Another slant on G Force

NASA Scientist Ryan Mackey

• They flew an aircraft over the Pentagon
  
• The aircraft traveled along a different heading entirely, on the opposite side of a visible landmark (viz. the Citgo station)
  
• The aircraft passed nowhere near the light poles in question
  
• The light poles were sabotaged anyway, in some completely different fashion than aircraft impact
  
• One light pole was staged to penetrate the windshield of a car, in traffic, again despite the actual aircraft not passing anywhere near overhead
  
• A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by
  
• The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual
  
• The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77
  
• A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft

Yes indeed. The 9-11 perpetrators sure did pull some crazy stunts.

Originally posted by exponent
I disagree with the FAAs animation yes. It is obviously incorrect by anyone's standards, and I doubt it was prepared with any sort of forensic accuracy.

You doubt? Or do you know?

If you don't know for a fact, doesn't that mean that you too are picking and choosing which evidence to use as it fits your theory?

There doesn't seem to be any FDR or radar information for this portion of the flight, and so it was simply estimated. The plane's bank may have been automatically entered, but it's hard to know.

So, there's no data for this portion but all you debunkers know exactly what happened in that portion? I'm confused again as you blaim others for picking and choosing but then do the same?

Originally posted by exponent
there are only three eyewitnesses who can reliably state that the plane passed north of the Citgo station, and those are the three at the Citgo station. It is interesting that they all corroborate each other,

When you type the word 'reliably' should we infer that you believe these witnesses are telling the truth and that the plane did fly North of Citgo?

If so, how do you reconcile the damage to the Pentagon, given that you state these witnesses are reliably placing the alleged plane on a different flight path from the official story?

Originally posted by Griff
You doubt? Or do you know?

If you don't know for a fact, doesn't that mean that you too are picking and choosing which evidence to use as it fits your theory?

Not at all, as I explained there doesn't seem to be any FDR or Radar data for this portion of the flight and as this animation disagrees with all theories, it's quite likely it was produced simple as an illustrative model.

It certainly does disagree with my theory, but the problem is that there seems no solid data to back it up.

So, there's no data for this portion but all you debunkers know exactly what happened in that portion? I'm confused again as you blaim others for picking and choosing but then do the same?

We know what happened in that portion because there is physical and eyewitness evidence to show it. If it did not travel on that path, the following would have to be faked without any evidence to show for it:

• Light pole damage
  
• Generator, ground structure and pentagon impact damage
  
• Passenger DNA
  
• Aircraft debris
  
• Passenger personal effects
  
• Nearly 100 eyewitness accounts (I believe, I can give you more accurate figures if you need)

This evidence, which we have no solid information to claim was faked, is more extensive and more reliable than the opposing evidence. Therefore it is most likely the plane passed south of the Citgo and indeed impacted The Pentagon.

Originally posted by tezzajw
When you type the word 'reliably' should we infer that you believe these witnesses are telling the truth and that the plane did fly North of Citgo?

I don't believe they are right, but they are certainly in the best position to be able to tell, and I'm sure they believe they are correct.

Eyewitness accounts are notoriously inaccurate, but it is interesting that all 3 corroborate each other. Unfortunately we don't know the situation the interviews were conducted in, and we can't rule out CITs interview style. I'm not going to make any accusations of this though because I have little evidence in this vein.

Originally posted by exponent
This evidence, which we have no solid information to claim was faked, is more extensive and more reliable than the opposing evidence. Therefore it is most likely the plane passed south of the Citgo and indeed impacted The Pentagon.

Out of the "hundreds" of witnesses, why can't you guys come up with as many to counter CIT's eyewitnesses? Please post the interviews of at least 14 people stating that the plane flew south of the Citgo. Where these 14 people were at the time and their relation to the Citgo. Thanks.

posted by exponent
This evidence, which we have no solid information to claim was faked, is more extensive and more reliable than the opposing evidence. Therefore it is most likely the plane passed south of the Citgo and indeed impacted The Pentagon.

Oposted by Griff
Out of the "hundreds" of witnesses, why can't you guys come up with as many to counter CIT's eyewitnesses? Please post the interviews of at least 14 people stating that the plane flew south of the Citgo. Where these 14 people were at the time and their relation to the Citgo. Thanks.

This would be the approximate view of the two separate aircraft if a person were standing across the road (Hwy 27) from the #1 light pole. The two flight paths are about 150-250 feet apart depending upon where exactly the CIT eyewitnesses place the north of Citgo flight path. Of course we know exactly where the official Flight 77 flight path is supposed to be.



For witnesses much further south standing or in their cars driving north, the size differential between the opposing aircraft would be much closer and a person might be convinced by an aggressive FBI agent or manipulative MSM journalist that the far aircraft was much closer than it really was, and that it actually hit the Pentagon where the huge Hollywood special effects explosion(s) appeared.

Of course since the actual aircraft flight path was over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo, we all now realize that the nearer aircraft could not possibly be in that position. There is just no possible way for the aircraft to jink its way over to the #1 light pole. And if the aircraft cannot take out the five light poles, then there is no possible way it can create the damage path inside the Pentagon either.

Alleged Flight 77 aircraft Damage Pattern Through the Pentagon 1st Story

Many of those 'hundreds' of witnesses have already been proven to be no witnesses at all to the Flight 77 757 aircraft; although Arabesque refuses to correct his terribly flawed website. People located in such places as their office 10 miles away or the passenger station at Reagan with the hi-rise buildings of Crystal City blocking their view should not be included as witnesses; 2nd and 3rd hand accounts are not bonafide witnesses. How can persons without a last name be considered as eyewitnesses? Shouldn't all witnesses to a crime be verifiable? If someone is arrested for this crime, shouldn't they be able to face their accusers? Shouldn't their lawyers be allowed to know who accuses them of this crime and question them during 'voir dire'? Shouldn't we all be able to verify these alleged 'hundreds' of witnesses to judge whether they were quoted properly or if the MSM reporters even bothered to question them? The supporters of the official flight path are frightened to attempt to track down witnesses, because instinctively they know that it would be a fruitless effort.

Originally posted by exponent
I don't believe they are right, but they are certainly in the best position to be able to tell, and I'm sure they believe they are correct.

So you, who wasn't there, don't believe that they were correct, when they were there and saw the alleged plane with their own eyes.

Ok, fair enough. I can detect a little hypocrisy in that statement, but that's entirely your choice, what you wish to believe and disregard.

Eyewitness accounts are notoriously inaccurate, but it is interesting that all 3 corroborate each other.

I agree. I would find it difficult to believe one eyewitness. However, these three (and others that you discard) DO corroborate each other and are adamant that they saw the plane North of Citgo.

posted by exponent
Eyewitness accounts are notoriously inaccurate, but it is interesting that all 3 corroborate each other.

posted by tezzajw
I agree. I would find it difficult to believe one eyewitness. However, these three (and others that you discard) DO corroborate each other and are adamant that they saw the plane North of Citgo.

I cannot see what exponent finds wrong with the Arlington Cemetery eyewitnesses. They were previously published and they were interviewed by the Center for Military History (CMH) way back in 2001 right after 9-11. It was not their decision to have their interviews (several hundred) censored from the American public. They also had nothing to do with the release of their own interviews in 2008. They just answered the questions to their best abilities.



Fortunately a FOIA lawsuit resulted in the ordering of the release of a dozen interviews by the CMH. Even though their names were redacted from the interviews, CIT still managed to track most of them down and reinterview them. These ANC eyewitnesses were very self-assured and confident of what they had seen flying towards them from over the Naval Annex and flying over their heads north of the Citgo. I saw them as good honest eyewitnesses without any particular bias. And they seemed quite certain about the banking to the right of the aircraft they had witnessed.

Google Video Link

The ANC eyewitnesses seemed to be quite capable witnesses and I haven't seen where their testimony differed from their CMH interviews; they were just questioned more thoroughly and on-site where they could interact more accurately with their surroundings. I wonder what exponent finds wrong with them?

Google Video Link

Originally posted by Griff
Out of the "hundreds" of witnesses, why can't you guys come up with as many to counter CIT's eyewitnesses? Please post the interviews of at least 14 people stating that the plane flew south of the Citgo. Where these 14 people were at the time and their relation to the Citgo. Thanks.

Because nobody interviewed people trying to ascertain this. However with some simple logic, I can show you this many that do counter CITs eyewitnesses.

It works like this:

The only way that the plane could have hit the building, is if it were on a south side trajectory. If the plane were on a north side trajectory it could not have hit the building because of the documented damage patterns.

Therefore, anyone who saw the plane impact the building is confirmation of a south side path.

Of course CIT will deny this by claiming that witnesses were somehow fooled into seeing the aircraft impact when it actually flew over. This is a very weak rationalisation used to deny the extensive eyewitness accounts including some or all of their own witnesses.

I'm not going to debate their assumption, because of course it's not based on evidence, just "it could have happened, therefore it must have happened". I'm not even confident it could have happened. You can check out the list of witnesses for yourself though: wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

It's also interesting to note that at least 2 people CIT interviewed directly confirm a south side path, but CIT finds a way to discredit them.

Originally posted by tezzajw
So you, who wasn't there, don't believe that they were correct, when they were there and saw the alleged plane with their own eyes.

Ok, fair enough. I can detect a little hypocrisy in that statement, but that's entirely your choice, what you wish to believe and disregard.

I can show you quotes from firefighters at Ground Zero on 911 who claim the North Tower fell before the South Tower.

Are they right? Or are you willing to disregard it as confusion? We're talking about an event here which by anyone's measure lasted under 15 seconds, and occurred something like 5-6 years before anyone put pen to paper to indicate the aircraft path.

Now like I say, it is interesting they corroborate each other, but they also all claim the aircraft impacted, and this is completely at odds with their previous statement. They must be wrong about one of these facts, and there is a gigantic amount more evidence to suggest the plane impacted.

edit:

Originally posted by SPreston
I cannot see what exponent finds wrong with the Arlington Cemetery eyewitnesses.

They are all north of the plane's path, therefore their ability to judge ground position is based only upon judging distance. This is not reliable as I'm sure you're aware. Many people have not even seen an aircraft in "full scale", and judging the distance of a moving object to within the accuracy needed is not going to happen.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by exponent]

I've gone over this problem a few more times and as yet there's no way the plane needs to pull anything like 10g to perform the maneuver - the official maneuver that is, passing near the VDOT tower, hitting light poles and impacting the Pentagon. Even if we throw out the FDR, there are witnesses at all three of those points

The problem is somewhat more complex than can be accounted for with a single arc or constant-g parabola and those solutions can only be used to get an idea of the average forces. The plane's initial pitch (about -5 degrees) is less than what's needed to adjust to those average arcs so the initial move is to pull less than 1G, actually up to 0 or even slightly negative, in order to get the plane on an arc to pass through the poles and level out ~100m before hitting the building. Even in that more realistic case the G forces are still not what I'd consider excessive at less than 4g maximum.

The conjectured northside path with a severe right bank is far less survivable, even if we disregard the loss of lift which would have put it into the ground before it reached the building.

So I'm still asking why the PFT feels that the plane needed to perform the pullup in a short enough distance to produce sensational g figures unless it's to make the northside path including bank look less stressful by comparison. If the answer is to do with clearing certain obstacles, I believe the double arc maneuver I mentioned above can resolve that issue neatly.


[edit on 11/10/2008 by Pilgrum]

posted by SPreston
I cannot see what exponent finds wrong with the Arlington Cemetery eyewitnesses.

posted by exponent
They are all north of the plane's path, therefore their ability to judge ground position is based only upon judging distance. This is not reliable as I'm sure you're aware. Many people have not even seen an aircraft in "full scale", and judging the distance of a moving object to within the accuracy needed is not going to happen.

No you are mistaken. You need to watch the interviews again. The ANC eyewitnesses watched the aircraft come over the roof of the Naval Annex straight towards them. The Naval Annex is unmistakeable. An aircraft above the Naval Annex cannot be mistaken for an aircraft along the official flight path and several hundred feet to the south of the Naval Annex.



Then the ANC eyewitnesses watched the aircraft fly north of the Citgo, banking to its right and almost over their heads and the ANC parking lot. There is no possible way this aircraft could be mistaken for an aircraft far to the south on a descending flight path through the light poles.



Furthermore they were looking up at the aircraft above them and above the nearby trees after it passed the Citgo, while an aircaft along the official flight path would necessarily need to be at a much lower altitude to the south, dashing down the hill in order to strike the #1 light pole. You are severely mistaken.




[edit on 10/12/08 by SPreston]

posted by Pilgrum
I've gone over this problem a few more times and as yet there's no way the plane needs to pull anything like 10g to perform the maneuver - the official maneuver that is, passing near the VDOT tower, hitting light poles and impacting the Pentagon. Even if we throw out the FDR, there are witnesses at all three of those points

The problem is somewhat more complex than can be accounted for with a single arc or constant-g parabola and those solutions can only be used to get an idea of the average forces. The plane's initial pitch (about -5 degrees) is less than what's needed to adjust to those average arcs so the initial move is to pull less than 1G, actually up to 0 or even slightly negative, in order to get the plane on an arc to pass through the poles and level out ~100m before hitting the building. Even in that more realistic case the G forces are still not what I'd consider excessive at less than 4g maximum.

The conjectured northside path with a severe right bank is far less survivable, even if we disregard the loss of lift which would have put it into the ground before it reached the building.

So I'm still asking why the PFT feels that the plane needed to perform the pullup in a short enough distance to produce sensational g figures unless it's to make the northside path including bank look less stressful by comparison. If the answer is to do with clearing certain obstacles, I believe the double arc maneuver I mentioned above can resolve that issue neatly.

How did the official Flight 77 complete the dive from its FDR flight path to the hypothetical Mackey 4G manuever at 535 mph? None of this is indicated by the FDR. Nobody saw it.



And apparently according to Ryan Mackey's scale, each story of the Pentagon was 100 feet. No. Each story was about 12-13 ft and the aircraft allegedly fit inside that 12-13 ft clearance area beneath the 2nd story floor slab and entered through a tiny 16 ft wide hole.


[edit on 10/12/08 by SPreston]

posted by SPreston
I cannot see what exponent finds wrong with the Arlington Cemetery eyewitnesses.

posted by exponent
They are all north of the plane's path, therefore their ability to judge ground position is based only upon judging distance. This is not reliable as I'm sure you're aware. Many people have not even seen an aircraft in "full scale", and judging the distance of a moving object to within the accuracy needed is not going to happen.

It turns out that Darius Prather was also interviewed by the Center for Military History right after 9-11. This audio mp3 was just released of his interview. As you can see, his testimony has not changed since then and he confirms that the aircraft came over the Naval Annex towards him and north of the Citgo. He also confirms that the C-130 came from the west, and not from the southwest as shown by the faked RADES data, about 5 minutes after the explosion.



So Darius was interviewed twice and totally contradicts the official fairy tale. So why is it again exponent, that you hypocritically toss these ANC eyewitnesses accounts aside in contempt?

http:// www.thepentacon.com /DariusPrather.mp3

Darius personally handdrew this estimate of the aircraft flight path
he witnessed. The x marks his location at ANC.


The ANC eyewitnesses show where they saw the C-130
approach from minutes after the explosion

Originally posted by SPreston
No you are mistaken. You need to watch the interviews again. The ANC eyewitnesses watched the aircraft come over the roof of the Naval Annex straight towards them. The Naval Annex is unmistakeable. An aircraft above the Naval Annex cannot be mistaken for an aircraft along the official flight path and several hundred feet to the south of the Naval Annex.

Unfortunately this is incorrect, Google Earth is not completely accurate, but should suffice for this purpose.

The top line here passes over the rightmost (from their point of view) point of the Navy Annex. The bottom line indicates the last available RO2 position.


If these lines are continued and compared, the result looks like this:


The distance between these two paths is approximately 110m. This is a tiny distance and clearly the two witnesses who indicated that it came from the middle or to the left of the annex roof do not disagree with the "official story" in any way.

Furthermore they were looking up at the aircraft above them and above the nearby trees after it passed the Citgo, while an aircaft along the official flight path would necessarily need to be at a much lower altitude to the south, dashing down the hill in order to strike the #1 light pole. You are severely mistaken.

The flight path you have posted is appropriately approximated at a level circular turn of radius 550m. This is an extremely tight turn, and even at extremely slow speeds (the aircraft would be in serious danger of stalling) it can't be achieved with a bank angle under 55 degrees. Nobody reported this severe a bank and as I have already explained, there is far more physical evidence available to indicate the plane hit. At reasonable speeds, this bank angle increases to at least 75 degrees.

And apparently according to Ryan Mackey's scale, each story of the Pentagon was 100 feet. No. Each story was about 12-13 ft and the aircraft allegedly fit inside that 12-13 ft clearance area beneath the 2nd story floor slab and entered through a tiny 16 ft wide hole.

R Mackey is using ASL not AGL for the scale I believe. The hole at The Pentagon was far bigger than "16 ft" and you can easily see in this composite picture the extent of the damage:


With regards to your other point about the initial manuever, Mackey's diagram does not take into account downward pitch, but this is the worst case scenario and is unlikely. This problem does not occur in any of the other scenarios.

[edit on 12-10-2008 by exponent]

I'm not real sure about all this "G" force stuff, but I have it on good authority that last night I found a "G" spot! Life is goooooooood!

posted by SPreston
No you are mistaken. You need to watch the interviews again. The ANC eyewitnesses watched the aircraft come over the roof of the Naval Annex straight towards them. The Naval Annex is unmistakeable. An aircraft above the Naval Annex cannot be mistaken for an aircraft along the official flight path and several hundred feet to the south of the Naval Annex.

posted by exponent
Unfortunately this is incorrect, Google Earth is not completely accurate, but should suffice for this purpose.

The top line here passes over the rightmost (from their point of view) point of the Navy Annex. The bottom line indicates the last available RO2 position.

The distance between these two paths is approximately 110m. This is a tiny distance and clearly the two witnesses who indicated that it came from the middle or to the left of the annex roof do not disagree with the "official story" in any way.

Utter nonsense. Are you claiming the ANC eyewitnesses could see that far past the roof of the Naval Annex? They could not. They were down below the Naval Annex. They could just barely see the top of the much taller Sheraton, and you desperately want them to see an aircraft much further away than that? The top of the Sheraton is barely visible even from much further away across Hwy 27.

Sean Boger spotted the aircraft over the roof of the Navy Annex coming directly at him. If the aircraft was coming directly at him from the VDOT antenna on the left side of the photo, it would have completely missed the light poles and the official impact hole. Boger placed the aircraft to the right of the Citgo as did the ANC eyewitnesses. If the aircraft was coming straight at him and banked to his left, then how could Boger mistake it for your imaginary aircraft way over on the official flight path and nowhere near the Naval Annex? He verified the accounts of the ANC eyewitnesses.



The ANC eyewitnesses are located to the right of the photo and closer to Hwy 27 than the Citgo. They are much lower than the Naval Annex and could not possibly have seen your imaginary plane way out beyond the Sheraton.

posted by SPrestonFurthermore they were looking up at the aircraft above them and above the nearby trees after it passed the Citgo, while an aircaft along the official flight path would necessarily need to be at a much lower altitude to the south, dashing down the hill in order to strike the #1 light pole. You are severely mistaken.

posted by exponent
The flight path you have posted is appropriately approximated at a level circular turn of radius 550m. This is an extremely tight turn, and even at extremely slow speeds (the aircraft would be in serious danger of stalling) it can't be achieved with a bank angle under 55 degrees. Nobody reported this severe a bank and as I have already explained, there is far more physical evidence available to indicate the plane hit. At reasonable speeds, this bank angle increases to at least 75 degrees.

That also is utter nonsense. You do not know the capabilities of the aircraft You do not know the possible modifications to the aircraft. You do not even know the speed of the aircraft. Unless you are claiming the eyewitnesses are all lying, they saw it happen above their heads and therefore it happened. It is rather sickening watching you wallow through your desperate denial. What do you have against justice for the innocent victims of 9-11?

posted by SPreston
And apparently according to Ryan Mackey's scale, each story of the Pentagon was 100 feet. No. Each story was about 12-13 ft and the aircraft allegedly fit inside that 12-13 ft clearance area beneath the 2nd story floor slab and entered through a tiny 16 ft wide hole.

posted by exponent
R Mackey is using ASL not AGL for the scale I believe. The hole at The Pentagon was far bigger than "16 ft" and you can easily see in this composite picture the extent of the damage:


With regards to your other point about the initial manuever, Mackey's diagram does not take into account downward pitch, but this is the worst case scenario and is unlikely. This problem does not occur in any of the other scenarios.

No, the initial hole was not much bigger than 16 feet. NASA scientist Ryan Mackey is a disinformation specialist. His nonsense has been totally disproven and is useless for you to keep flim-flamming the unwary with. The actual flight path has been proven over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo, rendering the opinions of Ryan Mackey as worthless propaganda. The proven north of Citgo flight path has apparently convinced even the FAA.



Link to update FAA video source - 1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Find the file, right click on it, and download it to your hard drive

Originally posted by SPreston

No, the initial hole was not much bigger than 16 feet.

Ya got any proof of that? Or is this just your aeronautical intellect shining through?

Originally posted by SPreston

How did the official Flight 77 complete the dive from its FDR flight path to the hypothetical Mackey 4G manuever at 535 mph? None of this is indicated by the FDR. Nobody saw it.

And apparently according to Ryan Mackey's scale, each story of the Pentagon was 100 feet. No. Each story was about 12-13 ft and the aircraft allegedly fit inside that 12-13 ft clearance area beneath the 2nd story floor slab and entered through a tiny 16 ft wide hole.

True - the FDR didn't record that maneuver. It also didn't record the far more severe banking maneuver you're trying to push here. I checked the numbers and for the approx horizontal turn radius of 550m at 463 knots I get a vector for G in excess of 10G requiring a bank of about 85 degrees at least. Even if the speed was lowered to the 'barber pole' at about 340 knots the figures are still about 6G and 80 degrees bank. Both highly unlikely to have happened in a commercial passenger aircraft.

For the pilots out there - how much altitude would you expect to lose in 3 seconds or so in such an extreme bank?
I doubt the plane would make it to the building from the altitudes described by witnesses, let alone achieve a fly-over.

Ryan Mackey's figures are good and obviously far more survivable in terms of forces than the extreme banking NOC path. That's the scale on the left side of his drawing (100' per square), not a sketch of the building which is less than 1 of those squares tall (about 20m AGL)



[edit on 13/10/2008 by Pilgrum]