Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Oversimplified and incorrect. Here is a synopsis of all those who had the cajones to chime in so far:

Now we have 4 sets of data.

1. P4T showing 11.2 G's from pole 1 to pentagon (under review currently as linked from our original article)

"Opposition"
2. R Mackey - 3.49 G for full duration Antenna to above pole 1 to pentagon (Claims to be a NASA Engineer)
3. Myriad - 1 G from Antenna to Pole 1.... 3.2 G's for segment pole 1 to pentagon (admits to using high school math)
4. Farmer - 1 G from Antenna to pole 1.... 3.5 G's for pole 1 to pentagon (of which Farmer missed his mistake on 170+135=235 until it was pointed out)

The one that makes the most sense right now from the "opposition " is Mackey's. Mackey has the aircraft pulling 3.49 G's for the full 4.3 seconds (where the others are 1.3 second duration).. We are currently reviewing the calculations based on the original article premise of 1 G from Antenna to pole 1, then pull level. As you can see with Mackey's numbers, those G's will increase significantly if combined all in the last second.

We will post a revision on the original article if required. However for now, we have a "Common Arguments" thread linked on the original article for visitors to see rebuttals from the "opposition".

Again, this is a very complex issue and we do want to get it right. We will certainly amend the original article if required.

However, we now have conflicting sets of data/duration from within the "opposition". We are currently reviewing it internally with outside help/colleagues.

We will also compare the G forces required with FDR altitudes plotted by the NTSB. The data provided by the "opposition" as it stands now does not support FDR Data. It will be in further conflict once using altitudes provided by the NTSB as it will be higher than the antenna.

Regards,
Rob

pilotsfor911truth.org...

So you can quibble over a possible math error or you can look at the validity of the general claim which is whether or not the physically required and officially reported descent angle is aeronautically possible or not.



pssst....guess what? regardless of jref frantic spin and confusion the answer is the latter.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


It's not a possible error. It is fact that Robs math was and is in error. Read the thread at Jref. TC329 tries to change the subject many times over because he can not refute what was presented to him.

Rob will leave his little note up on his website for a few weeks and then take it down. I believe he did the same thing with his fake airphone document claim when he was called on that too.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
And just so everyone is 100% clear here.....
Please note the Oct 2006 date on the alleged "rebuttal" from jref that was posted by "COOL HAND" and authored by "Anti-sophist".

It is clearly not a direct response to the very specific and simplified claim in this article.

It did not need to be. The math that he used in that article has (to my knowledge) not changed since 2006.

They will throw this convoluted bunch of nothing to cast doubt on facts and common sense over and over and over and over.....

Have you even read that article and attempted to prove it incorrect yourself yet?

I am still waiting for you to show some facts that would lead me to question what I saw and went through on 9/11.

reply to post by COOL HAND


Cool hand... Jref has a thread from yesterday that totaly dismantles the math that Rob presents on his website. There is no refuting this and they know it.

Jref Mods have since locked the thread for some sort of "investigation" from the administrators. Not sure what that means. Anyway. Rob was once again proven wrong on his assumptions.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by COOL HAND

 

Cool hand... Jref has a thread from yesterday that totaly dismantles the math that Rob presents on his website. There is no refuting this and they know it.

Jref Mods have since locked the thread for some sort of "investigation" from the administrators. Not sure what that means. Anyway. Rob was once again proven wrong on his assumptions.

Can you post a link to it?

I would like to see this for myself.

reply to post by COOL HAND


Here ya go COOL :

forums.randi.org...

In addtion here is a link to a Ryan MAckey post that adds more to the death of this theory:

forums.randi.org...

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Jref Mods have since locked the thread for some sort of "investigation" from the administrators. Not sure what that means. Anyway. Rob was once again proven wrong on his assumptions.

I know exactly what that means.

It means they are getting caught in their own logic.

There will be plenty more to come on this issue.

Ryan Mackey is helping out a lot. The rest of the guys all contradict each other and R Mackey who is the only one on the right track.

Rob has admitted that a revision to his article is in order and one will be forthcoming.

But you see the initial article took a hypothetical altitude of the very top of the VDOT antenna........when using the ACTUAL altitude as depicted in the FDR the impossibility is increased greatly.

But rest assured this issue is NOT going to disappear.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Caught in their own logic? Yeah... I doubt that. But lets wait and see.

As far as Mackey helping a lot?


Ryan Mackey post #92 to P4911 Truth Member TC329:

Oh my god, that's funny.

If you don't trust my numbers, work through the problem yourself. I even set it up for you. I did so because that way, you don't have to trust me. Just do it. Again, any high school kid who's passed algebra should be able to handle it.

If you can't figure out why my numbers and Myriad's are not identical, then you're truly, truly lost.

forums.randi.org...

No this wont go away. I agree with you there. If Rob admits this mistake it will be the first time.


From Craig Ranke:

Ryan Mackey is helping out a lot. The rest of the guys all contradict each other and R Mackey who is the only one on the right track.

Mr. Balsamo is either spectacularly incompetent, or a total fraud. Whichever it is, you have been duped.

- Ryan Mackey

Yeah... Mr. Mackey is on the right track




[edit on 16-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]

[edit on 16-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]

I didn't say he is right I said he is on the right track.

His numbers are actually rather close with Rob's but he is simply spinning away the implications.

You'll see.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT



I didn't state that YOU said he was right. Read my post.

Oh I can't wait to see the beating he puts on Rob. Like he has done to every other leading truther.

[sarcasm]I'm sure the NASA scientist has his hands full.[/sarcasm]

It wont matter...you will replace what is right with a bunch of high fives to each other. Ignoring evidence..thats what truthers do best

[edit on 16-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]

Physics Response to Flight 77 Trajectory Speculation

Ryan Mackey drew up a response on the Jref forum. He has done an incredible job showing the claim by CIT and Pilots4Truth are not accurate.

..deals strictly with measurement and calculation and is of an informational nature ONLY.

- Ryan Mackey

I will post only his conclusion. The entire post is here

Conclusions

All of the available data suggests a terminal trajectory that is achievable by a Boeing 757 aircraft. Even the most unfavorable example suggested by "Pilots for 9/11 Truth," specifying an initial height inconsistent with the FDR figures supplied by them along with the most challenging altitude at both light pole and impact, requires only 4.0 g of load in the airframe for a mere 4.4 seconds. The aircraft is expected to survive such a load without any significant risk of failure.

Based on these calculations, there is absolutely no case to be made that (1) the obstacles are inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77, (2) the FDR data is inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77, or (3) the FDR data is inconsistent with impacts to the obstacles themselves. Furthermore, with the exception of Case F, all of the various requirements lead to a trajectory that is easily reconcilable with an amateur pilot at the controls. Even Case F is plausible, it is merely unexpected.

It really staggers the sound mind to read the incredible nonsense that believers in the Official Fairy Tale will resort to trying to defend the indefensioble. Nitpicking silliness replaces logical and sound thinking and analysis. The hood of a car has not ONE scratch on it, yet some people will believe that a huge lightpole crashed thru the windshield of that car while it was traveling down a highway...unreal.

There is no way possible for the lightpoles to have been hit by a plane, but the official lie had to have some supports so the perps simply arranged for a few poles to be placed in the right spots and felled or dropped at the right time..Craigs analysis is a lot better than my musings on that subject...but I know as a fairly intelligent human being that huge lightpoles do not crash thru windshields of cars without at least damaging the hood to some degree...to imagine that the one in a billion odds scenario occurred fits perfectly with the ' logic ' needed to still accept the official lie.

Billion or higher to one odds are nothing new to the official story drones: They must accept such odds happening over and over again to even begin to stay with the story and keep a straight face. Likelihood...what a word. It is not in the lexicon of official story believers...how LIKELY is it that certain events took place? If it is UNlikley, then it does not deserve the status of a proven fact or allegation backed up by evidence. People who accept the official story weigh odds as if diamonds were worth the same as dung...thats the only way they can survive in a battle of facts.

This is just one factor among hundreds, if not thousands, of ' inexplicable anomalies ' that the Official Lie cannot and will not examine...or when it does so it insults the intelligence of the reader terribly. The NIST pronounces assumptions as proofs, and distracts and obfuscates openly and without shame. One cannot imagine any honest and qualified engineer looking at the hard and cold facts and coming to a conclusion that agrees with the official lie...no way. The Towers erupt upwards with tremendous force and pulverize the buildings...hurling huge sections far away and blasting human beings into tiny shards of bone...some pieces even today being found on the roofs of nearby buildings!!

But all this just leaves the brains of the official story lemmings as if it made no difference. There are only TWO possible reasons for the continued belief in the official story:

1. The believer is a shill for the government and perps for one reason or another and attempts to ' debunk ' the facts in an effort to obscure the truth and keep more people from becoming educated and aware of the facts about 9-11. Whether paid or not, this shill operates not on the basis of personal belief, but to bolster the story that allows the perps to escape justice.

2. The believer has a common psychological need, deeply rooted, to deny those things that would cause a paradigm shattering experience that would render the person unable to function normally. it is quite normal, sadly, for many people to actually deny reality, even if faced with absolute proof, because to accept the truth would mean an upheaval of belief systems that would cause the person to become unable to work or socialize easily...it often causes withdrawal from normal company habits and a tendency to become frightened and imagine the worst case scenarios as being immanent and unavoidable...helplesness, in other words. Feeling totally helpless..realizing that the people in power are not only corrupt but criminal..murderous..is a very devastating realization for many people.

these types will insist that terible things did not occur rather than face the consequences of knowledge. many Germans refused to believe that there were death camps in their towns..even though they saw the trains with the people stuffed into them...always coming but never leaving..and smelled and saw the smoke from the ovens..and no doubt they heard thew strories from locals that worked there..but still they denied it..too horrible.

Like Hitler said, the biggest lies are the easiest ones to sell to the people: People simply cannot and will not in many cases believe that really infamoud acts can be carried out so brazenly, openly, in your face style..despite all of the evidence that shows that the Neocon cabal and their pals pulled off 9-11...the proof is massive..from so many angles..that to isolate and pick at any one issue will only serve to confuse the uneducated and disorganized mind...while examination of the bigger picture always proves the point quite well:

The vast majority of the physical evidence and testimony shows without any doubt, clearly and convincingly, that the Official story is a lie from start to finish. Of that there can be no doubt. The totality of the circumstances screams..shouts...implores...that this was an inside job with outside help. Craig and crew are doing a great job and they have shown without any doubt that the account that we are given of the flight path is a scam and a lie...my question for Craig is:

What do you think accounts for the ' smoking ' trail? Is it a missle? If so, launched from what? At ground level, and as far back as it is seen, it puzles me exactly where it came from...no jet, of course..but the smoke trail seems missle like to me..the following explosion says that may be truth...but what say ye? Keep up the great work and ignore the silly stuff...youy have proven the point well enough.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
It really staggers the sound mind to read the incredible nonsense that believers in the Official Fairy Tale will resort to trying to defend the indefensioble. Nitpicking silliness replaces logical and sound thinking and analysis. The hood of a car has not ONE scratch on it, yet some people will believe that a huge lightpole crashed thru the windshield of that car while it was traveling down a highway...unreal.

It's quite simple. Pilots for 9/11 Truth have been refuted. R. Mackey does a fine job of it.

reply to post by eyewitness86

It really staggers the sound mind to read the incredible nonsense that believers in the Official Fairy Tale will resort to trying to defend the indefensioble

Mr. Mackey did. His white paper on this subject has total debunked the OP. Rob Balsamo is wrong again.

eyewitness...are you looking for the truth? If so...why get upset that a man shows what the TRUTH is?

Sound Mind?

Progress and exchanges.

Forgive the rant, but im sure most of you will understand its purpose and why i am posting it here. It was going to be posted in the thread linked below, but the mods closed it before it had a chance to get there....

forums.randi.org...

Quote -
You people have made every excuse in the book to not sign up for P4T to discuss this when P4T has linked Common Arguments from the article itself so visitors can see your point of view. You first use the excuse for not registering by implying you might get "shot" in an obvious attempt to discredit and derail. When called on it, you say you arent worried about it and move the goal posts to "you just arent interested" and claim we are trying to derail. Anyone reading this thread (and the other that was removed) will see your amount of "interest", spin, abundance of ad hom and personal attacks, attacking the individual/organization instead of the argument, breaking forum rules. It is also clear (which we have been saving for this occassion) you have amended the numbers to fit your bias (using top of pole 1 yet using bottom of of pentagon to decrease G Load). If you are going to argue based on the govt story, the "bottom of aircraft" struck pole 1 at roughly half its height (remember the "shrub" you guys like to trot out so often?) 38.7 (actual pole height) /2=19.35+40 (ground elevation) = 59.40 - 33 (ground elevation of pentagon) = 26.35. (If you say its higher, then you can no longer use your "shrub" argument elsewhere)

Instead, you use top of pole 1 while adjusting height at pentagon in your favor. Why are we not surprised. We are on the JREF after all.

Looks like Mackeys initial 3.49 G pull for duration of entire segment Antenna to pole 1 to pentagon just went up significantly.

Your numbers conflict with each other in terms of duration and G Load itself.

You people are told none of your numbers match the FDR and will in fact increase load, conflicting further, if you use altitudes plotted by the NTSB. The usual suspects run out and drop links yelling "Debunked!" regarding the FDR. When shown it is not "Debunked" using their very own words in those links, we are suddenly "off topic". Do you really think people are that stupid and cannot see your game? Even your own people realize your spin on the subject. The man who started SLC forums IIRC (forums.randi.org...) questions your motive for evasion. The tags on this thread itself refer to the FDR! But somehow its suddenly "off topic" when shown your own words do not support the govt story and/or FDR data when you claim "Debunked!". Some of you even claim we have "hidden the FDR data" when we posted it right here in this thread! (However, one thinks the animation reconstruction produced by the NTSB, uploaded to google by a JREFer, is a "cartoon". And this guy claims he is a pilot...!)

Beachy claims P4T is a FAILURE because he cannot distinguish between meters and feet, did not bother to check his initial claims which place the antenna fully underground, writes a second post claiming he meant meters when his initial post cleary states feet, then edits his second post when someone obviously PMed him for a heads up for looking so stupid and still does not realize that we are, and have been using 304 feet! Is it any surprise this is the same guy who deletes his post content when proven wrong? His only debate style is ad hom, and when he does show some type of substance (albeit incoherent mostly), he constantly has to amend or delete his posts! Why do you let this guy continue? He only hurts your position. Ohhhh.. thats right. He is a "Forum Donor".

Yes, we will admit our use of terminology was not accurate at in one post. We have also addressed that in the common arguments thread if you care to look.

You people know the article can represent your side. You do not sign up to P4T because you know you cannot debate without the use of personal attacks and ad homs as is readily apparent in this thread and the one that had to be removed. No doubt if you register for P4T, you will once again show why such people get banned from P4T employing the same exact rules on the JREF forum which many members break constantly without recourse (unless they are a "twoofer"). This whole subsection breaks your own forum rules. Im sure you also know you will readily be exposed for your spin when registering for P4T. You would much rather stay in your "gang rape" group think style community instead of venturing out. We understand, but we come here anyway (until most of our side is removed or banned based on a clear double standard).

We will be coming out with a revision to the article. We are not sure when it will be published. We have many individuals working on it but schedule conflicts are abundant. We will also demonstrate in the article "opposition" extreme bias in amending their figures to fit their obvious agenda and argument from incredulity. In the meantime, If you would like to represent your side of this matter to all who visit the original article itself, you know where to find us. Thank you for participating and for showing your obvious interest only when you are surrounded by "friendlys". :-)

Regards
/Quote

www.911blogger.com...-179975

Claim -

"FDR figures supplied by them along with the most challenging altitude at both light pole and impact, requires only 4.0 g of load in the airframe for a mere 4.4 seconds"

"there is absolutely no case to be made that (1) the obstacles are inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77, (2) the FDR data is inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77, or (3) the FDR data is inconsistent with impacts to the obstacles themselves."

Reply -

If his first paragraph is accurate (which is probably not the case considering his initial calculations), his second paragraph statements are entirely false. We will write up a response to his calcluations as time permits.

We currently have people working on this issue however there are many scheduling conflicts. If we find we have to revise the article, it will be done.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Mackey is lying. It will be addresed.

reply to post by eyewitness86

..despite all of the evidence that shows that the Neocon cabal and their pals pulled off 9-11...

What is a neocon?

I'm proud of you man.... you didn't blame the Jews in this staggeringly long-winded noncoherent ramble.

reply to post by johndoex


All that rant.... and no repsonse to Mackeys White Paper?

How is he lying??

I can't wait to see this!!!

"The Rant" was written prior to Mackeys "White Paper" and after the second thread on the subject was closed (the first being removed due to continued inappropriate behavior by JREF members).

The accumulated lies of Mackey will be addressed, but for starters....

there is absolutely no case to be made that (1) the obstacles are inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77,

Lie 1

(2) the FDR data is inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77,

Lie 2

(3) the FDR data is inconsistent with impacts to the obstacles themselves

Lie 3

Mackey also lies that we are "hiding the [FDR data]."

forums.randi.org...

ETA: And we did reply to Mackeys "White Paper" conclusions. Its quoted above. Did you miss it?

Again, this will all be addresed in full. We also thank Mackey for his time for someone who says he was "uninterested" (another lie) and for showing how the FDR data provided, produced and plotted by the NTSB is in further conflict with the govt story.

[edit on 17-3-2008 by johndoex]

reply to post by johndoex


Rob...

your response was ..well...

If his first paragraph is accurate (which is probably not the case considering his initial calculations), his second paragraph statements are entirely false. We will write up a response to his calcluations as time permits.

We currently have people working on this issue however there are many scheduling conflicts. If we find we have to revise the article, it will be done.

You are not sure if you are right or wrong. Lmfao.. You should just remove your article and save face.

I bet the ....


[edit on 17-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by johndoex


Mackey also lies that we are "hiding the [FDR data]."

forums.randi.org...

No he wasn't... did you read the follow up by Anti-Sophist?

You really don't get it, do you?

You guys set up a mental experiment and performed some math. That math was wrong.

Mackey and Myriad fixed your calculation for you to show you what the true answer of your calculation was. Then you change the subject and say "OH WELL THATS NOT WHAT THE FDR SAYS". So? IT WAS YOUR MENTAL EXPERIMENT.

The topic is your guess at the flight path and the Newtonian physics thereof. You made a post detailing how your guess of the flight path was an impossible flight path for an aircraft. They have showed you that your guess at the flight path is not impossible, just that your math is wrong.

Why are you ignoring the fact that your math is wrong and instead constantly trying to change the subject? This is your experiment, your guess. If it doesn't match the FDR, that's not exactly our problem.

forums.randi.org...