G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible

reply to post by syeager9


OH!

Well...syeager....glad to know you're open.

I have made it very plain that I will sit on the fence, as details are brought in.

My only problem is....I knew the F/O of AAL 77.

Albeit.....I knew him through a friend of a friend of a friend....I think it is considered enough.....

AND, based on my experience as a Captain on the B757/767....

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


the 'ALLEGED: CVR from AAL 77???


Oh, did you forget the DFDR as well??

Wow!! I'd invite any, and all, to ascertain the actual 'ALLEGED' CVR transcripts.....OH! And while you're at it, get the DVDR transcripts, as well.

I would be happy to translate, for you....just U2U me.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Firstly, Ppl....
I have not had the luxury of examining all of the DFDR data from AAL77/

weedwhacker, given that you haven't examined all of the data and with your 30+ years of flight experience with thousands of hours in the 757/767 and by degrees of separation you knew the FO, etc... in your opinion, is the maths in the OP correct regarding the final few seconds of the alleged Flight AA77?

A brief, concise answer will be sufficient.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by syeager9

 

syeag

I was referring to DME/DME updating, to the FMS....before we had GPS updating to the FMS.

Old days (prior to GPS) the FMS was Iniatialized, at departure airport. We knew to swith to 'Radio-updating'....to allow for VOR/VOR or VOR/DME or DNE/DME or even, when tuned, LOC/DME uptating, as appropriate.

This, the 'early days' of FMS.

You know, of course, that today, we have 'RNP' and 'ANP' standards....and when 'ANP' exceeds parameters, we get an 'alert'.....

Of course, if you have no idea what I'm talking about, then you have now idea what YOU are talking about.

Sorry, I have quote the whole post. Mainly for benefit of others. The key point is INS - Inertial Navigation System that tracks the position. May be it has no meaning to pilots, or not used by pilots in a routine mannar, but it has some meaning to engineers.

It's a number of sensors and gyros coupled with some calculating unit. From the acceleration changes the position of AC can be calculated. Unfortunately they are electromechanical devices that have inherent errors due to friction, precession, etc. that increases with time. Initial position for INS system is set up at the departure time, using passive navigation aids, that also have limited precision. But as time goes on, the error grows. This error is usually small enough to disregard, as AC enters another ATC facility and can be adjusted/recalibrated from other passive aids of navigation.

Today, as I can understand, errors in INS can be corrected using GPS. But back in 2001 GPS wasn't a standard equipment on airliners. So there was no way to calibrate it any time you want it. And things like DME/VOR simply couldn't provide pinpoint accuracy because they were never intended to do so.

So there is no reason to believe that FDR data represent the actual position of AA77.

Originally posted by tezzajw
...
in your opinion, is the maths in the OP correct regarding the final few seconds of the alleged Flight AA77?
...

May be I missed it, but didn't see any math yet. Only conclusions. And I'd like to see the math. Equations used to calculate the final segment of AA77 flight. Can you give me a link, please?

reply to post by syeager9


All formulas, values, equations, sources, and results were presented..

Google Video Link

Please point out which part you disagree with and why.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Why do you have to u2u?

If you feel you have transcripts from "flight 77's" CVR go right ahead and post them.

If you feel it's off topic start a new thread.

That would certainly be worthy of one!

I look forward to seeing it.

Originally posted by syeager9
And a I said before who do I trust? Yellow Pin Guy or NTSB? Give me a single reason I should trust Google Earth Yellow Pin Guy.

The yellow pins are based off the NTSB final reported lat long coordinates from ReadOut2.

If you don't believe me then it is up to you to get the information from the NTSB and plot it on google earth yourself and prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITThe yellow pins are based off the NTSB final reported lat long coordinates from ReadOut2.

If you don't believe me then it is up to you to get the information from the NTSB and plot it on google earth yourself and prove me wrong.

No. buddy. It's reverse logic. It's up to YOU to prove us that yellow pins put on Google Earth by some unknown dude with unknown credentials are true. So far I assume them as false.

Edit:

If you want me to believe into you theory, I need raw FDR data and the method used to derive with yellow pins. If they will match, I will buy the whole thing. However, for some reason, I doubt you or anyone else of CT Snip can give us this information, because so far everything they used was fabricated.

[edit on 9/20/08 by syeager9]



ATS General Discussion Etiquette - PLEASE READ

[edit on 20/9/2008 by Sauron]

reply to post by syeager9


Ok.

If you are going to simply "assume" that the information presented is false without doing any research of your own to verify or refute it that is certainly your prerogative.

Of course I fail to see why you would bother participating in the conversation at all.

Seems rather pointless.

Take care!

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
You see how easy you give up? Because you can't prove a single word you say.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

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.

This story gets even funnier as these idiotic ideas are expressed.

You're telling us that YOU (the collective you) get to pick and choose what parts to accept and what parts to reject. In other words, you can "CHERRY PICK" the information without justification and just ignore solid evidence that proves some aspects might be in error.

That's really not surprising as it's the same thing you do with your witnesses. You accept their rendition of the flight path, but reject their descriptions of actually witnessing the impact.

Pffft's own data proves there is missing data from the FDR. Yet, that part is hand waved away. You then take data from a different segment of the flight path in addition to distorting a math formula in a deceptive effort to prove the aircraft didn't do what physical evidence, all of the investigations (many from non-Government agencies), the thousands of witnesses who rescued survivors, put out the fires, and cleaned up the mess said happened.

I agree that the story does need to add up and it does.

May I remind you that alternative stories must also add up. Where's all of your flyover witnesses?

[edit on 20-9-2008 by Reheat]

reply to post by syeager9


You are not a little baby and I am not posting here to hold your hand.

I can't open the file and plot the coordinates on google earth inside the message board for you to see.

It's been done by independent pilots, engineers, official story supporters, doubters, and people all across the globe.

The coordinates line up with the physical damage so you have no reason to doubt it.

But I appreciate your skepticism and if you feel compelled to verify or refute it on your own kudos to you!


But blanket denial without lifting a finger only exposes you as what is referred to as a psuedo-skeptic.

Argument over flight path details belies the fact that an airliner, last tracked at low altitude heading for the Pentagon and seen by many witnesses, disappeared just as a big hole was punched into the side of the building. The hole was followed by a fuel fire. It was not a cruise missile explosion, it was a fuel fire. The big fireball was due to vaporized Jet-A igniting in the air. The black smoke was due to unburned carbon in an oxygen depleted fire. Cruise missile conventional HE warheads explode in a high order detonation, not a deflagration, and would have appeared to be completely different and produce very different damage. A cruise missile hit is not in the cards for this event unless you wish to claim that a commercial jet is a manned cruise missile.
Further, since no one saw the aircraft fly away and we are certain that a hologram of a large passenger jet cannot clip light poles, the only logical conclusion is that an aircraft hit the Pentagon and that action caused the death of citizens and our military brothers and sisters.
Speculation on how many G's were experienced by the airframe, whether the plane bounced in, where the wings were stripped, or the exact course of the craft prove nothing. The thing that hit was a large passenger jet regardless of course, last second maneuvers, aspect at impact, north or south of a gas station, and, especially, calculated G forces.

Originally posted by syeager9
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

You see how easy you give up? Because you can't prove a single word you say.

I know you already realize it, but don't expect any definitively correct answers from Ranke. He doesn't have a clue, not even a few inklings. He only parrots what he told by Cap'n BoB with absolutely no understanding of whether what he says is correct or not.

Reminder - this is one of the authors of the cockamamie NoC nonsense that is not even aeronautically feasible, let alone had any witnesses to the "airshow" type bank angles required.

reply to post by Reheat




More huffing and puffing and bluffing.

You are not able to prove the information in the OP wrong because it's correct.

Let me know when you are going to address the values, equations, and formulas in the presentation direct and PROVE the point wrong.

Got math?


Otherwise you are merely blowing smoke, looking not very bright, wasting away your golden years, and bumping the thread for us!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Reheat

 

You are not able to prove the information in the OP wrong because it's correct.

YOU don't know if is correct or not.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Let me know when you are going to address the values, equations, and formulas in the presentation direct and PROVE the point wrong.

There is no problem with the formula, but the application of G is executed within a very small segment of the horizontal, which is totally unnecessary and very deceptive. Several others have pointed out this obvious deception, as well. That is enough to refute your conclusions.

If I showed correct a reasonable application of G's which are not even close to what is shown in the video you then come back with "well that is not reflected in the FDR data" the same way you've distorted R. Mackey's original calculations. Your game is very obvious and there is no reason for me to waste my time typing in formulas and equations to counter something convoluted in a bamboozle video instead of a technical paper. It's pointless.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Got math?

Sure, I've got math, but I need 5 months in order to be able to produce a cartoon to counter the one you support.

At least, I don't need over 2 years to come up with a plausible flight path as you've been unable to do.

BTW,. your insults are not working. Got something new in your bag of tricks?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by syeager9

 

You are not a little baby and I am not posting here to hold your hand.

You don't have to, unless you are not so sure you are right and want to test your theory on me. If you 100% sure, it's pointless, of course.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Let me know when you are going to address the values, equations, and formulas in the presentation direct and PROVE the point wrong.

Got math?

On reflection, I've changed my mind.

You post the values, equations, and formulas used for the conclusion here in a post in this Forum and I'll then address it with the same. Others have requested the same, so it's time to pony up and do it to prove the OP.

Sounds like a fair deal, huh?

[edit on 20-9-2008 by Reheat]