G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible

reply to post by johndoex


This is really getting hilarious.

Everyone, please take note.

johndoex = aka Cap'n BoB of pffft posts an NTSB document in hopes of convincing readers that the impact time of AA77 was calculated in a precise and accurate manner.

BUT, in the OP he is accusing the NTSB of providing manipulated, faked, erroneous or __________ data which in his words "Provides information which does not support the Government Story".

What a contradiction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Take note that he avoided addressing the 1.5 DME issue in the data and he has avoided using it in his newly released cartoon because it reveals missing data fairly common with FDRs. He also has avoided addressing the Reagan National radar return which shows AA77 well short of the VDOT antenna at 13:37:47, which is 2 seconds AFTER the impact time he uses in his cartoon for all of his calculations for the location of AA77.

All of this is specifically designed to play to Conspiracy Therorist's quest for the "truth". In fact, it has no bearing whatsoever on what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. It is NOT IMPORTANT at all except in supporting the OP's delusions, selling DVDs, and poking Government Agencies in the proverbial eye regarding trivia which does not amount to a "hill of beans".

I am still a little confused about how fdr records long/lat/altitude data. If it does it at all. I was looking through a number of sites, found FAA requirements for the fdrs, but I didn't find anything related to position tracking. Pitch/yaw/bank/position of controls, etc., yes. But nothing about the geographical position of the plane. So question remains: How did they obtain the position of AC with millisecond accuracy? Radars? We know they sweep slow and can only give us direction and distance that are not very accurate. Altitude detection radars in ATC system were decommissioned long before 911, as they switched to using transponders exclusively.

I still remember the antenna on Newark International Airport that was sweeping up and down (altitude radar) in 80s. Then mode C came into the law. Even for little Cessnas. Then they they promptly took this radar down. So there is no way FAA can detect altitude without transponder.

May be someone will argue that "THEY" have phase array radars that can detect distance, direction and altitude all the same time, but FAA doesn't use them and their accuracy is still limited due to simple physics and technologies. Also they are not needed for routine operations.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by syeager9]

Originally posted by syeager9
I am still a little confused about how fdr records long/lat/altitude data. If it does it at all. I was looking through a number of sites, found FAA requirements for the fdrs, but I didn't find anything related to position tracking. Pitch/yaw/bank/position of controls, etc., yes. But nothing about the geographical position of the plane. So question remains: How did they obtain the position of AC with millisecond accuracy? Radars? We know they sweep slow and can only give us direction and distance that are not very accurate. Altitude detection radars in ATC system were decommissioned long before 911, as they switched to using transponders exclusively.

I still remember the antenna on Newark International Airport that was sweeping up and down (altitude radar) in 80s. Then mode C came into the law. Even for little Cessnas. Then they they promptly took this radar down. So there is no way FAA can detect altitude without transponder.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by syeager9]

Depending on the age and model of FDR there are dozens of parameters recorded. I have only a working knowledge of FDRs and am by no means an expert. No one here is. It is a very small and very specialized field, so outside of the NTSB and the FDR Manufacturers there are very few true experts.

To try and simplify an answer to your question, the lat/long position data from an INS, or GPS, or Omega, (depending upon aircraft specific equipment) and DME from two tuned receivers sends data at various times to a control unit which compresses that data and stores it on a Memory Protected Chip in the FDR. The data stored is enormous in that for the last 20 flights of the aircraft are stored in the FDR. That data then can be retrieved bv special software designed to extract and decode the data which can be read by a human. The same sequence applies to altitude data from the barometric altimeters and the radar altimeter which are also stored in a similar manner. The actual timing of data sent varies with the parameter and I don't think you need that kind of detail to understand how this all works.

Other position information can be obtained from ATC Communications, Radars, Physics based on heading and time, Physical evidence and perhaps other methods which don't occur to me now. The accuracy of an aircraft's position simply depends on the amount and accuracy of the information available. It's impossible to generalize further.

In the case of AA77 the INS stopped recording lat/long position several seconds prior to impact at the Pentagon, but other data continued to be recorded for an additional length of time. The INS could have stopped for a myraid of reasons from a simple INS dump following maneuvering or another reason. In addition to not being inaccurate in the Airline type application, INS's are notorious for simply dumping because they get out of tolerance or because the gyros and gimbals get mechanically worn.

The 84th RADES radar data was apparently available to the NTSB, but I'm not sure if Andrews AFB and Reagan National Radar was available or not. The heading and physical damage path would have also provided evidence of path, but of course this would not provide timing. I suspect they pieced the timing together with what was available within the time constraints they were given by the FBI.

In conclusion, the impact timing and position if AA77 was obviously not accurate to a millimeter or microsecond and it did not need to be. That was and is unnecessary for the purposes of the investigation. Conspiracy Theorists promoters have capitalized on this to promote their delusion as is plainly evident in this thread. CTists then gullibly swallow the information because their search for the truth is really a search for the "troof" of Government involvement in the conspiracy.

There is NO EVIDENCE of Government involvement either by the NTSB, the FBI or anyone else in the Pentagon attack. There are only delusions promoted by FRAUDS and CHARLATANS using methods easily explain to promote their theories either for financial gain, ego, or their malcontent with the current Administration.

Originally posted by Reheat
No one here is. It is a very small and very specialized field, so outside of the NTSB and the FDR Manufacturers there are very few true experts.

So why don't you believe what information the NTSB, maunfacturers and experts have shown?

[edit on 19-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1So why don't you believe what information the NTSB, maunfacturers and experts have shown?

I don't think it a matter of belief. This whole thread and theory is based on the data gov. gave us. And I simply doubt the accuracy. They didn't have any means of obtaining anything with enough precision to calculate the exact path of the AC. I can agree that with what is used, the pull out of the dive will be impossible, though I didn't do the math myself. However with inaccurate data this theory worth nothing.

Originally posted by Reheat
"Provides information which does not support the Government Story".

pilotsfor911truth.org...


Please tell us ReTreat... which claim is false in the above link.... Thanks.,..

And talking about pilots - they don't have to know how things work. They only have to know how to push buttons.

HIDEY HI CAMPERS!

Hi People,

Just a friendly reminder that we're all adults.
Adults are able to debate a topic without getting snarky and personal towards the person they are debating with.

Oldie but a goodie: Attack the post - not the poster.

Cheers,
ALIEN

Ladies and gentleman as i frequent this site often to pick out a couple alternative news stories every week this one happened to catch my eye... but as for posting well this is a first time for me - so ill be keeping this to a quick anonymous post. The guy seems to just point out that they did a test... which is fine...

Firstly... anyone who has seen a missile/rocket in flight (for those who haven't there's always youtube which has lots of military footage), and seen a commercial passenger jet merely taxiing on the runway or even taking taking off; hell even in flight at low altitude - should be able to tell from what few frames released by the pentagon show a missile trial and then the resultant explosion leaving a smell of cordite used in explosives (for those who didn't already know many witnesses said they could smell it at the site).

^^ yes there's so much more evidence but there's no point going into it because its glaringly obvious as it is if we just concentrate on the video evidence.

Failing any actual knowledge of missiles/planes or even the lack of intelligence to Wikipedia these simple basics... some may wish to rely on such evidence like what the gentleman who started this threat put forward.

I am afraid it does not get any more obvious than this, whereby you don't actually need to know how a missile or a passenger jet's turbine engine works to know what your looking at in the frames... common sense should do it for you.

From what threads i have looked at over the past year or so... its apparent that people here get alot of their info from youtube so... if it pleases the court i will submit a nice little 2 parter from youtube which i found expressly for helping those who need pictures/diagrams without a lot of long winded gaff from me.

This explains in a nutshell the video frames and how missiles/turbine engines work all related to the pentagon attack.

First part title: No Planes on 911 [ Pentagon Security Camera ] (1 of 2)


Second part title: No Planes on 911 [ Pentagon Security Camera ] (2 of 2)


(if i somehow made a mistake with linking use the titles to search)

For those of you who like me take a passive role and just read and stay out of pointless bickering... i am sure you'll sympathize with me when i say just the mere existence of this thread discussing visible evidence is a piss take.

Take care all.



[Mod Edit - video links]

[edit on 20/9/2008 by Sauron]

911research.wtc7.net...

A source close to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) who asked to remain anonymous when asked about the " ongoing [black box] investigation, " told us that "the NTSB never closely examined the cockpit voice recorders (CVRs) and flight data recorders (FDRs) recovered from American Flight 77 which hit the Pentagon, and United flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania. " This, while the FBI has continued to quietly dodge vexing questions related to its prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and how the Bureau’s widely-reported inept and mishandled information protocol cost so many lives.

The source added that “the [CVR and FDR] tapes were sequestered by the FBI and quickly taken to its Quantico, Virginia labs where analysis was conducted solely under the Bureau’s influence in order to maintain complete control.” However, according to the individual with knowledge of the investigation, “there were a few NTSB officials allowed to observe, but their influence on the probe and tape inspection was minimal at best.”

We also talked to Michael Thompson, chief engineer in the CVR/FDR division of Allied Signal-Honeywell Corporation in Redmond, Washington -- according to his counsel, Mark Larson.

We asked Thompson if he was the person in charge of flight data recovery in the 9/11 investigation, since Honeywell manufactured the data recorders in operation on all four Boeing jets involved in the September 11 crashes. “I cannot answer that under advice from legal counsel,” he said.

Since his legal counsel, Mark Larson of Tempe, Arizona, was unavailable for a conference call, Thompson told us, “On advice of my legal counsel, I cannot answer any legal questions pertaining to that incident.” [On November 19, 2002 at 12:16 pm, Honeywell transferred our initial call to Mark Larson, corporate in-house counsel for Honeywell, who in turn told us to contact Michael Thompson regarding any questions we might have about the 9/11 CVRs and FDRs.]

When we asked Thompson if he had ever seen or been involved in any recovery analysis of the 9/11 CVRs or FDRs, he stated, “That’s a legal question, and on advice of counsel, I cannot answer any of those questions. You need to talk to Mark Larson about this.” [This surprised us, because we are aware that the memory chips from which the NTSB and/or FBI tapes are derived is raw data and cannot be manipulated. Thus, the “ongoing criminal investigation” excuse could result in either obstruction or suppression of fact.]
As a matter of fact, ABC news reported on 9-13-2001 that “Although investigators look for an entire black box, sometimes the only parts of the device that survive are the recorder’s crash-survivable memory units (CSMU). The CSMU is almost indestructible. [A former NTSB source told us that only a direct hit from a nuclear blast can destroy it] ABC also said that “it is housed within a stainless-steel shell that contains titanium or aluminum and a high-temperature insulation of dry silica material.”

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Sorry man but since you are unable to view the presentation you are unable to understand the model, the formula, the equations, or the situation here in full in order to have an informed discussion on the matter.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you are trying to use a 1 dimensional formula to solve a 2 dimensional problem.

Are you calculating based on 1 velocity vector or 2?

Are you figuring both the horizontal and vertical velocity vector to get the total velocity vector or no?

Furthermore are you basing your calculations using altitude, vertical speed, and considering the g forces reported by the NTSB?

Seems you're implying that this is beyond the comprehension of mere mortals

I just worked the simple problem you presented IE an aircraft travelling at 238m/s (460 knots) descending and levelling out from an altitude of 100m (328') in a horizontal distance of 700m (2297'). Yes it's 2 dimensional and requires a combination of highschool trigonometry plus a little engineering background helps and as I'm determining the arc flown to meet the criteria, horizontal and vertical vectors are included in the resultant.

I don't arrive at anything remotely like 34g or even 10g, not even 5g

I will try to view the presentation sometime in the future to see what's going on here (or there).

You guys have been warned already stick to the subject, anymore posts about members and you will find your posting privileges will be suspended.

Is that clear, now back to the topic of this thread!

G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible

[edit on 20/9/2008 by Sauron]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I don't arrive at anything remotely like 34g or even 10g, not even 5g

I will try to view the presentation sometime in the future to see what's going on here (or there).

The reason you do not is that a tiny segment of the proposed flight was used for pull up calculations.

What is quite funny is that I used this exact same principle to show that the best case scenario for the NOC theory results in a required bank exceeding 50 degrees. I was told then that maths can't prove this sort of thing.

Apparently now maths can prove this sort of thing. Comments Craig?

self deleated

[edit on 20-9-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by johndoex

 

This is really getting hilarious.

Everyone, please take note.

johndoex = aka Cap'n BoB of pffft posts an NTSB document in hopes of convincing readers that the impact time of AA77 was calculated in a precise and accurate manner.

BUT, in the OP he is accusing the NTSB of providing manipulated, faked, erroneous or __________ data which in his words "Provides information which does not support the Government Story".

What a contradiction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's not the least bit a contradiction.

THEY (the government) are held to THEIR word as far as impact time, speed, altitude, pitch, roll, and G's.

YOU as a government story defender are ALSO held to THEIR word about these things.

WE are pointing out how THEIR word is irreconcilable with what THEY say happened.

THEIR story/data MUST add up yet it doesn't proving THEY lied.

reply to post by Sauron


I like to see a Mod come in, and help to put this back on track.

Initially, I was typing, and lost my entire post....so I will try to summarize.

I have about three decade's worth of aviation experience, including about 20.000 hours.

Thing about sustained 'G' forces....in LEVEL flight at a 45-degree bank angle, you will feel about 1.3 Gs.

At 60-degrees bank, in LEVEL flight, you will feel 2.0 Gs.


HOWEVER, a descending turn will not sustain the G-forces proclaimed by the OP.

ANYONE who can fly an airplane will understand this....we 'know' the feeling, and how much we can 'get away with', when operating the controls.

As to the Pentagon?

It is NOT AN easily recognized building, from the air, until almost on top of it.

Five stories high.....not a great profile to aim at.

From above, though....very obvious....

EVERY Private Pilot I ever trained knew how to recognize landmarks. At least, back when I Flight Instructed....we taught something called 'pilotage'.

We also taught the students to be able to fly the airplane with a reference to a fixed object on the ground.

Before the solo, we taught a 'turn about a point' to demonstrate how to discern the effect of the wind, on the airplane.

The 'turn about a point' was the foundation of how to fly a 'pattern' in the terminal environment.....to enter the 'downwind', then plan where to turn 'base', then line up on 'final' for the landing.

The only difference between a poor pilot who managed to eke out a few hundred hours (because they had money to flash around) and also had money to 'buy' simulator time.....in a B757/767 (because the earlier sims were basically the same....the B757/767 are ONE type Rating, for real pilots)

I'm just astonished that a few 'Corporate' pilots, and a few who operate Turbo-Props, seem to understand, all of a sudden, how to fly a B757/767.

Maybe I should blame Micro-Soft?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Why do you keep bringing up your experience and g's while banking? The op is calculating g's for the plane to pull out of the steep decent it would have had to have been in, in order to clear the topography and level off across the Pentalawn to be consistent with physical damage and the video showing a level object.

reply to post by PplVSNWO


Ppl......because, if you actually have flown, you would know.

Here's what I'm trying to explain:

AAL77 is taken over, about 15 or 20 minutes after departure from KIAD.

The 'target' is the Pentagon. It is incredibly easy enough to use the FMS to 'return to departure'....that would be KIAD. One can also use the FMS to type in, via the kepad, the VOR at KDCA.....or just the KDCA ARP. Close enough, to navigate to.....but, as I said, the Pentagon is hard to see until you're almost right on top of it.

So, then....see it, fly over and start a turn, keeping it in sight, and descending and acceleratting all the while.


If you cannot think in three dimensions, or if you have never flown an airplane, then you have NO IDEA what I am talking about.

And, unless you live in the Washington. Dc area (as I do) then I expect you will also not understand, until you see the area, the topography.