DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
If there was inward bowing in that area the trusses (that sagged) could not be horizontally restrained. I don't remember them saying all the trusses sagged that much.
The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job
- Thread starter Regnad Kcin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- inside job
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
Jeez, I leave for 10 days, and this thread hasn't progressed at all...
Scanning over the last 6 pages or so, it's apparent that everytime a question of clarity is asked of achimspok, he changes subjects...
Otherwise known as: Typical Truther BS.
Scanning over the last 6 pages or so, it's apparent that everytime a question of clarity is asked of achimspok, he changes subjects...
Otherwise known as: Typical Truther BS.
Jealous of the T-38, it was really pathetic punching it into afterburner and climb over clouds, and pulling 7.33gs, more than your expert math.
Based on your data, your 7.09 g data, the terrorist pilot was erratic, you bring up square stuff, I bring flying, and the knowledge that going from 1.47g, to 0.53g, to 1.31g is erratic, and poor flying, ask a pilot; oops I am.
You have no clue what flying is, and you prove it.
You have to have an inside job so you make up lies. LOL, you have no clue on flying, no clue on lens, and not much useful data on 911.
19 terrorists did it in the real world, who did it in your 4.33gs of acceleration from your data in the longitudinal axis. Are you going to explain 4.33g in the longitudinal axis. Any clue on your own data which now you ignore? You should have kept your data secret if you are going to form moronic lies about it.
It takes minutes to figure out 911, Flight 93 passengers did it, why can't you?
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Lack of education?
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Dear Truther:
Please stop gumming up the thread with your endless catalog of nonsense. Read the OP, lather, rinse, repeat.
Love,
RK
Please stop gumming up the thread with your endless catalog of nonsense. Read the OP, lather, rinse, repeat.
Love,
RK
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Nonsense. It shows your understanding lens data and the effect of perspective alignment. If the plane disappears behind the Empire State building using a 400mm lens then the plane will disappear behind the Empire State building using a 15mm lens a well. Is it plausible for you?
OK, how shallow was the research of NTSB and how much does NTSB lack of the understanding of their own data?
Obviously they have a huge problem with flights against the sun.
[qimg]http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/7731/ordjump00352.png[/qimg]
[qimg]http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/4796/ordjump00344.png[/qimg]
...using glideslopes and flashing lights and GPS and autoland ...
...depends on perspective.
[qimg]http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/6034/img00003.png[/qimg]
Btw, runways are usually not surrounded by high rise buildings.
The limiting speed (VNE, velocity not exceed) for a Boeing 767 is 954 km/h (593 mph / 516 knots) at 35,000 ft (10,667 m). The maximum cruising speed is about 563 mph (906 km/h or 490 knots). The 'normal' cruising speed is about 530 mph (853 km/h or 460 knots). Below 10,000 ft, VNE = 250 knots or 287.7 mph (463 km/h).
Assuming that UA175 flew at 500 knots and...
Let's see what the Chief of flight operations NASA Langley describes:
[qimg]http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/9606/img00004b.png[/qimg]
You keep lying. "...making up nonsense based on opinions made up out of thin air." ...always followed by a series of your paranoid BS.
In your paranoid view the only NWO option was HDG SEL mode? I can't find any other bank limitations. Even the HDG HOLD allows 30°, Mr. Super Pilot! "...making up nonsense based on opinions made up out of thin air."
So whyTF he did not? Why is that "terrorist pilot" waiting + leaving just enough space for a final maneuver into a close to perpendicular impact.
[qimg]http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/7842/cbsdive.gif[/qimg]
Nonsense. ...and it didn't hit at that angle.
[qimg]http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/7285/img00019.png[/qimg]
red = sloppy NIST
green = my
Now add the final banking and tell me where the plane was 10 sec prior to the hit!
You are the beginner, that's for sure now. The NIST plane would have passed above the head of Luc Courchesne. In the Alonso shot it would be in the 5 sec position but more tham 8 seconds away. Hence, NIST would have to "estimate" a much higher speed than I.
[qimg]http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6311/img00021.png[/qimg]
It came in on a path straight towards the bottom of One Liberty Plaza.
[qimg]http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/3381/img00026.png[/qimg]
4 sec prior to the impact it was approx. parallel to the NIST angle and would have missed the tower. May be the wing would have touched the SE corner. Add 9m/s wind speed. You even see that the nose didn't "aim" at the tower. The aiming of the fuselage was the opposite then expectable. The nose would point more towards the north tower to nullify the effect of the wind.
I already told you. 5 o'clock in the morning. One click in Excel brought the horizontal distance into the formula instead of the vertical distance. I already excused for that fatal failure. Shall I kiss your shoes?
Think about the angle. This is where engineering would come in handy.
I never said that NIST said. I cited the response to a FOIA request. Hence, r, you are telling lies. ...and obviously you don't understand things.
I already told you.
No, I said there is a failure. I would say less than half a wing length during the last 6 seconds. Quite good enough to understand the flight path + the impact angel + the impact speed and even the speed during the last seconds.
YOU squared the failure claiming it would be a sign of "erratic flight".
That's your moronic delusional "enineering". Your "most of the time close" NIST plane is a line - zero eratic - staight like a missle - but wrong. What's your goal?
OMG you are really pathetic.
Go, take your T-38 and get UBL!
Never mind the meaningless pictures. What is your point? What do you think happened on 911? Do you actually have a theory?
LightningTeg
Scholar
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2011
- Messages
- 101
I see an overally steep dive with a last minute correction to keep from missing the target. If he was as good as you said it was he could have just been at the right altitude and punched the throttle miles out.
I know I am pathetic, all pathetic people fly the T-38 for high performance jet training. It is pathetic I had to do it, they made me do it. It was 100 percent impossible to refuse them....
So whyTF he did not? Why is that "terrorist pilot" waiting + leaving just enough space for a final maneuver into a close to perpendicular impact.Originally Posted by beachnut
The terrorist pilot has plenty of room to line up ...
OMG you are really pathetic.
Go, take your T-38 and get UBL!
In one gif you prove the terrorist pilot had lots of room to line up, and you have no clue on optical science, lens. Good job, I am impresses at your keeping up the 911 truth goal to debunk yourself.
You make up lies due to your ignorance of what lens do, and have no clue what else is wrong with your irresponsible claptrap.
You display your inograce of lens and show 12 seconds making it look like 175 was not lined up with the WTC.
I show 55 seconds of the same path without distortion of a lens.
I show the dolt terrorist murdering pilot was lines up for miles, you make up lies out of ignorance smeared across miles of subjects.
He was lined up over 7 miles out, and you did, but you have no clue. Your gif proves he lined up over 7 miles out if you understand it verifies the RADAR data. You have no idea what lens do, and you prove it, you had no idea the terrorist pilot was lined up over 7 miles out. Cool
Your post is full of crazy junk - a treasure trove of stundie material.
I can't believe you had no idea he was lined up, it was too simple to hit.
I told you we can line up with our eyes over one hundred miles out at night, seeing the lights of the ramp - on a normal approach we line up mile away with our eyes, and can accurately line up with a runway 6 miles away, and hit the center line exactly at any flyable speed. EYES, using only EYES, not GPS, not ILS, not lights during the day, just vision, VFR, contact flying! I told you, you failed to comprehend the truth.
The WTC towers would be visible over 50 miles, you could line up 20 to 50 miles out. Base on RADAR data, Flight 175 terrorist lined up on the WTC towers 50 miles out. OOPS. Your obsession with gifs and failure to gain the required skills has let you in the dark making up lies, and false opinions.
Oops, update... 175 terrorist pilot lined up within a few degree of the heading required to hit the WTC tower 41.95 miles out. Eyes, are the most important instrument a pilot has, you can aim 100 miles out and hit what you aim for. All your claims are as bad as this one turned out.
This is amazing, think about it, lined up 41 miles out within 12 degree of perpendicular to the face of the WTC. Our eyes are super! Wow, any pilot who can line up with 12 degree of centerline of a runway 41 miles out, better not miss the runway! The funny part about perpendicular, in a 38 degree bank, it means nothing, even if your data is right. But go ahead it might fool idiots who have zero knowledge of flying... You don't know anything about lenses or flying.
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Beachnut,you know what you are talking about. Take pity on me and tell me what his theory is,if he has one. He keeps posting meaningless pictures with lines drawn on them.
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
Well, Beachnut, explain it!
Wow, you linked the NTSB map with bullets as big as Ellis Island?
ASR-9 radar:
range resolution: 450 ft (162 m)
antenna rotation: 12.5 rpm (4.8 s/r)
The NTSB data indicate about 29° mag (42° true) decreasing at some point in time during the last 4.8 seconds.
Given the fact the the towers are turned for 31°...
...the plane had already an impact angle 11° approximately impact altitude and 586mph ground speed. Since the radar cannot measure the speed and heading directly I assume that those data are processed or averaged based on at least the last two sweeps.
The final data were recorded at about 9:02:39. The seismic data suggest an impact at 9:02:53. The final maneuver occurred during the last 3 seconds.
So it neither proves nor disproves anything.
Let's do a little math.
CBS cam location: 40°46'34.04"N 73°55'43.69"W
WTC2 SE corner: 40°42'38.27"N 74° 0'46.57"W
->
line of sight = 44.236°
impact of left engine 27m from SE corner - starts to disappear 1.68s prior to impact
final banking = 37.5°
final speed 586.5mph = 262 m/s
->
distance between engine and impact at -1.68s = 440m
arctan(27m/440m)= 3.5°
44.2°-3.5°-31°= 9.7° impact angle 1.68s prior to impact decreasing.
The bank angle suggests a rate of turn of 1.6-1.7° per second at 586.5 mph.
1.68s * 1.6°/s = 2,7°
9,7°-2,7° = 7°
Wow, that's lateral 1° less than my video suggests.
13-15° lateral? No way, Beachnut.
You can prove it pretty simple.
31° + 15° = 46° final heading in a straight line. In other words, the CBS camera would NEVER see the plane somehow to the left of the tower.
For a 13° impact (heading of 44°) without left banking into the tower you get an angle 0f 0.236° between impact angle and line of sight.
For a straight line the left engine would disappear behind the tower in a distance of 6555m (1.68s prior to the impact?).
You can repeat the calculation for the right engine and about 0.64 seconds prior to impact and 14m distance between CE corner and impact.
You get 44.2°-4.77°-31°-0.64s*1.6°/s= 7.4°.
Next time we can have a little look at the 6° downwards path.
There is no Vne for a 767. Better try again.
767 has no Vne of 250 knots below 10,000 feet, you have been lied to, or your shallow research is showing.
What was your failed source for Vne?
BTW, Flight 175 was lined up for over 41 miles, it is a 3D world, he was aiming at the WTC tower, a descent is included, you can aim in 3D pilots land that way all the time, in a descent. Are you saying the plane hit at 11 degrees, 9 degree? Flt 175 was lined up within 12 degree of perpendicular at 40 miles, what is the conclusion? The pilot did not have to maneuver?
Explain your 4.33g acceleration (camera zoom)?.
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
No,please explain it to me in your own words.
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
So, sloppy approach that almost missed implies....???
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Is this all one big, convoluted, extensively-illustrated Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy?
I said the terrorist pilot had plenty of room to line up with the WTC without making a big correct. BTW, a big correct to me is 77 degree of bank 2 to 3 g turn because you forgot to line up early. Here we have proof the plane is lined up over 6 miles out. When checking RADAR data we see the terrorist has been lined up for 41 miles, he must of cheated and used his eyes.
Pilots use their eyes and line up when their are no clouds. Were there clouds on 911? NO, BINGO
Terrorist pilot lined up from altitude at 40 miles out, proof is RADAR. What lies will our gifSPAM poster do now that his compressed video, his zooming video camera failed art is exposed as claptrap.
Exactly. The terrorist was lined up for 40 miles within 12 degree of being perpendicular to the WTC face, over New Jersey. Then he looks like he almost missed on ZOOM lens video. Fraud is using zoomed in video to make up the story the terrorist waited for the last minute to line up, he was lined up for 40 miles.
Showing zoomed video is a crock. I would hate to see some of my approaches on extreme zoom video, I know of one approach I did which would have scared everyone if zoomed like the fraud going on in this thread.
He has no conclusion, he has no goal.
In pilot training we come in at 1000 feet above the ground right over the landing zone, we pitch out at 60 degree of bank, 2gs, and we turn 180 degree to downwind, we configure and turn 180 degrees to land. We are 360 degree from landing, this terrorist was with 12 degree of perpendicular over 40 miles away, he did not have to turn to hit the WTC tower, there was no requirement to hit the tower perpendicular, only to hit it. Therefore the terrorist was on course for 40 miles, no turn required, no maneuver needed, it is 3D, the dive is part of the straight in, just like landing without a flare.
Last edited:
George 152
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2002
- Messages
- 5,012
The conspiracy kook will be unwilling to understand what you've written.
As a bye Never flew military circuits but they always looked more impressive than our oblongs...
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Truthers take a sloppy approach to their "work", and they always miss, so...