Why does FAA/Norad animation show NoC flightpath?
- Thread starter TC329
- Start date
Did the wing slice through each pole? Not from the pictures I've seen, but this detail is so minute I admit I haven't looked very hard.
Given how blunt the leading surfaces of an aircraft really are, rather than slice through, one expects a snap, with sheer inertia of the pole pieces determining whether it bends and breaks, or bends and rebounds. Could go either way. And in either case there is a pretty substantial moment transferred to the piece(s) afterwards.
It isn't that simple.
The leading edge of the wing is not 90° to the line of the flightpath. The pole will tend to be knocked sideways. So while the tip of the pole may hit the ground before the >180° "caber toss" is completed, momentum causes the pole to continue to rotate. But not parallel to the flightpath.
Or the top of the pole crumples on initial impact and the >180° rotation is achieved.
Or the shape of the wingtip gives a significant lift to the pole (golf clubs do this very effectively, despite a downwards angle of attack of the clubhead during the golf swing).
Or the passage of the plane itself overhead causes lift.
Or the landing point of the tip is somewhat lower than the "takeoff" point of the base.
There are many ways in which the pole could execute a >180° flip.
Last edited:
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
Bugs Bunny cartoons it would seem. Perhaps with a dash of Wile E. Coyote and The Roadrunner thrown in.
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
Turbo,
I would really appreciate I you would make an effort to post the calculations done by PFT especially since you are using them to support your argument. If the calculations and input parameters are correct, this is really important.
R. Mackey was good enough to check PFT's previous calculation and pointed out errors that invalidated the result. If the new PFT work is valid, I'm pretty sure you will find that many people here will accept it.
/Greg
It is ridiculous. They drive the plane to a point and level off using an instances turn radius.
Then he got the radius wrong, one of the level offs is not even perpendicular to the pivot point!
Their new work is bs, and Mackey's work still matches the most likely terrorist response to the dive.
Balsamo ignores the fact 77 hit in a dive!
The initial starting position is off! 77 is not at the VDOT tower when the FDR data stops. Anyone can see 77 is where the FDR data and RADAR data mesh! Over 6 seconds from impacting the Pentagon. The p4t, as with your petition of "ample evidence", have no clue about the facts of 9/11 or do they choose to use evidence.
I would clean up your member scholars thermite insane fantasy before trying to help the other idiot ideas in 9/11 truth.
BTW, the calculations are in the video you did not watch.
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
Turbo logic - So you're running away and making excuses I see? /turbo logic
We'll address your PFT DVD as soon as you send one.
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 4,494
Oh yeah, I forgot you guys are all too strapped to even afford phone card minutes. That could be a hamper to the debate... tell ya what, I'm willing to waive the cranberries, and put it at one dozen, or whatever a cheap box of mix yields. I shan't pay for your time, it's quick and easy and can be done in the background while you post drivel. I will pay postage, standard USPS, paypal is a good method. I'm no richer than y'all, and don't want to send enough money you're tempted to just keep it to "support the organization."
Do you still want to debate me? I think it's the best you'll get from JREF, and I'm curious what your voice sounds like and how well you hold up.
those aren't in the street and the photos showing one in the street is the same one as lloyds only with the cab cropped out.
there was only 1 light pole in the road.
the 4 were laying in the grass.
you missed the original point of this argument......
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 4,494
Hey Dom, have a photo of a light pole CIT hasn't lied about? Look, it's clear you're getting at pole 2, which it seems should be in the road. Right? And that makes the scene fishy again, and so faked but faked wrong, right?
Just curious, do you have any proof this pole was never on Route 27? How do you know it was the plane that tossed it over the bank and not, say, the driver of this car? (just an example).
You have no way of knowing the answer, and yet I'm sure you just know.
Consider this shot. No pole 2, to be sure. But some debris - mostly leaves I'd guess, perhaps glass. Something happened down there.
But the pole is here in all photos:
So this all means what, will you just get to the point?
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
Then what was the strange thing streaking horizontally across the lawn in this video from the Pentagon security cameras?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Since it only appears in one frame, the only thing you can be reasonably certain of is its attitude, which appears close to horizontal. One point can't define a vector.
Dave
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
Given that the little smoke trail after the plane shows a horizontal path, it's kind of hard to support the assertion the the plane was in a dive.
Crazytimes
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 348
That video was shot at 1FPS. The plane was traveling at 750FPS. The video is pointless.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Given that the only objects visible in the video are grossly out of focus (the camera is, of course, focused on the expected position of the vehicles it's supposed to be monitoring), it's kind of hard to support the assertion that there is a smoke trail visible in the video. All I see is a white blur in the frame before impact.
Dave
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
You're pointing to the remains of a snow cone machine that was knocked over by the blast of the bombs.
On 9/11 the lawn slopes to the Pentagon, and the lens is a crummy fish eye lens distorting the whole world. 7 years and you have "ample evidence". I have ample evidence you lack research on 9/11. 77 never leveled off. Sorry. 77 hit the first VOT camera post and the bush the engine clipped, it was all down hill. 100 feet MSL to 40 feet MSL over 790 f/s forward velocity (everyone leaves out the added acceleration gained after the FDR last data point over 6 seconds away, 77 gaining 5 knots a second) The engines were close to their max temperature limits, over normal limits. Anyone look at the EGT of 77 in the FDR?
60 feet down to impact, 1300 feet to go. This is called down. A level off would have 77 hitting higher. This is called math. 77 hit near 2700 feet per minute, over 3 times normal landing approaches! Steep, this is why we get steep for small changed in angles. Normal landing approaches are at 2.5 degree, 750 feet per minute
Math, what we used in engineering school and music school.
Lens? Study up.
Greg, study before you post stupid stuff. Do you ever study stuff before drawing conclusion and signing truth petitions, or joining a few truther groups, including thermite Jones group of non-scholars on9/11? Where is that "ample evidence" in your truth petition, this topic seems to be lacking the ample evidence? We have an animation in this thread that shows 77 hitting the Pentagon, but in a path with no relationship to the actual path. The animation was brought up by a Mr Farmer, he is playing a joke on CIT/p4t because they can't understand symbols or animations and their use. It is possible RADAR data was used to make the animation, but even trucks and smoke could result in spurious RADAR returns after 77 flies into the Pentagon. There is one return to the left and right of the real flight path; but after impact.
Flight path, you can study before you adlib your statements based on faulty analysis.
Last edited:
It's OK, I can afford phone time, but I'm not paying your meal.
Send me a PM and let's work this out.
What's this? The camera was traveling at 1 foot per second, or was the
plane filming at 750 frames per second?
If we saw 5 frames of video, did the object require 5 seconds
to move across the lawn?
Are we expect an object moving at 750 fps with such mass
to be diving, lifting, turning within that short distance across
the lawn?
Care to clarify please?
Last edited:
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
Ah, so when you tell someone to buy a DVD, then you can understand now? Now you see the irony in you wanting others to pay in order to discuss, but how you yourself refuse to spend any of your own money in the process.