More trouble in LC paradise. JohnDoe takes his research and goes home.

R.Mackey said:

Welcome Skeptic4Sure, I hadn't realized his analysis was being discussed in this thread too.

The important questions are these -- since the FDR measurements are based on pitotstatic measurements (sampling air data), and the actual altitudes of the light poles are not well described, there are numerous potential sources of error:

1. Was the altimeter calibrated?
2. To what density altitude was it calibrated?
3. What corrections were applied for the aircraft speed?
4. How does his derivation account for aircraft attitude?
5. How much offset is there between probe data and the physical bottom of the aircraft?
6. How much "time smear" did he account for in the FDR records?
7. How accurately is the altitude of the poles known?
8. How were these answers computed?
9. How were these errors combined?
10. What is the final error estimate of aircraft altitude at the points mentioned above?

Since the entire argument rests on discrepancies of under 15 meters, the requirements for error analysis are very tight. Convince me.

Click to expand...

Skeptic4Sure said:

Ok , I sent a PM to JDX on his pilots for 911 truth forum.

He says he is going to be revealing his identity soon, and I guess he see's that i respect his privacy.

So he gave me his name and linked me to a pilots listing that shows his first and last name and pilot rating. Seems legit to me.

I am convinced now that he is a pilot. So I guess I will wait for one of the pilots here to show me where he is wrong, if he is.

Click to expand...

Skeptic4Sure said:

Excellent post, thank you finally, now we are getting somewhere.

I'll be sure and forward these questions to JDX and see if I can get him to provide some answers to your questions.

Although you may want to check his site, because I believe most of that type of stuff is addressed.

Click to expand...

DavidJames said:

Of course it's good enough for you, you are a CTist, anything that supports your delusional CT fantasy is blessed like a rosary.

So you made the statement and now you are running away from it. Can't say I'm surprised since every CTist plays the same game. Others here have more patience for egomaniac CTists, I don't. I'll sit back and watch you make a fool of yourself. You're off to a good start.

Click to expand...

DHR said:

Hi jdx

Click to expand...

TheGrunion said:

There are numerous things wrong with these witnesses. How's this one for starters?

Show me witness testimony that describes a plane flying over (above) the Pentagon at the time of incident.

Got any physical evidence of a flyover?

Click to expand...

#703
jsiv
Student


Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 42 Originally Posted by johndoeX
A Rolls engine at full power flying 6 feet away from him would have sucked him in.

Im not a ramper and dont know the exact dimensions of the top of my head (we were taught proper distance.. but dont remember right now).. but we have "clear areas" painted on the ground at the gate in front of the engines. They are about 6 feet in radius to stay clear from an idle engine. At full power.. a Rolls would probably suck in anyone from about 30 feet away.

which brings me to my other point...

A good portion of that chain link fence should have also been sucked in... not just a perfect round semi-circle as you see.

Originally Posted by johndoeX
I have seen planes suck in birds (well. the aftermath.. never had one myself.. yet... did have a bird strike though). I have seen a plane suck in a human and shoot red spray out the back. There is a video of this one on the web.. i think over at ogrish. Continental mechanic got too close (IIRC). Didnt know what hit him.

Jets actually produce most of their forward motion through suction. Doesnt matter the speed. They are still sucking air in while moving the plane forward. If anything or anyone is in that air.. they get sucked in too..

Originally Posted by johndoeX
Thrust is generated by any engine to move it forward. A propeller produces thrust.

I dont expect you to understand that a jet engine produces most of its thrust at the intake. It does produce thrust out the exhaust as well. That is one of the things that make a jet engine so much more efficient than a normally aspirated piston engine.

It sucks in the air.. the airplane moves forward. Newtons 3rd law.

Originally Posted by johndoeX
The intake still sucks in the air no matter the speed. It will suck in anything in its way. Just google "sucked into jet engine" and you will come up with many hits.. including a flock of birds thatr brought down an airliner...

Something like a ramjet doesnt suck.. no moving parts.

(i cant believe im arguing this..lol)

if the guy was 6 feet away with the airplane coming at him.. i would think he would have been sucked in. Along with anything else that wasnt firmly bolted down and/or extremely heavy (such as the generator).

Originally Posted by johndoeX
lol.. Russ.. what do you think happens on a propeller?

Its the SAME THING on a Turbofan.

The intake produces thrust. You are getting confused because you think thrust has to be produced by exhaust only. You are wrong.

Ask any pilots with experience and they will tell you its well known that a jet engine produces more thrust at its intake than exhaust.

Thrust is what happens when the airplane moves forward.

But hey.. dont think that sucking in air.. produces thrust...lol


Originally Posted by johndoeX
I personally feel if that guy was that close.. he would have been sucked in. We have all seen videos that a Jet engine does suck object as large as cargo conatiners from several feet away.. at idle. So it doesnt matter about thrust produced.

If you think a jet engine doesnt suck.. just google it.

Originally Posted by johndoeX
If your analysis was correct, then any prop would never produce thrust.

A Turbofan engine is EXACTLY like a prop. It is a prop at the intake.

Click to expand...

Skeptic4Sure said:

Well if there was a flyover then I assume there are witnesses for that.

Click to expand...

apathoid said:

Yeah, except there aren't any witnesses for that...it impacted the Pentagon just like the hundreds of witnesses said it did. That you people actually have posited a "flyover" is telling of your mindset...

Seriously, a flyover? Give me a break.

Click to expand...

Skeptic4Sure said:

Well if there was a flyover then I assume there are witnesses for that.

And I would assume the Citgo employee provides the physical evidence. His account seems pretty cut and dry. Seems to jive with the FDR also does it not?

Click to expand...

Skeptic4Sure said:

Something tells me you guys are in for a rude awakening...

Click to expand...

TheGrunion said:

I didn't ask if you assumed there is eyewitness testimony that describes a flyover. I asked you to produce witness testimony that describes a plane flying over (above) the Pentagon at the time of incident.

What physical evidence did the Citgo employee provide? You do know that eyewitness testimony is not physical evidence, right? Where is the Citgo employee's deposition? Who is the Citgo employee? Have you seen his statement (not Merc posting what his anonymous witness is supposedly saying)?

Click to expand...

Skeptic4Sure said:

Something tells me you guys are in for a rude awakening...

Click to expand...

Qubit said:

I'll add to the fact that Merc called this guy three times. He probably just told Merc what he wanted to hear to get you looneys off his back.

Click to expand...

Skeptic4Sure said:

I know something you don't know Grunion. Your questions will be answered.

I suggest you be patient, and time will tell.

Click to expand...

Skeptic4Sure said:

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

Click to expand...

Skeptic4Sure said:

I know something you don't know Grunion. Your questions will be answered.

I suggest you be patient, and time will tell.

Click to expand...

Bell said:

Well, you would know.

Click to expand...