• 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.

What JohnDoeX thinks we are afraid to post

T.A.M.

Penultimate Amazing
T
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
20,795
Posted on LC Forum by JohnDoeX on October 2nd 2006:

Still waiting for a JREFer to post this on their site or challenge it... It makes a fool out of Billzilla and his supposed "analysis".

It seems the JREFer's dont want to post this on their site and debate the facts. Mainly because it shows how one JREFer's Calculations have blown up in his face working back from the impact hole. I have asked many JREF'ers to post this on their site and they refuse. I wonder why... hmmm...

Alternate Analysis working back from impact hole Final Draft: New Elevations/Calculations from the USGS (also posted on pilotsfor911truth.org)

user posted image


Pole 1 - 43'MSL ground elevation + 31.5 pole impact height = 74.5 MSL Total height above sea level.
Pole 1 aircraft height - 87'+38'ground elevation of pentagon+10.38' imapct hole height = 135.38 MSL.
Aircraft was 60.88 feet above Pole #1.

(not sure of exact reported impact height so i'll use the full 40' for pole length)
Pole 2 - 43'+ 40' = 83' MSL Pole Height
Pole 2 Aircraft Height - 74' + 48.38 = 122.38 MSL
Aircraft was 39.38' above pole #2

Pole 3 - 42'+ 40 = 82' MSL pole height
Pole 3 Aircraft Height - 60' + 50.38 = 110.38 MSL
Aircraft was 28.38' above Pole #3

Pole 4 - 42' + 40 = 82' MSL
Pole 4 Aircraft Height - 50' + 50.38 = 100.38 MSL
Aircraft was 18.38' above Pole # 4

Pole 5 - 41' + 40 = 81' MSL
Pole 5 Aircraft Height - 39' + 50.38 = 89.38
Aircraft was 8.38' above Pole #5

Numbers in black bold above represent the height above impact hole at pentagon based on descent rate of 66 ft/sec and distance from impact hole at pentagon to pole with a forward speed of 784 ft/sec.

To draw your own line.. go here... USGS Seamless Data Distribution

As a reminder, the above an alternate analysis based on working back from the pentagon impact hole. For a more accurate Aircraft height, please visit here for the Flight Data Recorder analysis mid page.
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=15306
Click to expand...

For the image referenced in the quote, go to the bottom of the page on the LC Forum link below:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15691

Just for you Johnny Boy...happy trails.

TAM
 
Damn, he's right! Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon! Why wasn't this posted earlier? Now I have to redo my whole Loose Change Guide Pentagon section!
 
So the altitude data on the FDR is accurate to roughly 1/8 inch at the rate of descent Flight 77 was travelling according to D'oh?

What an idiot.

eta: He's also assuming Google Earth is just as accurate.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I'm just daft, but that post doesn't really ever specify the purpose... so I'm not really sure what the numbers are supposed to show. My assumption is he used some US geological thing to extrapolation the elevation, and from there is calculating some numbers that disprove, something.

If someone could explain to me the signifance of these calculations, I'd appreciate it.

Also, I don't know if this helps, but from the website of the USGS website, on that specific tool he is referring to:

Q. What is the vertical accuracy of NED data?
A. The vertical accuracy is basically +/- 7 to 15 meters. It alls depends on the original source DEM and if it was level 1, level 2, or 10m resolution.
Click to expand...



He doesn't seem to be accounting for error intervals. My first start, always, in a situation like this is to examine the acceptable precision, so I instantly wanted to find the type of error we are dealing with.

But, like I said, I don't even understand the signifance of these calculations, so I may be missing the point. I'll read some more and see if I can figure out what he's trying to say.
 
Unfortunately I can't find the link, but someone on LC actually took the FDR data provided by DohBoy and worked forward. He stated his flight path and other parameter did not match JDX's.

Secondly, I am interested on where he obtained the FDR information. The only link to the CSV file was from his website.
 
Bah! This is old news. Nothing to see here. According to JDX the FDR data is suspect anyway.

If this aircraft was modified for remote guidance, there no telling what else was modified, right down to the FDR.


In other words, if they took the time to modify the aircraft... everthing surrounding the pentagon and the aircraft could have been modified/fabricated.


As for the FDR itself.. there is already a plain as day cover-up shown clearly between the animation and csv file... there is NO WAY to explain that one away.. its a cover-up.. period. The animation was made to make the aircraft appear lower than it was... deception was used.
Click to expand...

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15805&view=findpost&p=7536827
 
Anti-Sophist said:
My assumption is he used some US geological thing to extrapolation the elevation, and from there is calculating some numbers that disprove, something.
Click to expand...

JDX uses Google Earth. One of the first big JDX/Russell argument I noticed was when Russell called Google Earths accuracy into question.
 
Well I can see why us JREF shills wouldn't want to post that.

Explain again what it was that knocked those poles over.

A Zig Zag missile?

Explosive bolts in the bases?

A team of Gubmint weight lifters?

Leprechauns?
 
Alareth said:
JDX uses Google Earth. One of the first big JDX/Russell argument I noticed was when Russell called Google Earths accuracy into question.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Google Earth has the viaduct over the highway lower than the highway. But D'oh is too stupid to understand such things.
 
What is he using google earth for? Elevation numbers?

Is the purpose that he assuming a constant descent, a constant velocity, and a point (the impact hole) and working backwards to estimate the plane height at each location, and the pole height at each location, and showing that the plane was too high?

Where does he get his estimate from the descent speed and velocity?
 
Leprachauns...see I told you it was them.:)

As for the "Lamp Post Planters" in the LC link above, can I ask, is that an "Official" job title.

LOL

TAM
 
Let me just get this straight, so I can have some grasp on Johnny boys theory.

Clearly he believes that Flight 77 flew over the pentagon and has based this on calculated heights of an aircraft that "passed” over lamp posts.

It did not hit them but according to Johnny. Missed them by

Post 1. 60.88 feet
Post 2. 39.38 feet
post 3. 28.38 feet
Post 4. 18.38 feet
Post 5. 8.38 feet.

Again I am no pilot but just looking at these figures two things strike me.

1. They are very accurate, I mean judging a planes height and position at a precise moment in time down to two decimal places is going some.
2. The plane, even looking at these figures clearly was descending and according to Johnny passed over the last post by some 8.38 feet.

So really it begs the questions. Can the data recovered be this accurate?
Also if a plane was descending at this rate and considerable speed would it be even possible to pull it up out of this dive to fly over the Pentagon?

Hey just asking.
 
It doesn't look like he is taking all the variables (i.e. wing wobbling) into consideration. It appears he is assuming a straight line descent.

You know what happens when you make an assumption, you make an @$$ out of u and ...mption.
 
Well, there is very obviously a precision issue in play here. Using a single height and calculating things to 2 decimal points is obviously a false precision statstical fallacy. But, the issue isn't the second decimal place. These elevation data sources, presumably, have a network of sample points, and it uses interpolation to get elevations in between. A correct calculation would take into account the data, the interpolative assumptions used by each of the data sources, and the margin for error of the data sources, and come up with a best-case/worse-case elevation for each point.

Secondly, we'd need to examine the assumption of a constant decent at a particular angle. This seems to be a continuation by extrapolating the FDR data. I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but that seems to be a fair assumption, but it's certainly not a required assumption. The next question would be to see that if the linear model is impossible, what kind of non-linear path would be necessary.
 
I am also concerned with the accuracy of the impact time with relation to the FDR data.

For an aircraft travelling at ~500mph an error of 1/10 of a second equals ~22 meters (~72 feet) of travel through the air.
 
I don't quite understand - what's so significant about JohnDoe's data anyway? Wouldn't we expect the plane to descend before hitting the pentagon? Didn't he just give evidence that there was a plane?

Or am I missing something that's supposed to be obvious?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom