G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible

Reheat -

It looks like many here on ATS arent that dumb after all, as you attemptd to imply. They got your number pretty quick...

As for location, it appears the NTSB placed the aircraft based on impact time, speed and time stamps which come from data. Got math? Are you saying the NTSB is wrong, incompetent, lying? Which is it? And no, the CSV file and Flight Path Study are not "working copies". If they are, please quote the NTSB stating such for the csv file and Flight Path Study. Then please quote where the NTSB discloses to the public they were in error regarding their calculated "impact time" of 09:37:45.

As for the "Death Threats" to "Mark Roberts". I love it when you people use a two year old heated internet argument taken out of context to argue current facts in a poor attempt to discredit and derail topics. It shows your desperation and frustration (and paranioa). Anyway, for people who want the facts and to expose ReTreats paranoia...

pilotsfor911truth.org...


Weedwacker -

We arent talking about 2 G's. We're talking about 10-34 G's.


To the rest,

Thank you for your support.

Enjoy your day all!

Rob

Well Guys, It could be True and it could not be...here is the New Zealand Airforce Putting the Same Plane Model Threw its limits at a Airshow..This Video is For Referance. Now im just wondering how many G's did this ACFT pull off? ..

reply to post by PplVSNWO


Well....it's pretty simple, really. 10-34 Gs??

Nah.....I doubt even a Cruise Missile could endure those forces (I'm just saying'....I know nothing about Cruise Missiles...except that they likely haved some sort of Inertial Guidance platform, that would not respond well to 10G forces).

It is difficult to explain, in a forum such as this.

But I will try...a guy with a few hundred hours, who likely had the money to spend a few hours in a Simulator, and who wishes to suicide by flying the airplane into a particular target....could very well do it.

The WTC Towers....sorta showed up, easy targets.

The Pentagon, didn't have a strong profile, from the air.

So (assuming I think like these bastards)....you find your target, fly over it....then circle around, descend and attack.

Trying to parse the details, using after-the-fact data, seems to me to be disengenuous.

AND, dismissive of the victims.

Sorry if this offends some people, but please explain to the families of the victims how any of this serves any purpose.

reply to post by newagent89

I like your position. Think about this: If the United States Federal Government wanted to launch an attack within, would it not be near flawless and any secret government activity invisible to any skeptic, engineer, or scientist? There would not be the hundreds of 'accidents that "prove" the conspiracy'. I mean, come on, if there was a drone or something would the government not realize that thousands would realize it, see it and cause a fuss and rile up other people not to support the government.

This actually has a very simple answer. First off, as with most operations, there are always mishaps and confusion. Especially when something is a 'need to know' operation. You see, there aren't really that many 'accidents' per se rather than 'coincidences'. That's where the story gets all muddled up.

You are also assuming that the factions who could have been responsible for this are 'perfect' people.

The easiest way to confuse an issue is to make it so convoluted that your simple statements of 'silly conspiracies' or 'conspiracy nuts' would hold a lot of weight in the average citizens mind. Psychology shows that if someone is told a lie enough that it will eventually be viewed as truth by those people. Especially a people that have been raised in a 'government' run/funded public school system that says how GOOD the government is and how you need to respect, believe and trust them.

Also, have you seen a drone hit the Pentagon? Did anyone? Did anyone actually see the plane 'impact' the Pentagon? Not really. Most views of the impact site were obscured from view for most witnesses. They saw something fly over and then the fire ball. So, the only video released shows a blur of a thin object (not nearly large enough for a 757) streak and explode into the building.

Yet anyone who questions this evidence is attacked and called all sorts of names.

Also, if they wanted to go into Iraq, why would they need 9/11? Where is all this oil that we supposedly got? I crave this delicious cheap oil!

You are confusing me here. We didn't go into Iraq due to 9/11. Well, at least that wasn't supposed to be the reason. However, 9/11 gave the president and his administration the justification to do a 'pre-emptive' strike against Iraq because of their mythical WMDs. You see, 9/11 is actually closely tied to Iraq because they wouldn't have had the support that they wanted.

As for the oil, who ever said that 'we' the people would get it? No one. The billionaires that already have much of the oil benefitted from this. Not us. The friends of the 'family' (Bush and Cheney families) got it. Not us.

You should read the Project for a New American Century my friend and you will gain a better understanding of WHY we first went to Afghanistan and then into Iraq and are now pounding on the borders of Iran.

I do not like this conspiracy stuff one bit. I think the president knew how easily the common people would be swayed to believe conspiracy theories and that is why he addressed it early on when his opinion polls were still up and people would listen to him. It didn't work out the way he planned. Still when it comes to Iraq, yes it was part of the war on terror, yes it was an easy and satisfying target for the war on terror, yes we will win.

Are you serious? I mean....seriously?

You do not know your history then. First, who put Hussein into power? Second, where is there ANY evidence that Hussein supported ANY terror group? If you want to get down to details you may want to look more closely at what terror groups the CIA has sponsored.

You see, the LIES that got us into Iraq are simply that. Lies. Iraq HATED the terror groups like Al Qaieda. The best thing is this. Al Qaieda never existed in Iraq until we went in. Wow, yet another coincidence. What a joke.

I'm sorry to hear that you so blindly believe everything you are being told by an administration that has been caught in so many lies.

But if conspiracy theorists seriously believe that all eyewitnesses who don't line up with the conspiracy theory must have been brainwashed, then they should just curl up in a small ball and wait for big brother to come and eat their paranoid minds.

Yup. That's what us that actually RESEARCH the lies that certain factions in the government spew out as fact will just have to do. You keep going along and keeping your eyes shut while your rights and liberties get eaten away bit by little bit. Then, when big brother truly has all power and control over all, maybe you will greet them with open arms and a big smile until they take what you THOUGHT was yours.

You are a true product of the government run public school system.

"Trust us. Believe us. DO NOT QUESTION US!"

If the G force calculation were correct, there would be no reason for debate. In that case everyone familiar with aeronautical physics would agree. There would be no argument at all.

The problem is that they are not correct. They are simply for SHOCK VALUE because the original calculations 5 months ago contained a very basic math error and the author of that original article has determined a way to save face by manipulative math.. Firstly, they are based upon a false premise of the position of the aircraft. Secondly, they assume an instantaneous application of G AFTER the aircraft has impacted one of the light poles. No pilot bent on self survival would do that. The assumption inherent in the calculations assumes that the pilot of the aircraft was intent upon impacting the light pole without concern with the ground. Quite frankly, I don't know anyone with that mentality. In real life a pilot would apply G to avoid the ground which would result in much less G requirement within reason with no concern for the light poles which he likely can not see anyway. Instead, what we see in this video is manipulative math at it's finest. The was the specific reason it was done as a video instead of a scientific based paper in order to sucker the gullible minions who will swallow this crap and give them money and praise for a job well done.

Indeed the G forces illustrated are quite impossible and have been manipulatively presented to illustrate exactly that point. All this video will accomplish in the real world is more DVD sales to those stupid enough to pay for it. It will go no further than the trash bin to those familiar with aeronautical physics. Bottom line = It is FRAUDULENT CRAP.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by PplVSNWO

 

AND, dismissive of the victims.

Sorry if this offends some people, but please explain to the families of the victims how any of this serves any purpose.

You see, this is the biggest cop out I can see from anyone who questions the 'questioners' of the official story. Why does it have to involve them? Yes, it is terrible what happened to them and their family members. However, when so many holes and coincidences surround an event like this, it would be disgraceful to the family members to simply ignore it and let the people who pulled it off get away.

Now, all people are asking for is a REAL investigation. That's it. Allow this team access to ALL files that we have on this event. Let them present it in a court of law. How is that being dismissive of the victims?

I have to stop now because this kind of argument simply pisses me off. Trying to deflect a group by attempting a guilt trip. Typical political attack bs there.

reply to post by Reheat


You are not responding to the math or showing WHY Pilots for Truth is incorrect.

Because they are right.

P4T also explained WHY Ryan Mackey has been proven to be a liar.

Mackey's OWN calculations suggest the plane would need to sustain a CONSTANT 4 g's for 4 full seconds from the antenna to the Pentagon wall yet the FDR shows an average of 1.17 g's!!

Mackey specifically stated in his conclusion that based on his calculations "there is no case to be made that the FDR data is inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77".

Yet his own calculations BASED OFF the altitude shown in the FDR comes up with a constant 4 g's that is nowhere to be found in the FDR!

This means he either made a MASSIVE error or he lied.

Now that he has been made aware of it he has exposed himself as a liar until he admits his "error" like true honest scientists/professionals do.

No matter how you slice it his hypothetical 4 g scenario has absolutely NOTHING to do with the evidence or the facts.

I'm sorry....but a very basic fact isn't being discussed here.

The Digital Flight Data Recorder, besides recording the instrument inputs, (i.e., Airspeed, altitude, control surface positions, gear and flap/slat positions, etc. etc. etc).....also records the G-forces....yes, or no?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Could the math and the inputs be presented here and the method used explained for analysis?

I did a quick calc based on the good old a=v^2/r and some trigonometry to determine the radius of the arc flown and I don't arrive at anything like the figures you quoted. I need the actual figures used for height at the start and finish of the arc plus the horizontal distance between the antenna and the poles to assess your results.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Could the math and the inputs be presented here and the method used explained for analysis?

You bet!

Full explanation with all formulas, methods, values, and how they were derived here.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The Digital Flight Data Recorder, besides recording the instrument inputs, (i.e., Airspeed, altitude, control surface positions, gear and flap/slat positions, etc. etc. etc).....also records the G-forces....yes, or no?

Absolutely, yes.

That most certainly is covered in the presentation here.

The average g forces reported for that strecth is a mere 1.17 g's.

This is what proves that Ryan Mackey, the NASA scientist who is the brightest of the pseudo-skeptics who addressed this information when the initial article came out, is a liar.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Thanks for the link but video is beyond the capability of my dialup connection. Is it possible to present the work in text form?

reply to post by Pilgrum


Well I am not the producer of the work so no.

I just posted the thread with the information.

Perhaps Pilots for Truth will eventually re-release it in article format but if you wish to review it in detail I highly recommend you go to an internet cafe or visit a friends house with a faster connection.

Frankly it's important to view the models used and listen to the breakdown of his explanation of the formulas as well as the comparison to other less accurate attempts to figure this out.

Put it this way....this is not a 1 dimensional problem that can be solved with an online calculator.

All this study is irrelevant, until you can prove that all of the eyewitness testimonies that claimed they saw a 757 fly into the side of the Pentagon are ALL mistaken. The only excuses I've heard so far is that "people didn't think what they thought they saw," (because apparently everyone around the Pentagon were idiots, and cannot identify a passenger jet when they see one), and shown a LESS than half-complete list of folks that have been talked to afterwards. And this was coined as solid "proof" that ALL the witnesses were wrong. Oh brother.

Flight paths, time of impact, what a handful of witnesses think they saw, all these mean nothing, if the jet actually impacted the Pentagon. And dozens of witnesses saw just that. And yet, people ignore these reports. Because for some reason, people who did NOT see where the plane went, are magically more reliable (years after the fact), than a much larger base of witnesses who DID see where the plane ended up. It's quite baffling to me how you can come to conclusions when the large and glaring issue of eyewitness testimony is completly ignored, dismissed, or half-explained.

reply to post by fleabit


We show you how the eyewitnesses prove a deception and people scream "where's the math!?" we show you how the math proves a deception and people scream "but what about the eyewitnesses??!".

The eyewitnesses unwittingly yet unanimously prove the impossible official flight path false and therefore that the plane did NOT hit.







It's all going to sink in for you soon enough.

I normally don't follow this kind of ludicrous crappola. This may have already been asked.............

If.......just if a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, then what happened to the plane? Where did it and all the passengers go??

All I got.

Quick question .. I believe the video presented could be a correct interpretation of the evidence ..

My question . Would it have been possible at all for the plane to be on its side as it came by the tower and level out from that as apposed to leveling from the height proposed ?


Say banking HARD near the tower to give the correct flight plan proposed .
Yet lower than proposed . It seems to me it would have had the time to level out . And would have been able to be way lower than said ..

Again . I don't believe the "official story" I don't have a firm counter claim . But is there any models that take a hard bank into consideration?

Guys grow up why don't you try to under stand one thing YOUR GOV *SNIP* you.While you busy in your day to day life.Your banks are getting *SNIP* too.So its better to come out of illusion that your are world power anymore .And asked your gov to clear their stand what they are think about your future,rest is time pass like this thread .Sorry it hurts but thats the truth...understand it or keep paying ..choice is completely yours

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9/19/2008 by Hal9000]

reply to post by d11_m_na_c05


That is not a possibility.

You see the reason this information is so definitive is that it is based off the values provided by the government from the alleged "black box".

So in other words, this is not a hypothetical analysis based off speculation.

The drastic wing tilt you describe is not reflected in the data in any way, however, even if it was this would not change the necessary descent and pull up required to hit the light poles and end up low and level with the ground in the security video and reflected by the physical damage.

This is impossible no matter how you slice it.

reply to post by d11_m_na_c05


d11....allow me to explain how airplanes fly....OH! I already did.

Allow me to try again.

Certainly, it is possible to exceed a 45 degree bank angle, using a B757 or B767. Actually, once you exceed about 35 degrees of bank, you get a verbal warning.....it says "Bank Angle, Bank Angle' in a male voice, over and over again.

But, if you intend to fly the airplane in a suicide manner, you really don't give a hoot about the warnings, now do you???

Same goes with the 'high-low' siren that is, really, the Master Warning sound. It is the same sound for an overspeed, and it's the same sound for an engine fire.....but, since no one on this discussion page seems to have actually flown a B757 or B767, this is moot....and pointless to discuss.

Doesn't matter, much....that those who don't have any idea what they're talking about, try to talk about stuff they don't know anything about.