Why does FAA/Norad animation show NoC flightpath?

Drs_Res said:
A funny thing happened today.

I was driving home on the 5 freeway today, and I saw a light pole lying by the side of the freeway.

That was about 10:45 am local time.

I would find it hard to believe that no one on the highway near the pentagon would have noticed downed light poles. It's just so out of place, you can't help but notice it.
Click to expand...

Socal is where I am at.
Hello from another 5 fwy commuter!
I think that most people would notice down light poles.
In the fantasy world of the PFT however....
 
Bobert said:
Ya but This is the friggin Pentagon!
You don't think that they have specially developed light poles that break away when a car hits it but STOPS A PLANE DEAD IN THEIR TRACKS?
This is the US Military we are talking about!
If you don't see that they have advanced technology such as this then you are obviously a government loyalist!
;)
Click to expand...

Dear lord I forgot about the Hash-A-Boom light poles. I now retract my statement.
 
But say, let's pretend that light poles were laid out the night before (Hey! stop laughing!). I'm trying to imagine the conversation that went on. "Come on guys, we have a multi-billlion dollar cover up that could expose the biggest criminal network in the history of man. Gosh I sure hope no one notices these light poles laying around in the morning and blows the whole caper. Everyone cross your fingers. If you're already crossing your fingers in hopes that no one happens to be watching or filming the fly-over, then use another set of fingers please".
 
Turbofan said:
Gee thanks for making it nice and big! If you want that info, go to PFT and
ask them via PM, or start a thread.
Click to expand...

Uh, really? Why can't you post it here, where anyone who wants to read the answer can read it without registering?

Heck, you are here, carrying PFT’s and CIT’s water when it suits you, but when you get asked a simple question, you ask me to jump through hoops, go to some other member only forum that no one else can see, and tell me to ask there.

C’mon, Turbo, you can do better than that. Lets see that path and those calculations! Hell, you are a Pft’er, nobody would think any less of you if you went over there and asked, and came back with an answer.

The WORLD is waiting!
 
Turbofan said:
If you had the slightest clue about reality, you would understand the analogy is flawed.

A car did not hit the pole at 30 MPH.

Show me the light pole design considerations for aircraft impact in this particular case? :rolleyes:

See ya in skewl.
Click to expand...


Something much heavier than a car hit the lightpole at a far greater speed, and you want calculations to show that it will still break?
It also hit higher on the pole, crating a moment force as well as the shear forces a car would exert.

Very well.

Plane mass: 100 tonnes = 100,000 kg

Plane speed (conservative): 500 mph

Plane-pole impact height (approximate) = 45 feet

Pole height (representative): 55 feet source

Pole mass (representative): 450 kg source

Pole coupling ultimate tensile strength (representative): 221.5 kN source

Pole coupling yielding strength (representative): 192 kN source

Pole coupling ulimate restrained shear strength (representative): 24.5 kN source

Pole coupling diameter (representative): 1 inche source

Conversions:
Plane-pole impact (y) = 13.72 m
Pole height (h) = 16.76 m
Plane speed (vp = 223.52 m/s
Coupling diameter (d) = 0.025 m


Since the plane impact high on the pole, the predominant force will be a moment.

For the pole to break, this moment force must cause more than 221.5 kN of force on the shear pins.

Note that there are typically 4 shear pins per pole. At most, the plane only needs to break 2 at a time.

These pins therefore provide a resistance force of 443 kN, at the base of the pole.

To break the pole, the plane must provide a certain minimum force at its impact point. Now things get fun.

I will assume the dimension ebtween the centre plane of the lightpole and the plane of the couplings is 0.10 m. Feel free to measure a local lightpole and re-do the work, if you wish.

This means the couplings provide a moment of 44.3 kN*m to resist breaking.

At a height of 13.72 m, the airplane need exert only 44.3/13.72 = 73 N of force to break the any two pins.

The plane masses 100,000 kg.

The acceleration caused by this exertion on such a mass is a = F/m = 73/100,000 = 0.00073 m/s2.

Even if we double the moment by asusming all four pins must break simultaneosly, it still only requires a deceleration of 0.00146 m/s. Hardly noticible.

And at a speed of 223.5 m/s, the plane will only be impacting the lightpoles for a tiny fraction of a second.

The higher speed and higher mass of the plane result in far more force than a car an generate.
And cars have no problem taking out light standards.

I saw a minivan take one out, travelling at about 50 kph. It not only broke the couplings (as designed), but sent the pole flying 30 feet into the air.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Say PFT'er, with all your "incredully" (Hi Craig!!), maybe you missed my request:

"give us the flight path and calculations for the CIT path: you know, over the Annex, bank north of citgo, dip below the level of the trees, arrest the descent and then pull up and over the impact site."

I made it big and bold for you and Cap'n Bob!
Click to expand...


watch the video it shows the plane come over the navy annex and onto the noc. it is now your job to duh-bunk this duh-bunker. are you really this stupid?
 
Last edited:
TC329 said:
watch the video it shows the plane come over the navy annex and onto the noc. it is now your job to duh-bunk this duh-bunker. are you really this stupid?
Click to expand...

Watch the video? That's all you got? :jaw-dropp

Please don't breed.
 
Be more civil everyone, and stop with the big fonts, please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
TC329 said:
]watch the video it shows the plane come over the navy annex and onto the noc. it is now your job to duh-bunk this duh-bunker. are you really this stupid?
Click to expand...

So just a computer animation? No calculations to validate that the shown flight path was even possible?

ETA: I'm still waiting on the calculations to validate the "pull-up" maneuver shown in your first video. My calculations show that the maneuver in your video takes place at less than 1/2 of realtime speed, making the pull up quite violent, and beyond the realm of maneuvering capability of any aircraft (commercial or military) that I'm aware of.
 
Last edited:
So if I presented a video that showed the plane come to a landing on the roof of the Pentagon, does that some how magically change the events of that day? Is this how reality works?
 
TC329 said:
watch the video it shows the plane come over the navy annex and onto the noc. it is now your job to duh-bunk this duh-bunker. are you really this stupid?
Click to expand...
No TC, you can't shout your failed terrorist apologist ideas into reality. Your lies don't work. But in this case you are defending an animation hitting the Pentagon. Ironic, since you support the "77 did not hit delusion".

Are you able to stop and realize you now debunk yourself by supporting an animation you have no clue where the data points come from. Farmer is calling you a moron for falling for the bait he released to expose your failed ideas. Now failed logic.


TC now supports a plane hitting the Pentagon, he is using this video as proof. What a flip flop.
 
Last edited:
TC329 said:
watch the video it shows the plane come over the navy annex and onto the noc. it is now your job to duh-bunk this duh-bunker. are you really this stupid?
Click to expand...

Dom, please don't get yourself suspended! I think we are on the verge of a breakthrough, you and I.

Yes, I see a video that shows the plane coming over the Navy annex, and I see it go "onto the noc" and I see it hit the Pentagon. I see all of those things!!

Now I am asking (please, please please!) you to show us the flight path, and the calculations that include the CIT's arrest of the descent and the plane pulling up and over the Pentagon!

Use the animation if you want, just show us where the animation stops being accurate, and tell me how the plane did the up and over the Pentagon move!

Your Op says: "Strangely, they show it hitting the building still." So, please show us when the animation got "strange."
 
Last edited:
Not a NoC/SoC question, but who found the black boxes? Was is Kilsheimer at the C Ring, or Burkhammer at the E Ring? Was it Burkhammer who found them, but Kilsheimer found a big chunk of one? PM and ASCE says it was Kilsheimer, other sources say Burkhammer. Anyone with the answer, let me know.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Turbofan, either state how the light poles should have behaved when hit by a plane, with evidence; admit that you don't know how they should have behaved, and that therefore you have no position here; or forget about having any credibility.

Dave
Click to expand...

Turbofan said:
LMAO!

When you show me a picture of a plane hitting that particular light pole instead of a car,
then we'll talk...or maybe we wont. :rolleyes:

Keep up the great spinning and attempts to satisfy your dreams with cars
hitting light poles at 30 MPH!
Click to expand...

That would be option 3, then. Are you trying to suggest that the light poles were knocked down by cars?

Dave
 
Gamolon said:
This is mind boggling.... I can hear the planning meeting now...

-Agent 1 finishes reading the top secret documents that Agent 2 just delivered and is ready to discuss them-

Agent 1: "Ok. So we want to simulate a plane crashing into the Pentagon?"
Agent 2: "Yeah. That's what the boss wants."
Agent 1: "The document uses the word "simulate". That's means that we...
Click to expand...

THIS was priceless! Beautiful!
 
Dave Rogers said:
That would be option 3, then. Are you trying to suggest that the light poles were knocked down by cars?

Dave
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for one of them to start claiming that the poles were "pre-damaged" and planted in real-time. ;)
 
Last edited:
I've been waiting seven+ years for someone to show me FDR data which supports
the OGCT flight path.
 
Does the FDR data somehow make all of the actual physical evidence irrelevant?

Seriously, why are you arguing about FDR anomalies when the overwhelming evidence shows that AA77 did indeed crash into the Pentagon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom