 20 seconds of G or so, at 8 hertz
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77g.jpg[/qimg]
The last twenty six descents. Take your pick for the terrorist to hit the Pentagon.

30, 24, 48, 54, 58, 58, 48, 44, 50, 52, 50, 62, 70, 100, 104, 110, 94, 86, 82, 102, 92, 96, 98, 92, 68, 65.
Gs at 8 samples per second last data on the right at 13:37:44, with 65 fps the last descent.

You do not have to pass over the tower, and you don't have to level off.

What is useful with the fps stuff. Look at the difference in seconds, that rate of change is possible, you can piece possible vertical paths using these changes the terrorist provides.

With the gs you can reefing it!
Click to expand...

Thanks. But even using the VDOT height or the last FDR altitude as a constraint, it would appear there is no problem.
 
No, the "problem" is the kink in their hypothesis. Obviously no aircraft flies like that.

Again, I refer you to my derivation. This takes all possible altitudes at the VDOT tower into account. The only difference is that (a) we make no explicit assumption about the aircraft rate of descent, and (b) we allow it to pull up the whole time. The rate of descent we wind up requiring is also not remarkable.

And the trajectory we get is quite ordinary.
 
beachnut said:
On 9/11 the lawn slopes to the Pentagon, and the lens is a crummy fish eye lens distorting the whole world.
Click to expand...

Did they change the lawn? Today the lawn is nearly perfectly flat at 9m elev. The highway is at 10m elev. Did they move the highway?

Here are some images from GoogleEarth:

lawn1.jpg


lawn2.jpg


lawn3.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom