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

Grunion,

One question...

How does the plane hit the light poles when it is on the North side (Arlington Nat'l Cemetery side) of the Gas Station?
 
Skeptic4Sure said:
Grunion,

One question...

How does the plane hit the light poles when it is on the North side (Arlington Nat'l Cemetery side) of the Gas Station?
Click to expand...

Great. Cherry-picking Mercs eyewitnesses, I see. How about what the Cabbie said, s4s? You remember?
 
Skeptic4Sure said:
Grunion,

One question...

How does the plane hit the light poles when it is on the North side (Arlington Nat'l Cemetery side) of the Gas Station?
Click to expand...

I believe Russell Pickering has already clearly demonstrated how the plane approached the Pentagon. Why don't you offer some physical evidence that debunks him or the findings of the 9/11 report?
 
Skeptic4Sure said:
Grunion,

One question...

How does the plane hit the light poles when it is on the North side (Arlington Nat'l Cemetery side) of the Gas Station?
Click to expand...

And that was my last answer until you extend me the courtesy of addressing the questions that I asked you. Namely:

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...
 
blurted by johnd'ohx
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..
Click to expand...
JohnD'ohx: Master of Suck
 
apathoid said:
Great. Cherry-picking Mercs eyewitnesses, I see. How about what the Cabbie said, s4s? You remember?
Click to expand...


Well if the Cabbie is a suspect, which I have gathered he is then this simple account from the Citgo employee is all that is needed to confirm that the Cabbie is not telling the truth. Do you know how that big long light pole speared it's way into his windshield and didn't touch his hood? I thought that was odd.

How am I cherry picking? I see a few guys who fly to VA to interview witnesses and get to the bottom of theings. I see a few guys CONFIRMING a plane, I don't see them discounting it in place of missiles, do you?

Why would they tout this witness if his account weren't true or verified vigorously? I read that they had his name and e-mail. His account seems pretty simple, left or right-no mistaking that, and apparently this is what he told his manager also.

So again how is it cherry picking, it is a highlighted witness, a witness that was closest. An unbiased, unpublished account, like the others. A witness they encountered on their investigative trip, which you have to admit, is more than most of the CTist crowd do, hell even more than you guys do.
 
bignickel said:
[Comments on John Doe X's assertion about jet engines and "sucking"]
Click to expand...
Yeah, we discussed that elsewhere... No, take it back, it was this thread, back about five pages.

There is a non-trivial suction force on the fan, and the fan produces a large portion of thrust in a high-bypass turbofan (by definition), but clearly his statement is an exaggeration.

This is trivial to understand. Consider this: If it's true, then how do afterburners work?

Also, about his assertion that a man standing near the flight path must have necessarily been sucked in, here's an anecdote: Last summer I ran an experiment on a NASA F/A-18 aircraft. During one of our test flights, we had a bird strike. I was doing an engine health prediction experiment, so a part of me wanted the bird to hit the engine... but it wasn't so.

After the aircraft landed and was inspected, we determined the bird had hit the port side inlet, but on the outside of the lip. It never hit the engine and damage was zero, just made a thump that the pilot noticed. It was small, thought to be a sparrow but we'll never know for sure.

What this shows is that suction in flight is not an overwhelmingly strong force. If a small bird, already in flight, can hit the edge of the inlet without being sucked in, then the forces close to the engine are still not significant compared to aircraft motion. Otherwise, the odds of a bird hitting there would be like throwing a quarter in the air and expecting it to land on its edge. It's theoretically possible, but such a metastable state that it's practically impossible. So would it be impossible for a bird to hit the edge if the suction effect was as strong as he claims.

And for the record, I am not, nor have ever claimed to be, a pilot.
 
TheGrunion said:
I believe Russell Pickering has already clearly demonstrated how the plane approached the Pentagon. Why don't you offer some physical evidence that debunks him or the findings of the 9/11 report?
Click to expand...

Oh OK Grunion.

I say black, you say cold.

Apparently Russell Pickering also believes the plane was a white 757 remote guided by an Israeli Dual citizen.

What kind of skeptic are you?

Here we're talking about a new witness and official gov't data regarding a plane and an incident that has been actually questioned by a large number of Americans. An incident that has been hidden and kept secret in so many ways that engine parts of the plane first and only came out on a on a conspiracy site. And you want to refer someone's flight path?
 
1. Was the altimeter calibrated?

Of course.. it was in an airplane.. right? The altimeter shows 10 feet too low at take-off. We'll within FAR regs.

2. To what density altitude was it calibrated?

Altimeters arent calibrated to density altitude. They are calibrated to pressure altitude at sea level. Then a "Kollsman" window is added to adjust the altimeter to local pressure to get a proper altitude above sea level. (i got the spelling right.. how bout that.. )

3. What corrections were applied for the aircraft speed?

None. These pitot-static systems/Air data computers are in all types of aircraft with all different types of Vmo's. Also. What good is an FDR that doesnt take accurate measurements outside the aircraft envelope. This is where most accidents happen.. right?

4. How does his derivation account for aircraft attitude?

See above.

5. How much offset is there between probe data and the physical bottom of the aircraft?

airliners.net. Go look for the static port. Its on the bottom side of the fuse...

6. How much "time smear" did he account for in the FDR records?

None. Official impact time is 09:37:45(Re: NTSB Flight Path Study of AA77). Recorder stops at :44 . Vertical acceleration column is recording 8 times per second. It is the only column that records up to supposed impact. They omitted all other parameters such as altitude for the final second. Im begining to understand why.

7. How accurately is the altitude of the poles known?

Very. Look at the USGS site linked in the "Alternate Analysis" working backwards from the impact hole. The analysis which shows how shoddy Billzilla was when he worked backwards from impact hole. I have also compared Google Earth to Jeppesen Airway Manuals in and around the DCA and IAD Airports. Error showed to +/-5 feet. However, i used the USGS for this analysis which is more accurate.

8. How were these answers computed?

The math is shown. The references are shown.


9. How were these errors combined?

There arent any errors. The analysis is a hypothetical in which Billzilla tried to use (working back from impact hole based on descent rate). I am now showing him the proper way to do the analysis.

10. What is the final error estimate of aircraft altitude at the points mentioned above?

None. It is based on Vertical speed and not indicated altitude. If you want to get a more accurate altitude data, please see full analysis on pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html.

Again. .the Alternate Analysis is a HYPOTHETICAL working back from the impact hole based on descent rate. If you increase that rate due to speed errors and/or altimeter lag, the height above the poles increase. This analysis was to show Billzilla the propr way and accurate elevations in working back from the impact hole at the pentagon.
 
Welcome back, Skeptic4Sure. Thank you for finding answers to my questions. I'll assume these come straight from John Doe X, though you didn't specify.

Skeptic4Sure said:
1. Was the altimeter calibrated?

Of course.. it was in an airplane.. right? The altimeter shows 10 feet too low at take-off. We'll within FAR regs.
Click to expand...
So if I understand you correctly, you've shown that (a) it was calibrated but not reset after takeoff, where the local conditions were different, and (b) we can expect 3 meters of possible error on top of that. Fine, I'll accept that.

2. To what density altitude was it calibrated?

Altimeters arent calibrated to density altitude. They are calibrated to pressure altitude at sea level. Then a "Kollsman" window is added to adjust the altimeter to local pressure to get a proper altitude above sea level. (i got the spelling right.. how bout that.. )
Click to expand...
I'll also accept a calibration to pressure altitude, but you didn't say what that altitude was. I'm assuming the calibration was given for the airport of departure as listed in 1. above.

3. What corrections were applied for the aircraft speed?

None. These pitot-static systems/Air data computers are in all types of aircraft with all different types of Vmo's. Also. What good is an FDR that doesnt take accurate measurements outside the aircraft envelope. This is where most accidents happen.. right?
Click to expand...
Actually no, the vast majority of aircraft accidents happen on takeoff and landing, at fairly low speed. Assuming that the probes work beyond Vmax as you suggest here is an argument to incredulity, and wrong. If the probe doesn't work beyond a particular speed, it's because the laws of gas dynamics say it doesn't, not just some flaky spec.

Anyway, your answer is insufficient. Pitotstatic probes are different depending on geometry and placement on the aircraft, and all suffer compressibility errors beyond a certain velocity. I have read elsewhere that Flight 77 was flying faster than the altimeter's rated Vmo, guaranteeing that a correction is needed. This is an error that you have not accounted for, and it can all by itself invalidate your results.

4. How does his derivation account for aircraft attitude?

See above.
Click to expand...
Again, insufficient. Pitotstatic probes are not terribly accurate that close to the deck. Your claim that it was off by 10 feet at takeoff, and that was within spec, is proof enough of that.

5. How much offset is there between probe data and the physical bottom of the aircraft?

airliners.net. Go look for the static port. Its on the bottom side of the fuse...
Click to expand...
Attempt to shift the burden of proof noted. I'll assume you don't know.

6. How much "time smear" did he account for in the FDR records?

None. Official impact time is 09:37:45(Re: NTSB Flight Path Study of AA77). Recorder stops at :44 . Vertical acceleration column is recording 8 times per second. It is the only column that records up to supposed impact. They omitted all other parameters such as altitude for the final second. Im begining to understand why.
Click to expand...
I'll assume you don't understand my question. What I mean is that in the air data system, there is a time lag between the measurement and when it is logged by the FDR. This is caused by the sensor response time, compute time in the aircraft flight computers, and message packet delay in the databus. This will add additional uncertainty, and since the aircraft was descending, make the FDR read high. Rate of descent was about 20 meters per second if I recall correctly.

Your answer says that John Doe X didn't account for this either.

7. How accurately is the altitude of the poles known?

Very. Look at the USGS site linked in the "Alternate Analysis" working backwards from the impact hole. The analysis which shows how shoddy Billzilla was when he worked backwards from impact hole. I have also compared Google Earth to Jeppesen Airway Manuals in and around the DCA and IAD Airports. Error showed to +/-5 feet. However, i used the USGS for this analysis which is more accurate.
Click to expand...
So you're claiming +/- 5 feet elevation? Call it two meters? I'll accept that.

8. How were these answers computed?

The math is shown. The references are shown.
Click to expand...
Shown where, please? I haven't seen them here.

9. How were these errors combined?

There arent any errors. The analysis is a hypothetical in which Billzilla tried to use (working back from impact hole based on descent rate). I am now showing him the proper way to do the analysis.
Click to expand...
Ummm... yes there are. Any measurement has error. If you're criticizing a different approach, please present that work.

10. What is the final error estimate of aircraft altitude at the points mentioned above?

None. It is based on Vertical speed and not indicated altitude. If you want to get a more accurate altitude data, please see full analysis on pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html.
Click to expand...
Then you haven't done your homework. Bring your evidence here, please.

Again. .the Alternate Analysis is a HYPOTHETICAL working back from the impact hole based on descent rate. If you increase that rate due to speed errors and/or altimeter lag, the height above the poles increase. This analysis was to show Billzilla the propr way and accurate elevations in working back from the impact hole at the pentagon.
Click to expand...

I'm unaware of the details of you (or John Doe X, not sure who is who here...) and your conversation with Billzilla. I was asking about how you conducted your analysis, not Billzilla's. And you did not show him the "prop[e]r way," because you have not shown that your conclusion -- that the aircraft was too high -- is a statistically significant result.

If your estimate has as little as 20 meters of error, then your results are totally inconclusive. It is clear from your answers that your error is plausibly much higher.

Adding the FDR logged error at takeoff plus the height uncertainty of the poles alone, added directly since these errors are uncorrelated, is five meters right off the top. Since the claimed rate of descent is about 20 meters per second, a time lag of even a quarter second can add another five meters, and this time lag is not unusual, could be higher. We further know the altimeter was not corrected for local conditions, was operating outside its calibrated performance envelope with respect to speed, and was pushed into the ground effect -- ten meters error for these factors is conservative unless you can show otherwise. And there are many more possibilities that you didn't account for.

It's entirely plausible for the FDR to read 20 meters higher than reality under those conditions. It is therefore possible for the FDR data to be consistent with the claim -- backed by evidence of wreckage and eyewitness accounts -- that Flight 77 did indeed hit those poles on the way to the Pentagon.

If you would, please inform John Doe X that he has not proven his case. If he would like to address these sources of error and sharpen up his estimate, this should give him a good place to start.
 
Last edited:
TheGrunion said:
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...

Would that be the same Citgo employee that said he was standing outside by the pumps but is clearly not anywhere to be seen in the recently released Citgo security camera footage?
 
Skeptic4Sure said:
None. Official impact time is 09:37:45(Re: NTSB Flight Path Study of AA77). Recorder stops at :44 . Vertical acceleration column is recording 8 times per second. It is the only column that records up to supposed impact. They omitted all other parameters such as altitude for the final second. Im begining to understand why.
Click to expand...

Is the NTSB time synchronised with the FDR time? If not, what is the error range?

Even if the time is correct, an aircraft travelling at 463 knots (the last recorded computed speed in the CSV file) will cover ~29.8 meters in 1/8th of a second.

If you are working backwards from the impact point to extrpolate the position of the aircraft, the above information is absolutely vital, and is one of the reasons why you shouldn't work backwards from the impact point.

If the aircraft location was taken using the recorded latitude/longitude, how where they obtained by the FDR? GPS? If so, how was the GPS error accounted for. Some GPS units can be out by meters and given that the JDX analysis measures things to fractions of a foot, this would seem important to me.
 
Skeptic4Sure said:
..............

So again how is it cherry picking, it is a highlighted witness, a witness that was closest. An unbiased, unpublished account, like the others. A witness they encountered on their investigative trip, which you have to admit, is more than most of the CTist crowd do, hell even more than you guys do.
Click to expand...

Call it whatever you want - its dishonest and frankly, mind boggling. So, because of this one persons unique account, you've decided to dismiss everyone else's story? Do I have that right?

You do know thats pretty much the opposite of the way the courts weigh eyewitness testimony....right ?

And how was the Citgo guy closer than the cabbie - his cab was hit by a pole AA77 clipped. What did the damage to his cab if it wasnt the pole? Did he start wailing on it with a sledghammer? If you only knew what had to be true in order for your no-plane impact flyover....C'mon man, think it over. Think of all the people that would have to be involved.

Well if the Cabbie is a suspect, which I have gathered he is....
Click to expand...

First, why is he a suspect? Whats he suspected of?
Its not a given or anything, so lay it out for me....

...then this simple account from the Citgo employee is all that is needed to confirm that the Cabbie is not telling the truth.
Click to expand...

..or the Cabbies story, as well as the physical damage to his car, is all thats needed to confirm the Citgo employee is not telling the Truth. Howz about we weigh everyones story, mmkay?
 
Skeptic4Sure said:
Now, now...temper, temper.

If you have PROOF then post it.

If not, then perhaps you shouldn't tell people to read a whole thread that contains NO PROOF.

I am here to converse with skeptics and instead I get hotheaded $7/hour tour guides. Sheesh.
Click to expand...
I've made no claims about JDX's pilot status, troll. You've been told that there's a variety of opinion, based on a variety of evidence, expressed in this thread alone. You want to know what's in the thread, but you don't want to read it. Hmm, sounds awfully familiar.
 
Skeptic4Sure said:
A witness they encountered on their investigative trip, which you have to admit, is more than most of the CTist crowd do, hell even more than you guys do.
Click to expand...
Oh, yes, an "investigative trip" to find out if flight 77 hit the Pentagon is certainly warranted.

:jaw-dropp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom