Flight 77 obstacles

[jaydeehess]

double post

 

[PhantomWolf]

I missed it. What's the proof that Fl 77 didn't just miss the mast to one side or the other?

Well going by the alledged marks on the pole and that the camera glass was shattered, I'd suggest that the wingtip hit it.

 

[Reheat]

Well going by the alledged marks on the pole and that the camera glass was shattered, I'd suggest that the wingtip hit it.

I thought I remembered seeing this, but I haven't been able to find the photo again. Do you have a link to the photo?

 

[jhunter1163]

I remember seeing it too (see post #76 in this thread). There was a scuff-like mark on the mast a few feet down from the top. IIRC, there was some question as to whether the mark was made by AA77. Was that ever resolved?

 

[Reheat]

IIRC, it was posted by Russell Pickering on the old LC site. I've searched for it and can't locate it. Russell believed it was from AA77 if that means anything.

There is a chance I'm confusing this with another pole down near the highway with a camera on it. It was somewhere near pole 1. There is a possibility I'm confusing the two structures, I'm not sure at all.

 

[Mangoose]

Are we talking about two different things here? The mast on Wash. Blvd. versus the VDOT antenna next to the Columbia Pike. Yeah, there is excellent photographic evidence that shows not only a scuff-mark on the mast (halfway up to the camera) but also there's a missing rung in that location. A definite impact site, imho. And as jhunter says, that's an excellent means for estimating the altitude of the plane when it passed over the road.

 

[Reheat]

Are we talking about two different things here? The mast on Wash. Blvd. versus the VDOT antenna next to the Columbia Pike. Yeah, there is excellent photographic evidence that shows not only a scuff-mark on the mast (near where the camera got damaged) but also there are a few rungs missing in that location. A definite impact site, imho. And as jhunter says, that's an excellent means for estimating the altitude of the plane when it passed over the road.

Yes, I believe that's correct. I suspect both jhunter and I were thinking of the mast and not the VDOT tower. Oh well....

 

[Mangoose]

 

[PhantomWolf]

Possibly, it was mentioned in a post I skimmed the other day in one of the threads back a while. Of course another indicator of how low the plane was and where it's flight path was is the tree that lost its top to one of the engines (which looks like it's in the same photo)

 

[A W Smith]

Yes, I believe that's correct. I suspect both jhunter and I were thinking of the mast and not the VDOT tower. Oh well....

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA_Sept21.txt

Just before impact, the plane clipped off two VDOT light poles on
Washington Boulevard, a football field or two away from the Pentagon. In
the same area, the blast from the plane's impact damaged the lenses of one
of VDOT's traffic monitoring cameras and knocked the camera sideways.

 

[Mangoose]

Here is an image of the VDOT antenna taken just minutes after the attack by Steve Riskus, compared with a photo I took of it in 2005:

 

[Timothy]

[qimg]http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/739/mast1df0.jpg[/qimg]

This is excellent evidence? I would like to see the same scrutiny applied to this contention as others commonly seen in this forum.

Is there a credible trail of data that can be used to ascertain either the original contention (AA77 cleared the VDOT antenna) or that the scuff mark was caused by AA77?

 

[jaydeehess]

[qimg]http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/739/mast1df0.jpg[/qimg]

Pah!!

Obviously planted the day before

 

[Anti-sophist]

This is excellent evidence? I would like to see the same scrutiny applied to this contention as others commonly seen in this forum.

Is there a credible trail of data that can be used to ascertain either the original contention (AA77 cleared the VDOT antenna) or that the scuff mark was caused by AA77?

Not really. At some point the questions become too detailed and the bar of proof becomes so absurd that its no longer realistic to expect ironclad answers.

It is more than just a scuff mark though, as there is a piece clearly missing as well.

But, no, placing AA77 in the air at any point and time with that type of precision is simply not possible to do with any certainty at all.

 

[Mangoose]

I just took a look at the 9/11 Commission animation of Flight 77 flight path, and not even the "official story" has the plane that close to the antenna. And I think also Adam Larson's analysis of the ground track placed it at 60 or 61 degrees, which I think would also have missed the antenna. Who was the person here who had analyzed the FDR? What ground track did he propose?

 

[A W Smith]

Not really. At some point the questions become too detailed and the bar of proof becomes so absurd that its no longer realistic to expect ironclad answers.

It is more than just a scuff mark though, as there is a piece clearly missing as well.

But, no, placing AA77 in the air at any point and time with that type of precision is simply not possible to do with any certainty at all.

maybe a maintenance person was climbing the vdot cam pole and the peg broke off and he immediately **** his pants causing the skid mark that we see in the photo!
It could happen!!! Now all CIT needs to do is interview the dirty underwear.

 

[jhunter1163]

I just took a look at the 9/11 Commission animation of Flight 77 flight path, and not even the "official story" has the plane that close to the antenna. And I think also Adam Larson's analysis of the ground track placed it at 60 or 61 degrees, which I think would also have missed the antenna. Who was the person here who had analyzed the FDR? What ground track did he propose?

It was Anti-Sophist, I think, who analyzed the FDR, and he placed the ground track at 61 degrees.

 

[Turbofan]

No proof has been offered.

By the way, here's a link to R.Mackey's new and more comprehensive analysis of the accelerations and g forces along the flight path, under various cases of possible altitudes at specific points along the path.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109066

Respectfully,
Myriad

Myriad, et al:

How are you able to correct PFT's calculations when you are using a one
dimensional formula?

At the least, you need to account for vertical and horizontal vectors. Possibly a third to get the lateral force if significant enough! The
formula you should have used is located here:

http://tutor4physics.com/motioncircular.htm

Your equation clearly states the obvious and therefore you cannot use
your math to 'correct' PFT's calculation:

http://tutor4physics.com/motion1d.htm

One dimensional motion
By one dimension we mean that the body is moving only in one plane and in a straight line. Like if we roll a marble on a flat table, and if we roll it in a straight line (not easy!), then it would be undergoing one-dimensional motion.

Myriad, where do you account for known horizontal velocity in your formula? You only account for the vertical.

From Myriad, The knowns are:
velocity(t) = -23 fps (positive is upward)
pos(t) = 75 ft
pos(initial) = 314 ft
t = 3 seconds
...and we need to solve for a.

I don't see it in your above calculation?

 

[Myriad]

Myriad, where do you account for known horizontal velocity in your formula? You only account for the vertical.

I don't see it in your above calculation?

Under the assumption of constant horizontal component of velocity (which is the same assumption you Rob Balsamo made in the original "11.2g" calculation I was responding to, on this thread several months ago), the horizontal position is in direct proportion to elapsed time and the horizontal motion has no effect on the g forces.

The horizontal velocity is accounted for in the time intervals: 3.0 seconds from the VDOT tower to the light pole, 1.3 seconds from the light pole to the wall. At a different horizontal velocity, those times would change in proportion, affecting the results of the calculation.

At the least, you need to account for vertical and horizontal vectors. Possibly a third to get the lateral force if significant enough! The
formula you should have used is located here:

http://tutor4physics.com/motioncircular.htm

The posted approach scenario of the 11.2g calculation that I was showing to be erroneous did not include a turn. Hence I did not use any formulas for circular motion.

Your equation clearly states the obvious and therefore you cannot use your math to 'correct' PFT's calculation.

Sorry, this claim makes no sense. If my calculation states the obvious, then it is correct, and it is also obvious is that the 11.2g calculation is wrong. (Which PfT has admitted anyhow.)

Now, if since then you've come up with a different impact path scenario, inclusive of turns or other accelerations with horizontal components that introduce lateral forces, go ahead and present the path and the calculations for it. Naturally the results will be different from the one I calculated based on the "11.2g" (constant horizontal component of velocity, no turns) scenario.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Turbofan]

Under the assumption of constant horizontal component of velocity.

What do yuo mean "constant"? It's a dive! I don't understand?

The horizontal velocity is accounted for in the time intervals: 3.0 seconds from the VDOT tower to the light pole, 1.3 seconds from the light pole to the wall. At a different horizontal velocity, those times would change in proportion, affecting the results of the calculation.

Where are the distance figures? You are only showing ONE vector here.

Now, if since then you've come up with a different impact path scenario, inclusive of turns or other accelerations with horizontal components that introduce lateral forces, go ahead and present the path and the calculations for it.

Are you saying your formula is correct for the current presented scenario?