G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible

Originally posted by TheBobert
reply to post by Reheat

 

*snip* Off Topic Reference Deleted

Mods may delete your post and may not. However I will try to preserve it as a quote for historical reasons. You see, bragging about degrees and qualifications serves no purpose on forums like this, unless you are real known person and can prove it. Let's just drop this stuff. People on forums are judged not by what they say about themselves, but by what they can say about the subject. Perhaps you can add some info about yourself, but not as an "evidence" of superior knowledge/experience over other members. This is just stupid and only diminishes your credibility.

[edit on 9/20/08 by syeager9]

[edit on 9/20/2008 by semperfortis]

reply to post by syeager9


Judging by some of the information you ask for in your posts, I am guessing you have not been to the pilots for truth forum. There are threads there that answer many of your questions.
Debunking FDR debunking:
pilotsfor911truth.org...
AA77 NTSB data:
pilotsfor911truth.org...
Flight 77 latitude and longitude data:
pilotsfor911truth.org...
Find FDR raw data here:
www.aa77fdr.com...
FDR raw open source converter:
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Hope these help some.

Originally posted by Reheat

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.

Distorted Mackey's calculations?

I simply refer to them as they are. HE is the one who concluded a necessary constant 4 g's for a full 4 seconds from the antenna to the Pentagon wall.

Agreed?

How did I "distort" that?

Obviously I didn't because that is what HE concluded.

OF COURSE I come back with "well that is not reflected in the FDR"!

Are you saying it was? Of course not because you know it wasn't.

It shows an average of 1.17 g's for that segment all the way to the Pentagon wall. HUGE difference.

Do you think you get to simply dismiss the official data when discussing the official story?

Mackey LIED when he said that based on his calculations:

"there is no case to be made that the FDR data is inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77"

-Ryan Mackey

However his calculations based on the NTSB reported altitude concluded a necessary 4 g's and this is FAR from the 1.17 average shown in the FDR.

It's like you have no idea what it is we are even discussing here.

Don't worry I'll post a separate thread on this fully exposing Mackey soon enough.

reply to post by PplVSNWO
Thanks for the links. First thing I noticed is that in NTSB csv file lat/log coordinates are rounded to a full minute, that means the accuracy of +/- .5NM for lat and about .25NM for long. And yes, I checked the precision in excel. But it's just a text field. Will keep digging. Will try to decode it myself and see what push pins I will come up with.

And how www.AA77FDR.com got the stuff to begin with? Some inside job, or it's also published on some official site? At least NTSB part of it? AA77FDR didn't say.

CIT and pilots for truth have no idea where Flight 77 is. The FDR says 77 is over 8 seconds away from impact when the FDR data ends. CIT and pilots for truth mistakenly place Flight 77 where ever they want.

When you watch the pilots for truth video, using their method for calculating G-loading, you can use any radius you want to get any G-loading you wish. This is how they get 10 Gs, and 34 Gs by making up a turn radius that make no sense.

Reality is, the terrorist pilot was making descent rates all within 1.7 to .2 Gs, and these limits are sufficient to hit all the lamppost and the Pentagon as seen by witnesses on 9/11.

Why are CIT and pilots for truth using data from the FDR found inside the Pentagon? Irony, the FDR found in the Pentagon is used to support this video.

Where is 77 when the last data is written to the FDR? Over 6 to 8 seconds from impact. Anyone can figure this out using all the evidence out there. Why hasn't CIT?

So what your saying is that the pentagon building just decided to implode on itself...sure has heck looked like a plane crashed there to me. It cracks me up how 100's of people saw, heard, and felt a plane crash, but there are people so caught up in saying everything is a lie that they won't even believe when a plane CRASHED into a BUILDING.

reply to post by syeager9


The navigation system in the 757 used on 9/11 has an accuracy of 2000 to 3000 feet. So the storage resolution is good. The files you found are fine.

The DME store in the FDR, or CSV file is only stored as .0, .2, .5, .8. In addition the FAA required resolution for storage in only 1 NM. Further, the accuracy of a 757 like Flight 77 for the DME is up to 0.23 NM or close to 1600 feet. The Aeronautical Information Manual for 2001 tells you the accuracy of the aircraft DME system is less than ½ mile, or 3 percent of the distance which ever is greater.

If someone claims they know Flight 77 is at 1.5 DME for instance. They are not being realist, the actually position has an uncertainty based on the storage resolution of 0.25 NM and an accuracy of 0.23 NM typical for that year 757 DME system.

This becomes important when people try to claim Flight 77 is at a certain position to set up the initial conditions such as this thread. I reality the best position without confirmation from the FDR is 2000 to 3000 feet off. When someone says 77 is in a certain position, they are not correct until they correlate that position with some other information such as RADAR data positions from ATC, which are more accurate. If time is take to line up the FDR data with RADAR data from ATC, the position of 77 is about 6 seconds from the Pentagon when the FDR data ends. This makes some of the ideas presented in the video wrong.

Its very simple..... just do a google earth search of the Pentagon and zoom out slightly untill you see the airport at the lower right section of your screen. Using the measure feature of google earth click on the approximate location of the impact area and then backtrack to the southern end of the runway..... look closely at the green line !!

Looks to be about 3 degrees off the long axis of the runway !!!

reply to post by Reheat


I would LOVE for jref to allow me to post so I could take up with Mackey direct.

Alas they will not which is why I posted this open letter explaining the situation and virtually begging them to let me post.

I would be there in a second.

See if you can pull some strings or something to get me back on.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
...
FAR from the 1.17 average shown in the FDR....



Oops. You can't average the Gs!

The fact is the terrorist pilot was loosing altitude consistent with low g 1.7 to .2 Gs, to hit all the lampposts and the Pentagon without doing a single high g pull-up.

The video shows a single pull up of less than a fraction of a second, something that is never done.

Mackey's work stands even with the new video show the worse method ever seen to figure G forces. Using any radius you want for a circle, you can get any G force you want! Reality the terrorist was in a slight PIO, and he was going from .2 to 1.7 Gs.

To average the G as you are doing is not reality. In reality the terrorist can go from the top of the VDOT tower to impacting the Pentagon and with his standard PIO, hit all the lampposts and just miss impacting the overpass to hit the Pentagon. All this G gyrations to average out to aiming at the Pentagon. Lucky for the terrorist all he had to do is keep the Pentagon in his aim point, he never felt the lamppost since we use breakaway post to keep people safe! If he had to worry about the pilot for truth obtuse turn radius G-force calculation he would have hit the ground in failure; much like the video does.

We have erratic pitch control by the terrorist pilot, seen above with G sampled 8 times a second. But with all that, we have descent rates like this for the last several seconds.

From 6 seconds prior to impact, we have the follow chart of actual MSL values inserting the real values form a section of flight the terrorist actually did. Backing off from the Pentagon, using real feet per second the terrorist did, six second prior to impact. Remember, Flight 77 FDR is missing data, and is over 6 seconds away from impact. This is why pilots for truth are wrong about the NTSB height over the VDOT tower, 77 is not there, it is further away. They do not know where it is.

MSL, feet above sea level on the left and seconds on the right backing up from the Pentagon using real feet per second lost, and Gs as show above sampled 8 times a second on the Gs. Thus very close to what may of happen, this brings 77 within 20 to 30 feet of hitting the first lamppost. Remember this data is from six seconds prior, there is no data for the final 6 seconds. Like other disasters, data is missing from the FDR. There are examples of data missing from FDRs, at least one, the same model used in Flight 77. So lost data happens; some people make excuse for lost data, but it happens. To say it is impossible is a lie.

With little changes from what the terrorist actually flew, all the lamppost can be hit without major G-forces.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Reheat

 

I would LOVE for jref to allow me to post so I could take up with Mackey direct.

Alas they will not which is why I posted this open letter explaining the situation and virtually begging them to let me post.

I would be there in a second.

See if you can pull some strings or something to get me back on.

Where are you hiding your hard evidence? You can't position Flight 77 from the FDR and RADAR data.

The G force in the video is ridiculous, an arbitrary radius is used to calculate G-force. Using the method in the video any range of G force can be calculated using different radius. Using realistic motion the work by Mackey stands, making the 10 G work in the video ludicrous.

forums.randi.org...

reply to post by beachnut


Those are not proper sentences as required by proper English.

However your graph demonstrates how Mackey's own calculations of a necessary constant 4g's is clearly NOT reflected in the data.

Thanks for helping to prove Mackey a liar!

Craig, I posted this a few pages ago but I didn't notice your response.

Didn't you tell me that this sort of maths could not prove anything when it came to bank angles? Are you not now using the exact same principle to disprove the "official story"? Does this not make my criticism valid?

Originally posted by exponent

Didn't you tell me that this sort of maths could not prove anything when it came to bank angles?

What "sort of maths"?

Is that kind of like the "internets"?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote me, and link it so we can see what context it's in, and I will clarify further whatever it is that I said that you don't understand.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
What "sort of maths"?

Radial acceleration.

Quote me, and link it so we can see what context it's in, and I will clarify further whatever it is that I said that you don't understand.

Craig Ranke at CIT forum
Do whatever you want but whatever results you get from your fabricated values will not and can not prove that all the witnesses simultaneously hallucinated the plane in the same place while NONE saw it where it needed to be to match the NTSB data and physical damage.
z3.invisionfree.com...

Now I know this statement is incorrect on its head (plenty of people saw the plane match NTSB data, but lets leave that for now). How is it that I have "fabricated" values, but when you take a ludicrously small section of descent and decide that this is the required area for 'pull-up', you are not fabricating values?

I took the absolute best case scenario for your theory and found that the maths showed it to be unlikely. You have taken an extremely small section of the flight for which you have no verifiable data and used the exact same physical principles and now claim this proves something. How can this prove something, wheras my more valid analysis proves nothing?

reply to post by exponent


*snip*

Snide Comments Removed: MOD Note: Please review This Link: Civility and Decorum Are Mandatory


Anyway....

You can not compare eyewitness testimony with government supplied data from the alleged FDR.

You would be comparing two completely opposite types of evidence sets.

Apples to oranges.

Eyewitness evidence comes from the human mind and is subjective (not mathematical) and the mechanically generated FDR data is the opposite.

I can't believe I need to explain this.



[edit on 9/21/2008 by semperfortis]

i havent gotten a chance to read this thread in full detail yet which i hope to do very soon but 1st i gotta comment

you know whats REALLY frustrating

trying to find information

yet all you have is people bickering over semantics

yet the people bickering and yada yada yada dont really ever show hard proof to all their claims

the way this thread needs to go in order to be beneficial to mankind is that


the op needed to post his topic

then everyone else who isnt providing proof or some form of intelligent debate need to just shut the *snip*,,,,

everyone of these threads lately(past couple months) turn out to be truthers verse non truthers religious verse non religious blue verse green blah verse blah and no one ever provides evidence for or against and the little thats there is almost impossible to find in between all the crap
and when they do post something informational all that happens is other idiots come on the thread and talk about how stupid the op is or so n so this and so n so that

and they make all these big claims but nothings ever backed up

ats needs to go back to how it used to be not TOOO long ago and actually have information posted within their threads and not childish ignorant highschool style arguments


if this math is right lets have a mathemetician come on here and explain how its right

if its wrong lets have someone explain how its wrong.... i dont want ats free speech censored but it would be nice to have it censored enough to at least to remove the bickering morons

and yea be4 any1 else says it
no i did not add any math to this thread, which i talk about wanting ppl to do or just shup up

i know im being hypocritical by posting this
but my intention isnt to bicker
its to maybe help ppl realize that the way they are going about things isnt helping and maybe if i help ppl realize that then that will improve this website
(maybe thats naive wishful thinking)

so ive made this post risking hypocrisy in order to hopefully open ppls eyes so we can actually find out whats true and whats not without having to weed thru 100 pages of *snip*

but this bs that continues for 20 pages, thread after thread after thread with just worthless ranting needs to stop and i hope somehow the mods can find a way to put a end to that bs on this site

i dont want the site censored but damn ppl if we all just act like little school yard kids thats all thats going to happen to this website

MOD Note: Please Don't Evade The Automatic Censors

[edit on 9/21/2008 by semperfortis]