Why does FAA/Norad animation show NoC flightpath?

Turbofan said:
I've been waiting seven+ years for someone to show me FDR data which supports
the OGCT flight path.
Click to expand...

Huh, I know what it is like to wait, Turbofan. I've been waiting for several days for you and TC and the other Truthers to stop dodging 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."

Hey, you said that you talk to Cap'n Bob, the IP Hunter, all the time. Go ahead and ask him and come back with his answer.

Or are you just a one-way lackey?

Eta: I just clicked on the link in Turbo's sig. He didn't post the whole thread, of course. I noticed that way back in May I was asking for PFFT's/CIT's flight path and calculations. WAAITING IS THE HAAAARRDDEST PART! C'mon, make with the math.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Huh, I know what it is like to wait, Turbofan. I've been waiting for several days for you and TC and the other Truthers to stop dodging 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."

Hey, you said that you talk to Cap'n Bob, the IP Hunter, all the time. Go ahead and ask him and come back with his answer.

Or are you just a one-way lackey?

Eta: I just clicked on the link in Turbo's sig. He didn't post the whole thread, of course. I noticed that way back in May I was asking for PFFT's/CIT's flight path and calculations. WAAITING IS THE HAAAARRDDEST PART! C'mon, make with the math.
Click to expand...


News flash: The video is available. Go and buy it. It explains all you need
to know.

EvilG: Your opinion says the evidence is sufficient. My witnesses, photos
and FDR data say otherwise. Have a nice day.
 
[X] said:
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.
Click to expand...


That's fun and stuff, but if you look at the light poles, their damage and
proximity to the base it doesn't add up. Also consider that the wing
sliced through the pole, so your calculations must account for this.
 
Last edited:
Turbofan said:
That's fun and stuff, but if you look at the light poles, their damage and
proximity to the base it doesn't add up. Also consider that the wing
sliced through the pole, so your calculations must account for this.
Click to expand...
So then... how were the light poles planted turbofan? You keep telling us that the damage is inconsistent and the proximity to the base is off. What did the conspirators do? Drive out in the middle of traffic and "plant" the light poles while the plane did a flyover? I guess you believe they must have planned this as they went? :jaw-dropp
 
Last edited:
Turbofan said:
News flash: The video is available. Go and buy it. It explains all you need
to know.
Click to expand...

WOW! SPAM with side of Chicken, hey, TurboFan?

I did not ASK for a video, and I sure as hell am not going to BUY a freaking video, let alone one made by incompetents such as PFT/CIT.

Your task is simple: "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."

Don't dodge the question, don't tell me to go give my IP to Cap'n Bob, don't point me to a "video."

You are here, the question is plain, and you and Cap'n Bob and CIT and Dom have refused to answer it.

Stop dodging and provide the calculations.

ETA: The anonymous PFT 'experts', refuse to answer the growing list of physical impossibilities in their asinine theories. Proof positive in this very thread!
 
Last edited:
Turbofan said:
News flash: The video is available. Go and buy it. It explains all you need
to know.

EvilG: Your opinion says the evidence is sufficient. My witnesses, photos
and FDR data say otherwise. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Either you have the information or you don't. This is a discussion forum, not a banner ad for you to sell your cute little DVDs. But maybe you can let us know when you guys sell over 20 copies so we can throw a party.

BTW, are you referring to your witnesses who saw the plane hit the building? Got it.
 
Turbofan said:
That's fun and stuff, but if you look at the light poles, their damage and
proximity to the base it doesn't add up. Also consider that the wing
sliced through the pole, so your calculations must account for this.
Click to expand...

How about you provide your calculations to your claim that the wing slices through the poles.

I'd like to see you present this claim in court too, that would be pretty funny. So we have a plane that people saw fly into the pentagon, and even have footage of it striking the pentagon.But ou'd like to contest that with the claim that the plane should have just sliced the tops of the break-away light poles instead. I can see the laughter now.
 
Turbofan said:
I've been waiting seven+ years for someone to show me FDR data which supports
the OGCT flight path.
Click to expand...

Really? I've been waiting for one of you conspiracy theorists to provide me with logical reasoning as to why some of the claims you make pertaining to planted evidence were allowed to happen by the planners of these attacks. Why were so many things left to chance?

Let me get this straight.

The government plans one of the greatest crimes in history, which is to murder thousands of people in order to lead us into war. Included in this masterful and carefully laid out plan, knowing full well that if they are found out they will face dire consequences, they decide to fake FDR data BEFORE the actual flight takes place. In doing this, they are hoping beyond all hope, that the plane will match PERFECTLY the faked FDR data they have previously created. I mean, what do they have to worry about?

I'm not an expert with FDR data nor am I a pilot. Can someone list the items the government would have to get right, leaving things to chance, in order to pull this off?

The timestamps that are being referred to in the FDR data? What if something delayed the flight by 10 minutes? Maybe whomever was flying the plane didn't change course until 10 minutes later than planned? Wouldn't that put the plane 10 minutes further out from the Pentagon than what the timestamps show in the FDR data? Wouldn't stuff like this concern the planners of this event?

This is one point that I never understood with you guys and your conspiracy theory. The total disregard for that fact that some intelligence would have to have been present in the planning in this catastrophic and life changing event. The fact that you assume that they faked the FDR data and hoped that the plane matched it is just ridiculous. It doesn't even make sense.

Instead of using an actual plane with people on it, let's do this stuff instead:

1. Use a plane with passengers, but fly it OVER the Pentagon, killing the passeners later, only to transport the bodies/body parts/DNA back to the Pentagon in order to plant them.
2. We'll do it in broad daylight, hoping and praying that everyone's attention is diverted away from the LARGE PLANE flying OVER the Pentagon to the explosion we create at the point where the plane WOULD have crashed.
3. We'll plant damaged light poles in the simulated flight path knowing full well that the plane may not follow that exact flight path portrayed in the faked FDR data. (Do you even realize the margin of error that they would have had to take into account when creating the faked FDR data in order to make it believable?)
4. Damaged light poles. We will make marks and cut light poles at the PRECISE point we ESTIMATE the height the plane to be when it SUPPOSEDLY will hit them.
5. We will cut a tree to make it look like it was damaged by the plane hoping that said plane will come in at the right height and location.

These are just a few things.

The fact that you guys believe this is how things were planned for that day is beyond rational thinking. The amount of evidence that the supposed planners would have to have left to chance is just insane for an event of this magnitude. You guys need your collective heads examined.

Let me ask a question. When do you think the light poles were planted? Before or after the "simulated" plane crash into the Pentagon? Why do I ask? Because either scenario is equally ridiculous:

Planted before: As I stated above, the precision concerning which light poles to lay out and where the wings were supposed to hit them where left to chance. A BIG chance that the plane would fly precisely over those light poles
Planted after: This is even MORE crazy. The plane DIDN'T follow the projected flight path (according to you guys) that was created in the fake FDR, but we'll still plant them as planned anyways hoping nobody notices.

*shakes head*

Again. Why not just crash a friggin' plane into the Pentagon filled with passengers and let IT create it's own damage pattern and FDR data and be done with it?
 
Turbofan said:
News flash: The video is available. Go and buy it.
Click to expand...

hahaha. No one here is going to give money to Captain Bob. Just present your evidence and stop trying to sucker people into paying for it.

Turbofan said:
That's fun and stuff, but if you look at the light poles, their damage and
proximity to the base it doesn't add up.
Click to expand...

I would like to see the math which supports this claim. (Just post it here, I'm not buying your silly DVD) [pun intended]
 
BTW guys I also have documents and evidence that proves conclusively who really shot JFK. Just send $19.95 and you can have a copy.
 
nicepants said:
hahaha. No one here is going to give money to Captain Bob. Just present your evidence and stop trying to sucker people into paying for it.



I would like to see the math which supports this claim. (Just post it here, I'm not buying your silly DVD) [pun intended]
Click to expand...

You don't have to pay for it. Just wait until its uploaded then.

If you want, try calling your local MP because PFT will be sending copies out.

Maybe call up your local MSM. PFT will be sending copies there as well.

Alternatively, try L3...because yup, you guessed it...they're getting a copy.

See the trend here?

- JREF member

- Get off butt

- Do something

- Receive an answer
 
Turbofan said:
That's fun and stuff, but if you look at the light poles, their damage and proximity to the base it doesn't add up. Also consider that the wing sliced through the pole, so your calculations must account for this.
Click to expand...


Light pole hit by small, light, slow object (car). Light pole breaks.
Light pole hit by big, heavy, fast object (plane). Light pole ???.

You have the math in my earlier post. You decide the outcome. It's not difficult...

I gave you the math. Technically, I did your work for you. You are the one claiming that the plane could not knock down a light post. You sidestep and dance away from my calculations, showing that a light post offers an insignificant to a plane. Instead, you demand minutae. And if I provide it, you will find something else to nitpick on. You will neve rbe satisifed until you get an answer agreeing with your preconcieve notions. This is evidenced by the posting history of you and pretty much any truther (and all PfT-affiliates) who have come through here.
Somebody says something that agrees with your pet conspiracy theory, and you all jump on it without examining it critically at all.
Someone shows evidence that completely destroys your fantasies, and you can't be satisifed until every single microscopic irrelevant-but-loosely-related detail is explained in a manner that you find acceptable.
Try using the same level of skepticism on your own claims, and your won evidences.

It is your burden of proof to show the plane could not knock down a light post. You want the calculations for the impact, you do them.

Frankly, I don't care if you like my post or not.
It's there for everyone to see.
And most people are going to look at it and realize that a plane can take down a light pole.
Actually, most people probably didn't need the math worked out to know that. The two lines at the beginning of this reply would suffice.
But then, most people don't have an agenda.


You want the math, you do it. It's your burden of proof to show that the plane could not result in that damage to the light poles.
 
Turbofan said:
See the trend here?

- JREF member

- Get off butt

- Do something

- Receive an answer
Click to expand...

Well, we know one thing that does not work: asking the spammer who is here pimping the PFFT clown's latest YouTube video for the evidence.

So, you have proven yourself to be nothing more than a spammer. Kudos.
 
I didnt say "a" plane could not knock down a light pole.

I asked to see a picture of a plane knocking down a light pole.

In other words, I don't believe AA77 hit the pole. Understand?

When magical walls at the Pentagon allow for engines and wings to
pass through without significant damage, it really makes for a poor
OGCT.
 
Turbofan said:
I didnt say "a" plane could not knock down a light pole.

I asked to see a picture of a plane knocking down a light pole.

In other words, I don't believe AA77 hit the pole. Understand?

When magical walls at the Pentagon allow for engines and wings to
pass through without significant damage, it really makes for a poor
OGCT.
Click to expand...

And yet you havent said what DID knock down the light poles.
 
No, I'm not.

Show me one company that designs light poles of that type for aircraft impact! LMAO!

You guys kill me. :D

P.S. It's not a dodge. Why is my opinion so important? Is that going to
solve your mystery? If we had a full investigation, I wouldn't have to guess
what happened.

History's worst 'attack' and nobody wants to investigate? I love your
government. They can't even prove Bin Laden was behind 9/11! :rolleyes:

Keep bending over guys...you must like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom