Flight 77 obstacles
- Thread starter Dave Rogers
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aa77
Hi Robbie,
It's going to be real difficult to recover your "lost face" based upon your distinct lack of judgment and deplorable math skills in miscalculating the numbers YOU PROVIDED.
In a continued attempt to deceive the DUMB who lurk here, and in a weak attempt to recover you now wrongly label the raw data as "NTSB plotted altitude at VDOT Antenna". THIS IS A BLATANT LIE. It is data you (and your drones) extracted and you (and your drones) interpreted. No matter how much you attempt to spin, you don't know the location of the aircraft, nor it's exact flight path other than in it's final second or so when it impacted the Pentagon and that is based upon the Purdue analysis of the damage path. To use that report as the basis for the FDR numbers means that you are accepting that the aircraft indeed struck the Pentagon. You have no clue exactly where it is near the VDOT antenna. In that you accept the damage path report you do a wonderful job of self debunking your fantasy to prove that the aircraft did indeed strike the Pentagon as the FACTUAL PHYSICAL evidence shows.
Keep up the good work!
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
TC329 posts
Has anyone stundied that refutation of Newtonian physics yet?
Has anyone stundied that refutation of Newtonian physics yet?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Myriad stated something like this above but it bears repeating
starting +75fps downward velocity with an upward acelleration of -10 g(10 X 32 =320 f/s2 ) and with a time of 3 seconds ( 11 g minus the gravity component for the resultant acelleration on the aircraft)
D= (75)(3) - 0.5(320)(3)2D= 1215 feet in the direction of the upwards acelleration.
Thus is the plane started at 304 feet MSL and underwent a poistive acelleration of 10 g's then it would be at a height of over 1500 feet MSL in 3 seconds.
Therefore since what we wanted to do was calculate the acelleration the plane actually underwent in order to end up in the Pentagon there is something very wrong with the calulations since they will put the plane 1400+ feet above the place where the plane is said to have gone.
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,542
TC has just been copy/pasting various responses from other people onto this site. I'm not really in the mood arguing by proxy with the same 2 or 3 people who prefer to make death threats rather than correct the glaring errors in their math. I don't really care about Rob's tired copy/pasted argument about how much data is missing from the FDR. The evidence is overwhelming. Rob is in denial.
We made a new thread to deal with his antenna math, not re-argue about the FDR end point. We pointed out the numerous flaws. We've recieved 0 corrections, only subject changes. This thread is about how you are wrong about your silly antenna math. Please stop trying to derail it.
Let me spell it out for you: Your antenna math has been proven wrong. You've set up an absurd mental scenario and still proceeded to screw up the math. Changing the subject doesn't doesn't the fact that your math is wrong. Fix it. This is the _second_ time you've made an absurd post full of bogus and awful math, been proven wrong, and decided to change the subject to the same tired argument you've already lost.
It seriously easier to get a death threat out of you then get you to fix your own awful analysis when glaring errors have been pointed out.
We made a new thread to deal with his antenna math, not re-argue about the FDR end point. We pointed out the numerous flaws. We've recieved 0 corrections, only subject changes. This thread is about how you are wrong about your silly antenna math. Please stop trying to derail it.
Let me spell it out for you: Your antenna math has been proven wrong. You've set up an absurd mental scenario and still proceeded to screw up the math. Changing the subject doesn't doesn't the fact that your math is wrong. Fix it. This is the _second_ time you've made an absurd post full of bogus and awful math, been proven wrong, and decided to change the subject to the same tired argument you've already lost.
It seriously easier to get a death threat out of you then get you to fix your own awful analysis when glaring errors have been pointed out.
Last edited:
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
he's been reported for it at least 2 times.
This is about reality, not a data lag.
Edit:
Sorry--that was in reply to anti-sophlist...
This is about reality, not a data lag.
Edit:
Sorry--that was in reply to anti-sophlist...
Last edited:
The position information is even more of a problem for them. The wingspan of a 757 is 124' 10". In order for the aircraft to miss the tower it only has to be 63' to one side or the other. This tower has no guide wires so the accuracy of the position has to be known to some fairly accurate degree. Anyone know in here if that aircraft had a GPS tweaked INS or not? I'm type rated in the 757 and know that Delta's do not have that capability, even today. I doubt that American had this capability then either. Knowing the exact ground track within 63 feet is not likely given the technology used or the radar path and calibration.
In my mind this destroys any debate about the tower from the start.
In my mind this destroys any debate about the tower from the start.
The FDR data in the last frames they (pft loons) have shows the INS position about 19 miles or so from the Pentagon, so apparently it was not tweaked.
AMTMAN works for AA, so perhaps he knows for sure what was installed in 2001.
Hi Robbie,
It's going to be real difficult to recover your "lost face" based upon your distinct lack of judgment and deplorable math skills in miscalculating the numbers YOU PROVIDED.
In a continued attempt to deceive the DUMB who lurk here, and in a weak attempt to recover you now wrongly label the raw data as "NTSB plotted altitude at VDOT Antenna". THIS IS A BLATANT LIE. It is data you (and your drones) extracted and you (and your drones) interpreted. No matter how much you attempt to spin, you don't know the location of the aircraft, nor it's exact flight path other than in it's final second or so when it impacted the Pentagon and that is based upon the Purdue analysis of the damage path. To use that report as the basis for the FDR numbers means that you are accepting that the aircraft indeed struck the Pentagon. You have no clue exactly where it is near the VDOT antenna. In that you accept the damage path report you do a wonderful job of self debunking your fantasy to prove that the aircraft did indeed strike the Pentagon as the FACTUAL PHYSICAL evidence shows.
Keep up the good work!
Thank you for your insightful post and civil demeanor Reheat.
Please state the altitude in the below linked animation abeam the VDOT Antenna as plotted and produced by the NTSB. Please do not forget to correct for local pressure.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...l=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
If you believe the above animation plotted and produced by the NTSB is in error, why are you as a former airman, allowing and making excuses for the NTSB to provide error filled information through the FOIA to the American general public when the NTSB in fact states "[they} want everything as accurate as possible when providing information via FOIA" and have not corrected for any errors you and your colleagues have claimed?
Dont forget to check the new additions. http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.
Let us know when you want to join or perhaps even put your name on your claims.
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
Oh look, the NTSB video that they claim is not meant for any kind of accurate representation, but simply for demonstration purposes. This is what you are using to make calculations within feet right?
Thank you for your reply Anti-Sophist.
However, our math doesnt change the fact that the math of your colleagues does not support what is in the FDR data at a lower altitude than the FDR data. If they use altitudes as reported in the FDR data, their calculations will further conflict vertical acceleration as provided by the NTSB.
So I guess the question remains why doesn't Mackey & Myriad use the altitudes reported in the FDR data?
I know you know the answer to that question but please take a moment and answer it for the rest of the class for they are uninformed on this issue.
Personally I would like to see the 2 use the altitudes reported in the FDR data.
Since you have argued on this thread regarding "massive time errors", we have addressed it. It appears you do not want to argue that point any longer. I can see why when even your own link you drop while yelling "debunked" does not support the govt story.
Regards
However, our math doesnt change the fact that the math of your colleagues does not support what is in the FDR data at a lower altitude than the FDR data. If they use altitudes as reported in the FDR data, their calculations will further conflict vertical acceleration as provided by the NTSB.
So I guess the question remains why doesn't Mackey & Myriad use the altitudes reported in the FDR data?
I know you know the answer to that question but please take a moment and answer it for the rest of the class for they are uninformed on this issue.
Personally I would like to see the 2 use the altitudes reported in the FDR data.
Since you have argued on this thread regarding "massive time errors", we have addressed it. It appears you do not want to argue that point any longer. I can see why when even your own link you drop while yelling "debunked" does not support the govt story.
Regards
Hi Robbie,
You answer with a cartoon. It's already Sat afternoon, I watched cartoons this morning.
You're trying to put the thread thru Mammoth Cave rather than a needle and it's not going to work.
Why do you continue to avoid discussion of the numbers you provided when this all started. Cat got Robbie's tongue?
Are you any better with the FDR based math than the VDOT antenna based math?
You do not know where the FDR stopped. If the RADAR ALT is correct, the data stopped over 2800 or more (MORE) feet from the Pentagon. By data stopped, that could mean it was not stored on the chip, not that the data was not in the FDR system! (system, the FDR is made up of many items, and compresses the data to save space on the 1991 CHIP in the FDR, that was not required to meet the standards you can't produce.)
p4t are not rational about the Pentagon, and make up stuff blaming many unknown bad guys in the Air Force, FAA, FBI, and DoD for making the Pentagon blow up. They, p4t, lack the knowledge and ability to live in the real world on 9/11 topics.
Your research is so shallow, you do not back up anything you posted about flight 77 with facts; you have not proven how high the poles, or towers are. Your work is not referenced to anything but bad math. Bad math.
Real bad physics. But par for p4t (learn what acceleration and velocity are) lol
When will you post the standards you keep taking about? Rob should give the copy of the standard, ED-55; was the installed FDR covered by the ED-55 which TSO-124 said earlier FDR did not have to meet? Why are you guys so research challenged? You should look up all the stuff first before you make up false stories and try to mislead others. And the math you guys do will be math class examples of why you should pay attention in math class! No wonder jdx has failed to get the simple ATP FAA rating.
The tower is not 305 feet MSL, it is 92.6 feet MSL. Funny stuff p4t, jdx; FAILURE. Boone looked it up; more research in one day than 9/11 truth in 6 years! LOL p4t are not very good at this stuff.
Last edited:
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Let's knock off the FDR stuff. That's a derail, the twoofer standard policy when they have had their heads handed to them.
This is about numbers and "because I feel TC329's original post raised a new claim that hasn't been discussed in detail here before"
This is about numbers and "because I feel TC329's original post raised a new claim that hasn't been discussed in detail here before"
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
I remember seeing somewhere (perhaps here) a picture of a mark on the VDOT mast which possibly might have been made by AA77. Does anyone else remember this pic, and if so was the mark confirmed to be made by AA77? It might be possible to get a better idea of the plane's actual altitude if it nicked the antenna mast going by.
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
i disagree that its a derail, if you go by the premises laid out in the OP
the first premise is dependent on interpreting the FDR data, and without it the entire claim falls apart, you could discuss the other 3 premises, but that would require assiming the first is accurate
persoanlly i no problem assuming something is true for the purposes of discussion, but others might not want to do that, thus discussion of how the FDR data is interpreted is relevant
Your argument from incredulity noted Beachnut. Thank you. The data had to have stopped 2800 feet or more becuase you believe AA77 hit the pentagon. We understand.
Why did the NTSB not stop the data at a point more than 2800 feet away? Why did the NTSB report impact time as 09:37:45 with vertical acceleration recorded up to that point if you say all this data was recorded more than 2800 feet away? Why are they working for the NTSB and you are accumulating almost 7000 posts on JREF making excuses for the govt story and trolling the web attacking people you think are nuts? Say it Beachy, the NTSB provides "junk" data.. right? Just like P4T is junk. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html
Thanks again for your replies.
By the way "Reheat". The animation reconstruction produced by the NTSB based on what they claim is the Flight Data Recorder information from AA77 is not a "cartoon". But your evasiveness to report the altitude plotted by the NTSB (which you claimed the "dumb" P4T plotted), noted.
Regards.
TC329, I need your strict attention.
If you want to talk about flight paths consistent with FDR data, you need to present that data.
You didn't do that. You presented altitude data referenced to ground obstacles. You made a hypothesis based on those obstacles, and you screwed it up royally.
If you want to talk about FDR data, bring some FDR data. But don't complain that my numbers don't work with the FDR data. You set the ground rules. Now you're changing them.
I have no problem showing you how any combination of evidence can be met with a realistic flight path. But you can't hide evidence and claim it doesn't work. That's just stupid.
So far, we've established only two things. First, that there are MANY flight paths that work with the obstacles on the ground -- and given this wide range, there's no reason to doubt one or more solutions also agree with the FDR data. And second, you guys fail at basic Newtonian dynamics. You're in no position to even guess about what happened until you correct this problem.
We can help, but if and only if you're willing to learn.
If you want to talk about flight paths consistent with FDR data, you need to present that data.
You didn't do that. You presented altitude data referenced to ground obstacles. You made a hypothesis based on those obstacles, and you screwed it up royally.
If you want to talk about FDR data, bring some FDR data. But don't complain that my numbers don't work with the FDR data. You set the ground rules. Now you're changing them.
I have no problem showing you how any combination of evidence can be met with a realistic flight path. But you can't hide evidence and claim it doesn't work. That's just stupid.
So far, we've established only two things. First, that there are MANY flight paths that work with the obstacles on the ground -- and given this wide range, there's no reason to doubt one or more solutions also agree with the FDR data. And second, you guys fail at basic Newtonian dynamics. You're in no position to even guess about what happened until you correct this problem.
We can help, but if and only if you're willing to learn.
Last edited:
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,542
This thread is about the flawed math of your obstacles calculation. Not the FDR. You've already lost that argument. Data analysis is only as good as the analyzer. You guys can't even solve basic Newtonian physics problems.
Please stick to the topic.
Please stick to the topic.
Last edited: