• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flight 77 obstacles

R.Mackey said:
Oh my god, that's funny.

If you don't trust my numbers, work through the problem yourself. I even set it up for you. I did so because that way, you don't have to trust me. Just do it. Again, any high school kid who's passed algebra should be able to handle it.

If you can't figure out why my numbers and Myriad's are not identical, then you're truly, truly lost.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your input Mackey.

Please note you have the pull starting at the Antenna through pole 1 to the pentagon. Your number is 3.49 G's for the duration. Which exceeds Transport Category G limits by 1 G.

Myriad has the pull starting at pole 1 to the pentagon. He has 3.2 G for that segment also exceeding Transport Category G limits.

This is the third time we have explained this to you and you still do not see the descrepency between your calculation and how it applies to what is being demonstrated.

Like we said, your numbers do make more sense and we thank you for time. We are currently reviewing the numbers and will revise the article if required. There is more than one person within P4T working on this. Check the list, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

Also, we have linked on the article itself to a "Common Arguments" thread in our forum with your numbers. So your numbers are represented with the article itself. Its unfortunate you and Myriad cannot sign up at P4T to discuss this.

By the way, someone may want to tell Myriad that 23 fps over 3 seconds only equates to 69 feet. Not 314 or 239.

Regards
 
beachnut said:
yep, the person who looked up tower told me my mistake, m vs ft, the tower is in meters, then it is 303.8 feet. Wonder if jdx can fix his error in feet per NM?

I have made a conversion error and I am still correct that 77 hit the Pentagon, you made an error in math and physics, and you are still wrong.

I am sorry, I thought since jdx makes big errors he could have messed up the tower height, and I missed the conversion. It is funny, I can make massive errors in everything and 77 still hit the Pentagon. You guys can make up ideas to mislead others and never be correct. How can you be so bad at math on the acceleration stuff? Got Math, got Physics? Math and Physics class 120 bucks per class; internet posting while wine tasting in Sonama on the square, priceless...
Click to expand...

Its good someone caught your mistake this time. Usually they dont correct you. But I did see you replied "92 meters" to justify the "92 feet" you posted above. Someone must have given you a pretty quick heads up on that one. I dont blame them.....
 
TC329 said:
Please note you have the pull starting at the Antenna through pole 1 to the pentagon. Your number is 3.49 G's for the duration. Which exceeds Transport Category G limits by 1 G.

Myriad has the pull starting at pole 1 to the pentagon. He has 3.2 G for that segment also exceeding Transport Category G limits.
Click to expand...

Well, by golly we'll just get the FAA to fine him for overstressing that aircraft and we'll inspect it to determine if there's any damage.

Oh, butt, butt.......
 
Last edited:
TC329 said:
Thank you for your input Mackey.

Please note you have the pull starting at the Antenna through pole 1 to the pentagon. Your number is 3.49 G's for the duration. Which exceeds Transport Category G limits by 1 G.

Myriad has the pull starting at pole 1 to the pentagon. He has 3.2 G for that segment also exceeding Transport Category G limits.

This is the third time we have explained this to you and you still do not see the descrepency between your calculation and how it applies to what is being demonstrated.

Like we said, your numbers do make more sense and we thank you for time. We are currently reviewing the numbers and will revise the article if required. There is more than one person within P4T working on this. Check the list, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

Also, we have linked on the article itself to a "Common Arguments" thread in our forum with your numbers. So your numbers are represented with the article itself. Its unfortunate you and Myriad cannot sign up at P4T to discuss this.
Click to expand...

"We?" I remind you again, do not post on behalf of banned members. That will cut this conversation very short.

As I've stated to you at least three times, "my" trajectory uses the most unfavorable numbers possible -- it pulls up 12 feet higher, and sooner, than it has to because you don't understand that poles would scrape the bottom of the plane, but the impact hole is referenced to the middle of the plane. If you fix this error you get a much, much gentler trajectory. I already showed you that, too.

Furthermore, "exceeding Category G limits" makes no difference. The Boeing can do it. Terrorists aren't familiar with FAA regulations, and would hardly be expected to follow them in any case. Unless the Boeing couldn't exert that much control authority, or couldn't survive, you've proven nothing. These g-loads are easily within a 757's performance envelope.

And none of this changes the fact that your derivation, using the same input numbers, was totally wrong. Complain about me all you want, it won't change the fact that you don't even know how to solve this problem.

Why would I possibly want to continue this charade at your message board? Thus far, you've showed no ability to learn a thing, either individually or in conference. On top of that, I remind you that Mr. Balsamo has a history of threatening to shoot people. And there's the little problem that nobody ever goes there. What incentive do you have to offer me?

Please, I beg you, try to learn. You're batting zero.

ETA: As a parting comment, the following:

TC329 said:
By the way, someone may want to tell Myriad that 23 fps over 3 seconds only equates to 69 feet. Not 314 or 239.
Click to expand...

... makes no sense. What school did you go to??
 
Last edited:
TC329 said:
Thank you for your input Mackey.

Please note you have the pull starting at the Antenna through pole 1 to the pentagon. Your number is 3.49 G's for the duration. Which exceeds Transport Category G limits by 1 G.
Click to expand...
Yeah--they really intended to use this ariplane again, so they certainly would have obeyed those rules, just like they did the speed limit...
Myriad has the pull starting at pole 1 to the pentagon. He has 3.2 G for that segment also exceeding Transport Category G limits.

This is the third time we have explained this to you and you still do not see the descrepency between your calculation and how it applies to what is being demonstrated.
Click to expand...
see above

Like we said, your numbers do make more sense and we thank you for time. We are currently reviewing the numbers and will revise the article if required. There is more than one person within P4T working on this. Check the list, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

Also, we have linked on the article itself to a "Common Arguments" thread in our forum with your numbers. So your numbers are represented with the article itself. Its unfortunate you and Myriad cannot sign up at P4T to discuss this.
Click to expand...
So, you are not a single person, or you are relaying for someone else, who has been banned? You are aware that that is a banning offense, are you not
By the way, someone may want to tell Myriad that 23 fps over 3 seconds only equates to 69 feet. Not 314 or 239.

Regards
Click to expand...
So--screw it. I need a rest
Edited by chillzero: 
Edited for civility
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R.Mackey said:
"We?" I remind you again, do not post on behalf of banned members. That will cut this conversation very short.

As I've stated to you at least three times, "my" trajectory uses the most unfavorable numbers possible -- it pulls up 12 feet higher, and sooner, than it has to because you don't understand that poles would scrape the bottom of the plane, but the impact hole is referenced to the middle of the plane. If you fix this error you get a much, much gentler trajectory. I already showed you that, too.

Furthermore, "exceeding Category G limits" makes no difference. The Boeing can do it. Terrorists aren't familiar with FAA regulations, and would hardly be expected to follow them in any case. Unless the Boeing couldn't exert that much control authority, or couldn't survive, you've proven nothing. These g-loads are easily within a 757's performance envelope.

And none of this changes the fact that your derivation, using the same input numbers, was totally wrong. Complain about me all you want, it won't change the fact that you don't even know how to solve this problem.

Why would I possibly want to continue this charade at your message board? Thus far, you've showed no ability to learn a thing, either individually or in conference. On top of that, I remind you that Mr. Balsamo has a history of threatening to shoot people. And there's the little problem that nobody ever goes there. What incentive do you have to offer me?

Please, I beg you, try to learn. You're batting zero.
Click to expand...

Thank you once again for your reply Mackey.

First let me address your concerns about me saying "we". I say "we" because I have permission to speak on behalf of the organization.

Let me remind you to please visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
to reassure yourself I am a member of PFT.


It appears what we have been trying to tell you folks is not sinking in. So Lets try this for a 4th time.

Mackey has 3.49 G Load requirement over a period 4 times greater than the duration of Myriads lesser G Load requirement to arrest the same descent rate.

As far as "Shooting" someone. That stale argument is useless for the desperate. Ask Ron. He feels Rob is rather "pleasant" and an "intelligent guy". It recorded and on this forum. I'd dig out the link, but im sure Ron wont deny it.

Also, are the mods going to do anything about rwquinn breaking forum rules by attacking the person instead of the argument?


Mackey, we are willing to learn. Come on over to P4T forum so you can discuss this with them. Dont worry, no one will shoot you at our forum. :-)

Regards.

You may not post by proxy for a banned member. Any further messages (posted after 3/16/08 16:36 PDT) from Rob Balsamo or any other banned forum member, will be deleted and the person posting them will be suspended.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TC329 said:
Let me remind you to please visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
to reassure yourself I am a member of PFT.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the point. :rolleyes: I find it very easy to believe you're part of that mob. However, your posts here are identical to those spammed all over the Internet.

TC329 said:
It appears what we have been trying to tell you folks is not sinking in. So Lets try this for a 4th time.

Mackey has 3.49 G Load requirement over a period 4 times greater than the duration of Myriads lesser G Load requirement to arrest the same descent rate.
Click to expand...

It's not that it isn't "sinking in," it's that it's crap. The different loads are due to different assumptions. Either of our derivations are valid.

And you still don't seem to understand the difference between distance, velocity, and acceleration.

TC329 said:
As far as "Shooting" someone. That stale argument is useless for the desperate. Ask Ron. He feels Rob is rather "pleasant" and an "intelligent guy". It recorded and on this forum. I'd dig out the link, but im sure Ron wont deny it.
Click to expand...

Mr. Balsamo has made death threats to Mark Roberts, Billzilla, and who knows who else in the past. The man is dangerous and unstable. Even assuming he's successfully undergone anger management, this doesn't predispose me to speak to him. Particularly given his shocking ignorance of basic physics.

TC329 said:
Mackey, we are willing to learn. Come on over to P4T forum so you can discuss this with them. Dont worry, no one will shoot you at our forum. :-)
Click to expand...

I'm not worried. But neither am I interested. If you hacks managed to put together a halfway decent argument, it might be different, but thus far you have a) failed to set up the problem correctly, b) failed to solve it correctly, c) failed to comprehend multiple corrections offered by myself and others, and d) continuously changed the subject.

You need my help (or someone's help, anyway). Not the other way around. Once again, I don't do house calls.
 
R.Mackey said:
That wasn't the point. :rolleyes: I find it very easy to believe you're part of that mob. However, your posts here are identical to those spammed all over the Internet.



It's not that it isn't "sinking in," it's that it's crap. The different loads are due to different assumptions. Either of our derivations are valid.

And you still don't seem to understand the difference between distance, velocity, and acceleration.



Mr. Balsamo has made death threats to Mark Roberts, Billzilla, and who knows who else in the past. The man is dangerous and unstable. Even assuming he's successfully undergone anger management, this doesn't predispose me to speak to him. Particularly given his shocking ignorance of basic physics.



I'm not worried. But neither am I interested. If you hacks managed to put together a halfway decent argument, it might be different, but thus far you have a) failed to set up the problem correctly, b) failed to solve it correctly, c) failed to comprehend multiple corrections offered by myself and others, and d) continuously changed the subject.

You need my help (or someone's help, anyway). Not the other way around. Once again, I don't do house calls.
Click to expand...


For a man so "dangerous and unstable", he sure knows how to gain credible support. But we know you guys think they're all "nuts" anyway. Right?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html
http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots

Where is the list of your "experts" faces and names backing their statements.

And arent "death threats" illegal? Why isnt Rob in jail or served with a TRO?

Perhaps Mark and "Billzilla" (whoever that is) exaggerated and quoted information out of context? It certianly wont be the first time. But you guys sure do love to trot out something posted over a year ago which was done at a Super Bowl party with everyone having a laugh at Marks expense, when you get backed into a corner.. dont you?..

Mark lives in NYC no? Does he and his peers cry this much when harsh words exchanged each time they cannot find a better excuse for debating from a distance and not directly confronting the individual or organization?

I know you would prefer to derail this thread Mackey. But please. Stick to topic.

Can you please input the FDR numbers into your formula for me? Remember, im not a pilot or NASA Engineer. Have you been able to find the FDR information that has been available for download for over a year and is linked in this very thread? Or do you need me to provide it again.

Thanks again for your "expert" review and analysis.

Regards.
 
TC329 said:
Thank you for your input Mackey.

Please note you have the pull starting at the Antenna through pole 1 to the pentagon. Your number is 3.49 G's for the duration. Which exceeds Transport Category G limits by 1 G.

Myriad has the pull starting at pole 1 to the pentagon. He has 3.2 G for that segment also exceeding Transport Category G limits.

This is the third time we have explained this to you and you still do not see the descrepency between your calculation and how it applies to what is being demonstrated.
Click to expand...


As has been pointed out, airliners are designed with a minimum safety factor of 1.5. Further, even assuming that 2.5 g is the point at which structural failure will occur, that limit would apply at the aircraft's maximum takeoff weight, or possibly if either cargo, passengers, or fuel were at their maximum weight.

From Boeing specifications for the 757-200 (RB211-535E4B engines):

  • Operating empty weight: 136,900 lb
  • Maximum zero-fuel weight: 188,000 lb
  • Maximum takeoff weight: 255,000 lb
  • Maximum structural payload: 47,060 lb
  • Cargo volume: 1790 ft3
  • Maximum fuel: 11,489 US gal (78,000 lb @6.8 lb/gal)

According to an NTSB report, American 77 had about 36,200 lb of fuel remaining at impact.

So, even assuming the maximum zero-fuel weight of 188,000 lb, plus fuel on board of 37,000 lb, the aircraft's maximum weight would have been 225,000 lb.

However, there were 118 empty seats (176 - 53 pax - 5 hijackers), so assuming maximum zero-fuel weight is probably not realistic. Even if the cargo hold was full of baggage and freight (which I was unable to determine), average baggage weight is 10 lb/ft3, so there'd be 1790 * 10 = 18,000 lb in the hold. Average passenger weight is 170 lb + 30 lb carry-on luggage = 200 lb, so (53 + 6 + 5) * 200 = 12,000. That gives about 30,000 lb of structural payload out of 47,060 lb max.

Operating empty weight plus fuel plus structural payload = 136,900 + 37,000 + 30,000 = 204,000 lb. We can't just directly divide 255,000/204,000 to obtain a multiplier for the aircraft's revised g-limit without grossly oversimplifying; however, we can state with confidence that the aircraft would likely have been able to pull significantly more gees without suffering catastrophic structural failure.
 
Yet not as much credible support as the flat earth society.

And love the list of pilots. But of course by pilot they mean "Someone who can pilot others to the truth". Making the site all that much more "credible".
 
TC329 said:
By the way, someone may want to tell Myriad that 23 fps over 3 seconds only equates to 69 feet.
Click to expand...


Very good! You got that one correct. Your journey towards becoming a participant in one of the fundamental and universal arts of our civilization has begun. When you combine a correct physical model (in this case, Euclidean space of at least one dimension orthogonal to time), correct units (feet per second * seconds gives you a result in feet), and correct arithmetic (23 * 3 = 69), you can calculate things like this, that are actually true and potentially useful to know. Furthermore, when you calculate something correctly you show that it is true in a way that is completely impervious to anyone's opinion about what is true. You have proven beyond all possibility of rational contradiction that an object moving 23 fps for 3 seconds moves 69 feet. That is a significant accomplishment!

But don't stop there. Keep learning and exploring. With a little more experience and practice, you might be able to figure out and prove (when your physical model, units, and arithmetic are indeed correct) more complex things, also beyond all possibility of rational contradiction. Things like:

If a plane accelerates upward at 1.2g, for 3 seconds, at the end of which it is descending at 23 feet per second, then during those three seconds it will have descended 239 feet.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
TC329 said:
For a man so "dangerous and unstable", he sure knows how to gain credible support. But we know you guys think they're all "nuts" anyway. Right?
Click to expand...

:D Yes, I'm so impressed by the size of your fan club. Argumentum ad populum won't get you much around here.

If he has so much "credible support," how come there's not a one of you who can do basic algebra?

TC329 said:
Where is the list of your "experts" faces and names backing their statements.
Click to expand...

Now you're talking like a sock for LastChild. I'll tell you, too. Every single published paper in the world, in every discipline, from every researcher, in every country is inconsistent with your claims. Every paper is likewise consistent with the commonly accepted hypothesis of September 11th, including building performance. My "list" encompasses every professional society, every engineering department at every university, and every regulatory body in the world.

TC329 said:
And arent "death threats" illegal? Why isnt Rob in jail or served with a TRO?

Perhaps Mark and "Billzilla" (whoever that is) exaggerated and quoted information out of context? It certianly wont be the first time. But you guys sure do love to trot out something posted over a year ago which was done at a Super Bowl party with everyone having a laugh at Marks expense, when you get backed into a corner.. dont you?..
Click to expand...

I don't know why he's not in jail. Not everyone who issues a threat goes to jail. Depends on the strength of the case and the willingness of the person threatened to prosecute.

The excuses you make for this guy are amazing. "Maybe it was out of context." "It was over a year ago." "It was at a superbowl party." Actually the ones I know about had nothing to do with a superbowl party, so this is apparently yet another death threat you're talking about.

Bottom line, I have no interest in talking with Mr. Balsamo. He's crazy. If you want to hang around him, that's your problem.

And how, precisely, are you dropouts planning to "back me into a corner?" I showed you my work. You can't even understand it. There is no corner.

TC329 said:
Mark lives in NYC no? Does he and his peers cry this much when harsh words exchanged each time they cannot find a better excuse for debating from a distance and not directly confronting the individual or organization?

I know you would prefer to derail this thread Mackey. But please. Stick to topic.
Click to expand...

This has got to be some kind of record for confusion. You are trying to derail this thread, trying to move it to friendly territory... I see no point to doing so.

And you're not debating. You don't appear capable of it. You STILL don't understand the calculation, even though it's no more difficult than an average tenth-grade word problem... and you were the one who brought it here.

If you can't keep up, you can't debate. What's needed here is not a "debate," it's for you to learn. You are not a peer in this discussion.

TC329 said:
Can you please input the FDR numbers into your formula for me? Remember, im not a pilot or NASA Engineer. Have you been able to find the FDR information that has been available for download for over a year and is linked in this very thread? Or do you need me to provide it again.

Thanks again for your "expert" review and analysis.
Click to expand...

You have not provided it. But yes, I can. Give me the coordinates or constraints you want your plane to fly through, and we can find the curve together. Very simple.

Pick whichever ones you like.
 
TC329 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The NTSB did not stop the data. The data is missing, you can see the data is missing in the raw data with time stamps missing data; even the p4t decode is missing a second the NTSB did decode. Not very good at decoding what the NTSB did, are you?. If you decode all the data the NTSB gave you, you can see the FDR came from 77, with all 25 hours of flying confirming it was 77. Do not tell your truther believing drones the truth.

The NTSB animation was a working copy and the ground is not aligned with the data from the FDR except in a relative manner. The NTSB working copy Pentagon is 20 degrees off on line up. P4t are so research challenged, they are unable to understand “working copy”. Who would guess?

The animation is made with data from the FDR, but the position data in the FDR is not accurate enough to place the relation of the plane’s position to the ground better then thousands of feet; as in 2000 to 3000 feet! Understand this yet TC? Therefore the animation is not accurate with where 77 is really! Therefore the line up the NTSB WORKING COPY shows is not right! END OF STORY. Understand this? I doubt it. Therefore, please show me the data they used to line up the FDR data as seen in the cartoon, which is a “working copy” as stated by the NTSB. You can explain how the animation came up showing the wrong heading, right? You can tell me why the data stops with a next the last RAD ALT reading greater than 200 feet. You will never come up with good answers to the missing data, and you will never explain the animation errors in a “working copy”. You do not understand how they made the animation in the first place. You can’t do math, you can’t check math, you can’t figure out 9/11. What is new? I actually know I can make mistakes; why are you unable to see yours?

The pilots for truth make up stuff so they can imply false conclusions. I think your list of pilots is a small fringe of people who can not use rational thinking, knowledge and logic to figure out 9/11. Not one of the "core" p4t are capable of making rational statements on 9/11. If any of them worked for me, they would all be at the shrink before they moved a jet they flew for me. I was the chief instructor for 200 aircrew members, if any of them had displayed the fantasy paranoid ideas the p4t have, I would ground them.


(I would have to ground jdx for making death threats, and the rest would be grounded for not being about to math!)

Got math?
 
Why are you debunkers so mean? You're confusing the arrogant little ol' twoofer. When you speak of his math errors, he's imagining something like 1+2=7. Or perhaps like

280% X 4.0 G's = 8.0 G's

You see, he had already fixed errors just like that, apparently with a little help from such certified masterminds as Craig and Aldo, so he's obviously getting confused. His math is solid now (280% of 4 = 11.2). 4Sure, on the level of 12 year old kids, but solid. Why are you not telling him it's his physics that's wrong?! You meanies!! Leave Robbie alone!!! How can you expect an out of work copilot to have the 14 year old kid's understanding of physics???!!! Real pilots never need knowledge of nerdy concepts such as distance, velocity or acceleration!!!1!! And besides - when PfT core membership reaches 1000 they will replace your current debunker physics with their own!!!! That'll shut you up for good!!UNDICI!!!
 
This thread is being closed temporarily, pending further review, due to the amount of reports being generated. Do not restart this topic elsewhere.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
Thread re-opened.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
Once again TC

You state:

Pole 1 distance to Pentagon = 1016 feet

1016 feet/781 fps = 1.3 seconds

4480 fpm descent needs to be arrested within 1.3 seconds.

75 * 1.3 = 97.5 foot descent within 1.3 seconds
Click to expand...

Note the bolded part.

What you have done is multiply a desent rate of 75 fps by 1.3 seconds.
What this gives you is how far (in the vertical) an aircraft that is desending at 75 fps will travel during 1.3 seconds. It says nothing about having 'arrested' a desent rate of 75 fps. This calculation would ONLY apply to an aircraft that is desending at 75fps at the beginning AND at the end of that 1.3 seconds. In other words, one that is NOT 'arresting' its vertical desent rate at all.

To go from 75 fps to zero fps in 1.3 seconds requires causing an upwards acellertion on the aircraft.

Since v= v(initial) + at
we can figure out what that acelleration would have to be
We require a v=0, you give us a v(initial)=75 fps and a time span of 1.3 seconds

Forgetting all assumptions on your part up to this point and using YOUR numbers then
0= 75 + a(1.3)
solving for a gives an upwards acelleration of 57.69 f/s257.69/32 will give us the 'g' number of 1.8

So how far in the vertical would plane travel if it started at a velocity of 75 fps and was subject to an upward velocity of 57.69 g for 1.3 seconds

d= v(initial)(t) +(1/2)at2d= 75(1.3) -(0.5)(57.69)(1.3)2d=48.75 feet

Which means that IF the plane had a desent rate of 75fps as it passed pole 1 AND was at a desent rate of ZERO fps as it impacted the Pentagon AND it arrested this desent velocity at a steady rate then it would have desended less than 50 feet from its altitude as it passed over pole 1.

Sucj=h is high school physics using the numbers you supply and still the brain trust at p4t cannot see why it that their calculation (what is it ? the 3rd calculation on the page) is wrong.

It is only slightly better than Killtown's style of calculation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom