WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Last edited:
Physics Response to Flight 77 Trajectory Speculation
- Thread starter R.Mackey
- Start date
-
- Tags
- flight 77 light poles pentagon
Or did you all just assume "weedwacke[r]" was "Rob Balsamo" because "weedwacker", the banned poster, told you so? Do you only believe information if it suits your bias? (love that AMR page fakery thing you people tried to prove by the way)
Hmmm.. that pesky "Critical thinking" issue again.
Bolded above since WC missed it the first time.
Last edited:
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Did JREF Mods determine the IP address used by weedwacker was owned by "Rob Balsamo"? If they did, where is this posted?
If they did, did the mods here determine "Rob Balsamo" was sitting at his computer?
Or did you all just assume "weedwacke" was "Rob Balsamo" because "weedwacker", the banned poster, told you so? Do you only believe information if it suits your bias? (love that AMR page fakery thing you people tried to prove by the way
Hmmm.. that pesky "Critical thinking" issue again.
I also notice the JREF doesnt require a real name and zip code to register anymore.. .hmm.. why do you think that is?
WC, i know you love to derail topics, but please, try to stay on topic.
(sorry folks, i had to expose WC for his 'critical thinking" skills, or lack thereof. Its fun once in awhile..
Have a great night folks!
Do you ?
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
And you would be familiar with a 2 year old thread how...?Bolded above since WC missed it the first time.
AZCat
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,672
I see some JREFers are suckered in by hoaxes (along with some "troofers") sanctioned and condoned by the mods of this very forum. Is that part of "critical thinking"?
Perhaps you could apply your "critical thinking" and show me how this is relevant to Ryan Mackey's OP.
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
I see some JREFers are suckered in by hoaxes (along with some "troofers") sanctioned and condoned by the mods of this very forum. Is that part of "critical thinking"?
Of course, so your answer to your question
is?
More deep on topic posts, is this about G stuff! Oops, looks like most were skeptical. Only suckers like me fall for the big lies. Guess your lies are too small for me to fall for. Better step up the fantasy to get me to join p4t.I see some JREFers are suckered in by hoaxes (along with some "troofers") sanctioned and condoned by the mods of this very forum. Is that part of "critical thinking"?
Is this your smoke screen attack JREF because you have nothing to offer. … you post off topic, avoiding the fact the terrorist did fly into the pentagon, albeit they looked bad, but not as bad as you and p4t who can't do the maneuver even in the safety of a simulator, and are dumb enough to admit it to discredit the terrorist? Duh, ouch.
The PIO the terrorist was in, was perfect practice for his final push over and attack on the Pentagon. In a KC-135 he would have hit the trim switch by accident and crashed! In a KC-135, we would have no stinking FDR to worry about~! Technology can be double edge sword, the 757 is too easy to fly. Even terrorist can fly better than p4t pilots in a 757!
Are you going to try again to make a point about Mackey's paper? A summary? Something?
Why should I?
The question was not "did the aircraft execute this exact maneuver in the past." The question, which Mr. Balsamo answered incorrectly, was "does the aircraft have enough performance to meet this altitude profile." And the answer is yes. Easily. 1.66 g is peanuts. You wouldn't even spill your drinks.
If you look at the entire FDR, I imagine you will find a period where the aircraft exceeded 1.66 g for more than four seconds, since this isn't at all unusual in real flight. But it really doesn't matter. There are no records for the last few seconds, so there is no reason at all to suspect the aircraft didn't make these maneuvers.
It is also likely, as discussed elsewhere in this thread, that the aircraft didn't follow a steady pull-up. 1.66 g is the average needed. The terrorists were not exactly smooth fliers, and could have bounced around that figure considerably. There is no requirement to maintain a steady g-load.
Honestly, your demand suggests that you don't understand my derivation at all.
There are no conflicts between the NTSB and my derivation. They do not specify the last four seconds prior to impact at all. Therefore, there is no reason to even doubt this flight path. It fits the evidence, it fits the known performance of the aircraft, and it's executable by even the most inept pilot. Your questions are totally irrelevant.
You imagine wrong. Please provide the sequence in the FDR data provided and plotted by the NTSB.
The rest of your post is as intellectually dishonest as your above quote you "imagine" and your conclusions.
They dont? The NTSB doesnt provide a csv file with time stamps and G loads at 8 hz per second up until their recorded "impact time" of 09:37:45? You sure you want to stick with that statement?
R Mackey, you're a fraud. I see why you refuse to debate P4T.
Bold words, coming from an organization that claimed it would take 11.2 g to miss those ground obstacles.
What location was the aircraft at when the recording stops? The time index is not good enough. And as you know, the FDR does not stop at impact. You and your friends are participating in a 40+ page thread, at this very moment, where you try to claim that the last missing four seconds is somehow "impossible" based on the ARINC 717 specification, which of course is also nonsense. So don't try pretending that you're unaware of this fact.
Since I know you are in very, very, very close contact with Rob Balsamo, you also know why I won't "debate" him. The simple fact that you apparently still don't understand this derivation moots any debate you might possibly desire. You simply don't have the talent.
Also, please mind the OP. Your remarks above are off-topic and inflammatory, not to mention ironic.
It appears P4T knows how to admit mistakes and are correcting those errors as we speak. You?
Are you saying the NTSB is providing error filled data through the Freedom Of Information Act to the American public when the NTSB states they want "everything as accurate as possible"? Have you contacted the NTSB to notify them of their "errors" and positional calculations/errors based on time? If not, what type of "scientist" are you? (i'll answer that, you are the type of "scientist" who still doesnt know the NTSB plots G load data up till their calculated "impact time").
Agreed. After power is lost at "impact", the recorder still records based on power supplied within capacitors (just like unplugging your laptop and the light stays on for a few seconds). Wow Mackey, you can inform the others of such a phenomenon. Good for you! Is it any wonder why your so-called 'experts' here havent called L3?
"Friends"? Plural? Turbofan and i have exposed the anonymous 'experts' here for what they are. On lookers can read for themselves.
And the exact reason the NTSB doesnt claim there are "missing seconds" west of the pentagon wall? Please provide a quote directly from NTSB data. If you cant find such a quote from the NTSB as you claim, why does the NTSB account for other "errors" but not those you claim?
And your reason for "arguing" points made by Rob Balsamo and P4T on this forum where many of your members say "Rob Balsamo" is banned? But refuse to debate him in a public forum. Yeah.. we get it Mackey.
My "remarks" are that your calculations and conclusions are not consistent with data provided by the NTSB. You claim the NTSB data is missing "four seconds" and that you "imagine" the data may contain four seconds worth of 1.66 G's. You are wrong. Your conclusions in you OP are also wrong as pointed out all ove the last two pages. If you dispute these claims, please provide source, from the data as plotted and provided by the NTSB. (that is of course if you have now figured out the NTSB does in fact provide the last 4 seconds worth of data, as calculated by the NTSB).
he is back after getting the book answer from jdx, wow, that was cool
So you stand by the fact the FDR stops in the air, thousands of feet away from the Pentagon? Because 500 ms, means something, or FDR can't be missing data for unknown reasons? You want to push a theory that the FDR is fake, but you can't, you are not allowed to have theories. But you try to use the FDR as real, but can't figure out if it is real, and correct, it is missing data. Sad you have not idea how to figure this out without cherry picking the stuff from NTSB as your evidence, evidence you want to prove is fake?
You ignore evidence proving 77 was in the Pentagon and all around the grounds?
How did you not recruit Jack White; he loves you!
At least Jack White backs p4t! Why is he not a member? Does Rob have problems with his moon landing hoax crap? Gee, John Lear's hours and experience erase his alien junk!? Come-on, lower your standards again, you have no standards anyway.
http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm
Mackey's work, stands! Your posts prove you can't understand his work, and since you support the work of Balsamo, you could be void of the skills to understand Mackey's work, and prove it by your calling names and crying a lot.
Humor, it has been 4 months?
The rest of your post is humorous too, and it has errors, and you were already told about them. Does that make them double errors?
Missing data is not errors, there is just no data. Like other accidents, there can be missing data.
Since there is no accident, and no real reason to use the FDR information, there is no reason to solve why data may be missing. There was no reason given in other accidents, just educated guesses, which drive the new standards for FDRs when problems are found. I mean with a data flowing at a blistering rate of 3072 bit per second, as an electrical engineer with a masters and practical experience with FDRs used in accident investigation first hand, I can see a problem with the data rate of early SSFDRs. But then that is my engineer side. You have zero idea where 77 is at anytime, and no clue where it was at :45.
Let alone you ignore all the physical evidence calling thousands of people liar by that simple implication. Good work p4t.
So you stand by the fact the FDR stops in the air, thousands of feet away from the Pentagon? Because 500 ms, means something, or FDR can't be missing data for unknown reasons? You want to push a theory that the FDR is fake, but you can't, you are not allowed to have theories. But you try to use the FDR as real, but can't figure out if it is real, and correct, it is missing data. Sad you have not idea how to figure this out without cherry picking the stuff from NTSB as your evidence, evidence you want to prove is fake?
You ignore evidence proving 77 was in the Pentagon and all around the grounds?
How did you not recruit Jack White; he loves you!
At least Jack White backs p4t! Why is he not a member? Does Rob have problems with his moon landing hoax crap? Gee, John Lear's hours and experience erase his alien junk!? Come-on, lower your standards again, you have no standards anyway.
http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm
Mackey's work, stands! Your posts prove you can't understand his work, and since you support the work of Balsamo, you could be void of the skills to understand Mackey's work, and prove it by your calling names and crying a lot.
Humor, it has been 4 months?
speak r e a l slow it could be 4 more months~!
The rest of your post is humorous too, and it has errors, and you were already told about them. Does that make them double errors?
Missing data is not errors, there is just no data. Like other accidents, there can be missing data.
Since there is no accident, and no real reason to use the FDR information, there is no reason to solve why data may be missing. There was no reason given in other accidents, just educated guesses, which drive the new standards for FDRs when problems are found. I mean with a data flowing at a blistering rate of 3072 bit per second, as an electrical engineer with a masters and practical experience with FDRs used in accident investigation first hand, I can see a problem with the data rate of early SSFDRs. But then that is my engineer side. You have zero idea where 77 is at anytime, and no clue where it was at :45.
Let alone you ignore all the physical evidence calling thousands of people liar by that simple implication. Good work p4t.
Last edited:
Beachy, try to stick with your claims/theory of the FDR losing power at less than 0.2 G's. LMAO! At least your lemmings might buy it (perhaps not anymore, since you been thoroughly exposed as a fraud).
Im curious Beachy, was the last time you worked with FDR's about the time your avatar picture was taken? Before color film was invented?
Last edited:
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
JREF wannabe pilots and fraud scientists^^
when the FDR is missing data, or a lag has occured, the NTSB report mention that, there are reports avaible from NTSB where they exactly mention data lag, or corrupted data.
nothing of that kind is founnd in the NTSB reports for flight 77, they also dont mention serial and part number, nor a reasson why it is missing.
sure the wannabe scientists and pilots here on JREF dont look at that sceptical, they start to make up things. they start claim stuff without backup.
when the FDR is missing data, or a lag has occured, the NTSB report mention that, there are reports avaible from NTSB where they exactly mention data lag, or corrupted data.
nothing of that kind is founnd in the NTSB reports for flight 77, they also dont mention serial and part number, nor a reasson why it is missing.
sure the wannabe scientists and pilots here on JREF dont look at that sceptical, they start to make up things. they start claim stuff without backup.
Edited by Lisa Simpson:
Edited to remove personal remarks.
Do not use personal attacks to argue your point.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Lisa Simpson
Last edited by a moderator:
You have no comments but to make fun of others? So you have failed to put a dent in Mackey's OP?
DC can you figure out Mackey's work and help hx!
If the FDR is not missing data, then 77 is over 200 feet in the air, and thousands of feet away. The FDR contains all 25 hours of flights, proving it was 77's FDR. Many accidents have had missing data, it is not new.
Many accident do not include the serial number, you are off topic, wrong thread, and this has been told to you before, all of it including the sn junk. What a non issue! Again! This off topic, go to right thread! Hello? You were shown reports with no serial numbers, are you unable to remember? Duh? Wrong thread!
hx, make a rational statement on Mackey's work.
Last edited:
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
you got any evidence for missing FDR data?????
normally that is mentioned by the NTSB , also a reason. but not in the 77 report.
whats your evidence?
or is it like your huge 3M rubber shockdampers? you are totaly misstaken and just talking out of your a...men ?
Dave_46
Graduate Poster
"8 hz per second " ?