Flight 77 obstacles

[TC329]

Originally Posted by beachnut

You do not know where the FDR stopped. If the RADAR ALT is correct, the data stopped over 2800 or more (MORE) feet from the Pentagon. By data stopped, that could mean it was not stored on the chip, not that the data was not in the FDR system! (system, the FDR is made up of many items, and compresses the data to save space on the 1991 CHIP in the FDR, that was not required to meet the standards you can't produce.)

p4t are not rational about the Pentagon, and make up stuff blaming many unknown bad guys in the Air Force, FAA, FBI, and DoD for making the Pentagon blow up. They, p4t, lack the knowledge and ability to live in the real world on 9/11 topics.

Your research is so shallow, you do not back up anything you posted about flight 77 with facts; you have not proven how high the poles, or towers are. Your work is not referenced to anything but bad math. Bad math.

Real bad physics. But par for p4t (learn what acceleration and velocity are) lol

When will you post the standards you keep taking about? Rob should give the copy of the standard, ED-55; was the installed FDR covered by the ED-55 which TSO-124 said earlier FDR did not have to meet? Why are you guys so research challenged? You should look up all the stuff first before you make up false stories and try to mislead others. And the math you guys do will be math class examples of why you should pay attention in math class! No wonder jdx has failed to get the simple ATP FAA rating.

The tower is not 305 feet MSL, it is 92.6 feet MSL. Funny stuff p4t, jdx; FAILURE. Boone looked it up; more research in one day than 9/11 truth in 6 years! LOL p4t are not very good at this stuff.

Beachnut, 92 MSL is 43 feet under the ground where the Antenna stands.

Edited by chillzero:

Restoring member name.

[Anti-sophist]

Let me try to put this back on topic. The "analysis" on pft contains the following lines:

Quote:

Pole 1 distance to Pentagon = 1016 feet

1016 feet/781 fps = 1.3 seconds

4480 fpm descent needs to be arrested within 1.3 seconds.

75 * 1.3 = 97.5 foot descent within 1.3 seconds.

97.5/32 fps accel due to gravity = 3.0 G's + 1 G = 4.0 G's needed to arrest descent within 1.3 seconds and 97.5 feet vertically. However, 97.5 feet vertically is not available.

The error occurs on the last line.

97.5 feet / 32 (accel due to gravity) does not equal 3.0 Gs.

A height divided by an acceleration does not equal a g-force. No matter what the numbers are, your units are wrong. It's like saying 30 feet divided by 10 seconds equals 3 gallons. Yes.. the numbers are right.. the units are completely wrong.

Fix this error, fix your calculation. Macky/Myriad have been way too kind by doing it for you. That's nonsense as far as I'm concerned. Fix it. Then come back.

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

....

Quote:

(1) Flight 77's path took it over the 169ft VDOT antenna;
(2) Flight 77 therefore had to sustain a 4480fpm descent rate to strike the lightpoles on Washington Blvd.
(3) To arrest this descent prior to striking the Pentagon would require a 30.1G pullout (note that the website referred to does not assert this, rather it claims 11.2G)
(4) This is unsustainable by the airframe.

the first premise is dependent on interpreting the FDR data, and without it the entire claim falls apart, you could discuss the other 3 premises, but that would require assiming the first is accurate

Well, that's the problem right there. There is NO PROOF whatsoever of exactly where the aircraft was in relation to the VDOT antenna. Was it over it, beside it, in a bank, hit it, there is no proof.

This new discussion started as a result of trying to prove the aircraft could not hit the poles, subsequently the Pentagon because of the height of the antenna. This only assumed the flight path was OVER the antenna which was not really related to the FDR at all. It was apparently based upon a straight line from beyond the antenna into the Pentagon along the path proven by the Purdue estimated damage path inside the building. It's also sustained by the FDR, but that's beside the point. We have to ASSUME it hit the building in a straight line from the antenna order to know where the aircraft was in relationship to the antenna.

The FDR has been discussed to death and I see no point in continuing along those lines. That discussion is merely a tactic to change the subject from the screwed up math to something else (the FDR data again)......

It does get confusing, doesn't it.....

[TC329]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

TC329, I need your strict attention.

If you want to talk about flight paths consistent with FDR data, you need to present that data.

You didn't do that. You presented altitude data referenced to ground obstacles. You made a hypothesis based on those obstacles, and you screwed it up royally.

If you want to talk about FDR data, bring some FDR data. But don't complain that my numbers don't work with the FDR data. You set the ground rules. Now you're changing them.

I have no problem showing you how any combination of evidence can be met with a realistic flight path. But you can't hide evidence and claim it doesn't work. That's just stupid.

So far, we've established only two things. First, that there are MANY flight paths that work with the obstacles on the ground -- and given this wide range, there's no reason to doubt one or more solutions also agree with the FDR data. And second, you guys fail at basic Newtonian dynamics. You're in no position to even guess about what happened until you correct this problem.

We can help, but if and only if you're willing to learn.

LMAO...

We're not "hiding the evidence". The FDR data has been available for download since Aug 2006.

You mean you dont have it yet?

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by TC329

LMAO...

We're not "hiding the evidence". The FDR data has been available for download since Aug 2006.

You mean you dont have it yet?

You really don't get it, do you?

You guys set up a mental experiment and performed some math. That math was wrong.

Mackey and Myriad fixed your calculation for you to show you what the true answer of your calculation was. Then you change the subject and say "OH WELL THATS NOT WHAT THE FDR SAYS". So? IT WAS YOUR MENTAL EXPERIMENT.

The topic is your guess at the flight path and the Newtonian physics thereof. You made a post detailing how your guess of the flight path was an impossible flight path for an aircraft. They have showed you that your guess at the flight path is not impossible, just that your math is wrong.

Why are you ignoring the fact that your math is wrong and instead constantly trying to change the subject? This is your experiment, your guess. If it doesn't match the FDR, that's not exactly our problem.

[Anti-sophist]

For the record, Mackey and Myriad, you guys made a huge mistake! Heh. This is about the 4th time I've seen someone correct JDX's awful math and watch him refuse to talk about it and instead use it as a wedge to change the subject, shift the burden, etc, etc.

The standard operating debunking procedure for JDX "math" should be to point out the line with the mistake, explain why, and refuse to talk about anything else until it's fixed.

As soon as you produce a "correct" version of a calculation, they'll come up with 1000 ways why "your" version can't be true. Usually involving the FDR. They won't ever understand that it's not "your" version.. it just a mathematically correct version of theirs.

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by Reheat

That discussion is merely a tactic to change the subject from the screwed up math to something else (the FDR data again)......

It does get confusing, doesn't it.....

yeah it does get confusing, expecially since i see this discussion as changing the subject from them being unable to interpret the FDR data properly, but i guess a dog chasing his tail can only go in circles

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist

For the record, Mackey and Myriad, you guys made a huge mistake! Heh. This is about the 4th time I've seen someone correct JDX's awful math and watch him refuse to talk about it and instead use it as a wedge to change the subject, shift the burden, etc, etc.

The standard operating debunking procedure for JDX "math" should be to point out the line with the mistake, explain why, and refuse to talk about anything else until it's fixed.

Exactly. TC329, I don't do house calls. If you want to work on the problem, bring it over here.

I've already showed you (and so have several other people) that your work so far is rubbish. You don't seem to be able to absorb it yet, but maybe you will. But we know that whatever information you have, your conclusions are unreliable, because you can't even get velocity and acceleration straight.

So, if you want to bring your question over here -- all of it, FDR data, altitude data, obstacles, whatever -- and work on it, please do so. I'm confident it can be solved. Frankly, I'm surprised that I'm willing to help you at all...

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by TC329

Myriad has the aircraft at 1 G from the VDOT antenna to pole 1 and then pulling 3.2 G's from pole 1 to the pentagon.

Since I was fixing the mistakes in Rob Balsamo's calculation, I used the same trajectory he did: straight line from the VDOT tower to pole 1, and then uniform upward acceleration to the impact point, adjusted to also avoid dropping too low.

The only difference is, I calculated the G forces correctly, and he did not.

Quote:

So I guess the question remains why doesn't Mackey & Myriad use the altitudes reported in the FDR data?

I used the altitudes Rob Balsamo used in his article. When you posted the article, you didn't mention any criticism of those altitudes. Do you now think they're not valid? If so, then when did you change your mind, and why?

Quote:

R Mackey numbers make more sense.

Right, because R Mackey didn't follow all of Rob Balsamo's silly assumptions about the trajectory.

Quote:

However, very different requirements from what the FDR shows. Same with Myriad numbers.

I'm not discussing the FDR in this thread. The trajectory I used is the same one that Rob Balsamo used. You didn't mention any objections to the trajectory he used in his article when you posted it here. In fact, you seemed to approve of the article and uncritically trust the results it reported. In any case, your opinion of Rob's article and the altitude figures he used therein isn't my concern. You can take those up directly with him. I only care that his math is wrong and should be corrected, if he wishes to present an honest case.

Quote:

R Mackey's or Myriads numbers do not show up in the FDR data at all.

They do show up in Rob Balsamo's article, which claims that a pull-up of over 11 G's is required for the plane to get from pole 1 to the impact point if the plane was descending at 75 fps at pole 1. This claim is false, because the calculations he presents supporting his case have three elementary and significant errors.

Quote:

With that said, we do thank R Mackey and Myriad for your time critically analyzing the math.

You're welcome.

Quote:

...and we will be re-checking our calculations and revise the article if required.

We'll see whether any evidence to support this claim appears.

----------

As I've said before, I don't believe that Rob's scenario of a continuous 75 pfs descent from the tower to the pole, followed by a sharp pull-up in the last 1.3 seconds, is a very likely scenario. Let's try a different scenario:

For this analysis, I'll use Rob's time marks which are reasonable: 3.0 seconds from the tower to the pole, and 1.3 seconds from the pole to impact.

For altitudes I'll use 45 msl for the impact hole (Rob's figure), 75 msl for pole 1 (5 feet lower than Rob's number, to make sure it hits), and 314 msl for the tower (10 feet higher than Rob's number, to make sure it misses).

The trajectory I'll use is this: From the tower to the light pole, the plane is descending but is arresting its descent at a constant acceleration. From the light pole to the impact point, the plane descends at a constant vertical velocity.

So, first, the easy part: the descent rate from the pole to the pentagon. A change of -30 feet in 1.3 seconds is -30/1.3 = -23 fps.

Now, from the tower to the pole:

I'll use the formulas for position and velocity of a uniformly accelerating object

position(time t) = pos(initial) + (v(initial) * t) + (1/2 * a * t^2)
velocity(time t) = v(initial) + (a * t)

The knowns are:
velocity(t) = -23 fps (positive is upward)
pos(t) = 75 ft
pos(initial) = 314 ft
t = 3 seconds
...and we need to solve for a.

substituting:
position(time t) = pos(initial) + ((v(time t) - a*t) * t) + (1/2 * a * t^2)

solving for a:
a = 2 * ( p(initial) - p(time t) + v(time t)*t ) / t^2

plugging in the knowns and doing the arithmetic:
a = 2 * ( 314 - 75 + (-23 * 3) ) / 9
a = 37.8 feet/second-second

37.8 / 32 = 1.18

So, the upward acceleration needed to accomplish this maneuver is just under 1.2 g, making the force on the airframe 2.2 G's.

And, this leaves only a steady 1 G descent (no vertical acceleration) for the final 1.3 seconds from the pole to the impact.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by TC329

Only problem is that JREFers never "corrected" anything.

They've corrected Rob Balsamo/P4T in this very thread. Or did you miss that part?

[TC329]

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist

You really don't get it, do you?

You guys set up a mental experiment and performed some math. That math was wrong.

Mackey and Myriad fixed your calculation for you to show you what the true answer of your calculation was. Then you change the subject and say "OH WELL THATS NOT WHAT THE FDR SAYS". So? IT WAS YOUR MENTAL EXPERIMENT.

The topic is your guess at the flight path and the Newtonian physics thereof. You made a post detailing how your guess of the flight path was an impossible flight path for an aircraft. They have showed you that your guess at the flight path is not impossible, just that your math is wrong.

Why are you ignoring the fact that your math is wrong and instead constantly trying to change the subject? This is your experiment, your guess. If it doesn't match the FDR, that's not exactly our problem.

As Mackey and others here do not trust P4T, we do not trust them. Myriad's and Mackeys numbers do not agree. However we do thank them for their time and are reviewing our calculation(s). We apologize if we are not moving fast enough for you.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by TC329

As Mackey and others here do not trust P4T, we do not trust them. Myriad's and Mackeys numbers do not agree. However we do thank them for their time and are reviewing our calculation(s). We apologize if we are not moving fast enough for you.

Oh my god, that's funny.

If you don't trust my numbers, work through the problem yourself. I even set it up for you. I did so because that way, you don't have to trust me. Just do it. Again, any high school kid who's passed algebra should be able to handle it.

If you can't figure out why my numbers and Myriad's are not identical, then you're truly, truly lost.

[Jonnyclueless]

How can you expect him to understand the numbers being different when he is simply pasting other people's work as his arguments?

[jaydeehess]

Thank you gumboot for that. I was thinking along the same line. However is the lawn area not slightly lower than the floor of the ground level of the Pentagon? If so then the plane could have been at a level that was a foot or so above that of the floor of the Pentagon and still been more than that ASL over the lawn. It would then only need to drop its port wind slightly to have the port engine clip the curb right in front of the building.

At any rate (pun intended), the brain trust at p4t don't understand the difference between velocity and distance.

Its only a step away from killtown math.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by TC329

As Mackey and others here do not trust P4T, we do not trust them. Myriad's and Mackeys numbers do not agree. However we do thank them for their time and are reviewing our calculation(s). We apologize if we are not moving fast enough for you.

3.2 and 3.49 f/s²
Well 3.49 is 1.090625 greater than 3.2(I use all the digits my calculator supplies so as not to confuse TC by rounding)

That means that they agree within 10%

Now an acelleration of 11.2 f/s² is 3.5 times greater than 3.2 a difference of 350% yet TC would now like us to believe that when two people work on a problem and round off numbers that they should agree better than 10% while also not admitting that his own calculations being off by 300+% is particularily bothersome to the brain trust of p4t or himself.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by TC329

Beachy, 92 MSL is 43 feet under the ground where the Antenna stands.

yep, the person who looked up tower told me my mistake, m vs ft, the tower is in meters, then it is 303.8 feet. Wonder if jdx can fix his error in feet per NM?

I have made a conversion error and I am still correct that 77 hit the Pentagon, you made an error in math and physics, and you are still wrong.

I am sorry, I thought since jdx makes big errors he could have messed up the tower height, and I missed the conversion. It is funny, I can make massive errors in everything and 77 still hit the Pentagon. You guys can make up ideas to mislead others and never be correct. How can you be so bad at math on the acceleration stuff? Got Math, got Physics? Math and Physics class 120 bucks per class; internet posting while wine tasting in Sonama on the square, priceless...

[Myriad]

TC329, you're in luck. Like R.Mackey, I've made it as easy as possible. In post 24, I followed Rob's calculation step by step, using the same starting values, and fixing each error along the way. The text in bold in post 24 is the changes from the originals. Compare the bold to the original text it replaced, and you'll see all the errors.

Then, in post 54, I showed that the acceleration I calculated does what the article says it's supposed to, which is bring the plane from the light pole at 75 fps descent to the impact point, within the time and vertical distance limits. I also showed how that is done, so you can repeat those calculations yourself, with my calculated acceleration or with any alternative value you want to try.

Then, in post 89 above, I showed a more plausible maneuver that meets the constraints in Rob's scenario, flying over the VDOT tower, below the height of pole 1, and into the impact point, without ever exceeding 2.2 Gs. Thus showing that Rob's calculation, even if he had gotten it right, is irrelevant because he made an unwarranted assumption about how the plane "had to" descend between the tower and the post.

Rob Balsamo's hypothesis that "Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible" has thereby been falsified several times over. I applaud Rob's diligent efforts to fix the math errors, but I have to say at this point that retracting the whole embarrassing article might be a more honest, and far easier, option.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[applecorped]

Ummm......Bush did it.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by TC329

As Mackey and others here do not trust P4T, we do not trust them. Myriad's and Mackeys numbers do not agree. However we do thank them for their time and are reviewing our calculation(s). We apologize if we are not moving fast enough for you.

Well, if 'reviewing our calculations' is some kind of code for 'figuring out how the hell we are going to get out from under this idiotic theory' then yea--I can see why this is going to take a while.

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by twinstead

Well, if 'reviewing our calculations' is some kind of code for 'figuring out how the hell we are going to get out from under this idiotic theory' then yea--I can see why this is going to take a while.

What is really funny is that his article:

"Arlington Topography, Obstacles, AA77 Approach Impossible"

is all over the freaking 'net.

That's worth at least 5 laughing dogs!

[TC329]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Oh my god, that's funny.

If you don't trust my numbers, work through the problem yourself. I even set it up for you. I did so because that way, you don't have to trust me. Just do it. Again, any high school kid who's passed algebra should be able to handle it.

If you can't figure out why my numbers and Myriad's are not identical, then you're truly, truly lost.

Thank you for your input Mackey.

Please note you have the pull starting at the Antenna through pole 1 to the pentagon. Your number is 3.49 G's for the duration. Which exceeds Transport Category G limits by 1 G.

Myriad has the pull starting at pole 1 to the pentagon. He has 3.2 G for that segment also exceeding Transport Category G limits.

This is the third time we have explained this to you and you still do not see the descrepency between your calculation and how it applies to what is being demonstrated.

Like we said, your numbers do make more sense and we thank you for time. We are currently reviewing the numbers and will revise the article if required. There is more than one person within P4T working on this. Check the list, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

Also, we have linked on the article itself to a "Common Arguments" thread in our forum with your numbers. So your numbers are represented with the article itself. Its unfortunate you and Myriad cannot sign up at P4T to discuss this.

By the way, someone may want to tell Myriad that 23 fps over 3 seconds only equates to 69 feet. Not 314 or 239.

Regards

[TC329]

Originally Posted by beachnut

yep, the person who looked up tower told me my mistake, m vs ft, the tower is in meters, then it is 303.8 feet. Wonder if jdx can fix his error in feet per NM?

I have made a conversion error and I am still correct that 77 hit the Pentagon, you made an error in math and physics, and you are still wrong.

I am sorry, I thought since jdx makes big errors he could have messed up the tower height, and I missed the conversion. It is funny, I can make massive errors in everything and 77 still hit the Pentagon. You guys can make up ideas to mislead others and never be correct. How can you be so bad at math on the acceleration stuff? Got Math, got Physics? Math and Physics class 120 bucks per class; internet posting while wine tasting in Sonama on the square, priceless...

Its good someone caught your mistake this time. Usually they dont correct you. But I did see you replied "92 meters" to justify the "92 feet" you posted above. Someone must have given you a pretty quick heads up on that one. I dont blame them.....

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by TC329

Please note you have the pull starting at the Antenna through pole 1 to the pentagon. Your number is 3.49 G's for the duration. Which exceeds Transport Category G limits by 1 G.

Myriad has the pull starting at pole 1 to the pentagon. He has 3.2 G for that segment also exceeding Transport Category G limits.

Well, by golly we'll just get the FAA to fine him for overstressing that aircraft and we'll inspect it to determine if there's any damage.

Oh, butt, butt.......

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by TC329

Thank you for your input Mackey.

Please note you have the pull starting at the Antenna through pole 1 to the pentagon. Your number is 3.49 G's for the duration. Which exceeds Transport Category G limits by 1 G.

Myriad has the pull starting at pole 1 to the pentagon. He has 3.2 G for that segment also exceeding Transport Category G limits.

This is the third time we have explained this to you and you still do not see the descrepency between your calculation and how it applies to what is being demonstrated.

Like we said, your numbers do make more sense and we thank you for time. We are currently reviewing the numbers and will revise the article if required. There is more than one person within P4T working on this. Check the list, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

Also, we have linked on the article itself to a "Common Arguments" thread in our forum with your numbers. So your numbers are represented with the article itself. Its unfortunate you and Myriad cannot sign up at P4T to discuss this.

"We?" I remind you again, do not post on behalf of banned members. That will cut this conversation very short.

As I've stated to you at least three times, "my" trajectory uses the most unfavorable numbers possible -- it pulls up 12 feet higher, and sooner, than it has to because you don't understand that poles would scrape the bottom of the plane, but the impact hole is referenced to the middle of the plane. If you fix this error you get a much, much gentler trajectory. I already showed you that, too.

Furthermore, "exceeding Category G limits" makes no difference. The Boeing can do it. Terrorists aren't familiar with FAA regulations, and would hardly be expected to follow them in any case. Unless the Boeing couldn't exert that much control authority, or couldn't survive, you've proven nothing. These g-loads are easily within a 757's performance envelope.

And none of this changes the fact that your derivation, using the same input numbers, was totally wrong. Complain about me all you want, it won't change the fact that you don't even know how to solve this problem.

Why would I possibly want to continue this charade at your message board? Thus far, you've showed no ability to learn a thing, either individually or in conference. On top of that, I remind you that Mr. Balsamo has a history of threatening to shoot people. And there's the little problem that nobody ever goes there. What incentive do you have to offer me?

Please, I beg you, try to learn. You're batting zero.

ETA: As a parting comment, the following:

Originally Posted by TC329

By the way, someone may want to tell Myriad that 23 fps over 3 seconds only equates to 69 feet. Not 314 or 239.

... makes no sense. What school did you go to??

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by TC329

Thank you for your input Mackey.

Please note you have the pull starting at the Antenna through pole 1 to the pentagon. Your number is 3.49 G's for the duration. Which exceeds Transport Category G limits by 1 G.

Yeah--they really intended to use this ariplane again, so they certainly would have obeyed those rules, just like they did the speed limit...

Quote:

Myriad has the pull starting at pole 1 to the pentagon. He has 3.2 G for that segment also exceeding Transport Category G limits.

This is the third time we have explained this to you and you still do not see the descrepency between your calculation and how it applies to what is being demonstrated.

see above

Quote:

Like we said, your numbers do make more sense and we thank you for time. We are currently reviewing the numbers and will revise the article if required. There is more than one person within P4T working on this. Check the list, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

Also, we have linked on the article itself to a "Common Arguments" thread in our forum with your numbers. So your numbers are represented with the article itself. Its unfortunate you and Myriad cannot sign up at P4T to discuss this.

So, you are not a single person, or you are relaying for someone else, who has been banned? You are aware that that is a banning offense, are you not

Quote:

By the way, someone may want to tell Myriad that 23 fps over 3 seconds only equates to 69 feet. Not 314 or 239.

Regards

So--screw it. I need a rest

Edited by chillzero:

Edited for civility

[TC329]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

"We?" I remind you again, do not post on behalf of banned members. That will cut this conversation very short.

As I've stated to you at least three times, "my" trajectory uses the most unfavorable numbers possible -- it pulls up 12 feet higher, and sooner, than it has to because you don't understand that poles would scrape the bottom of the plane, but the impact hole is referenced to the middle of the plane. If you fix this error you get a much, much gentler trajectory. I already showed you that, too.

Furthermore, "exceeding Category G limits" makes no difference. The Boeing can do it. Terrorists aren't familiar with FAA regulations, and would hardly be expected to follow them in any case. Unless the Boeing couldn't exert that much control authority, or couldn't survive, you've proven nothing. These g-loads are easily within a 757's performance envelope.

And none of this changes the fact that your derivation, using the same input numbers, was totally wrong. Complain about me all you want, it won't change the fact that you don't even know how to solve this problem.

Why would I possibly want to continue this charade at your message board? Thus far, you've showed no ability to learn a thing, either individually or in conference. On top of that, I remind you that Mr. Balsamo has a history of threatening to shoot people. And there's the little problem that nobody ever goes there. What incentive do you have to offer me?

Please, I beg you, try to learn. You're batting zero.

Thank you once again for your reply Mackey.

First let me address your concerns about me saying "we". I say "we" because I have permission to speak on behalf of the organization.

Let me remind you to please visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
to reassure yourself I am a member of PFT.


It appears what we have been trying to tell you folks is not sinking in. So Lets try this for a 4th time.

Mackey has 3.49 G Load requirement over a period 4 times greater than the duration of Myriads lesser G Load requirement to arrest the same descent rate.

As far as "Shooting" someone. That stale argument is useless for the desperate. Ask Ron. He feels Rob is rather "pleasant" and an "intelligent guy". It recorded and on this forum. I'd dig out the link, but im sure Ron wont deny it.

Also, are the mods going to do anything about rwquinn breaking forum rules by attacking the person instead of the argument?


Mackey, we are willing to learn. Come on over to P4T forum so you can discuss this with them. Dont worry, no one will shoot you at our forum. :-)

Regards.

You may not post by proxy for a banned member. Any further messages (posted after 3/16/08 16:36 PDT) from Rob Balsamo or any other banned forum member, will be deleted and the person posting them will be suspended.

Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:Lisa Simpson

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by TC329

Let me remind you to please visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
to reassure yourself I am a member of PFT.

That wasn't the point. I find it very easy to believe you're part of that mob. However, your posts here are identical to those spammed all over the Internet.

Originally Posted by TC329

It appears what we have been trying to tell you folks is not sinking in. So Lets try this for a 4th time.

Mackey has 3.49 G Load requirement over a period 4 times greater than the duration of Myriads lesser G Load requirement to arrest the same descent rate.

It's not that it isn't "sinking in," it's that it's crap. The different loads are due to different assumptions. Either of our derivations are valid.

And you still don't seem to understand the difference between distance, velocity, and acceleration.

Originally Posted by TC329

As far as "Shooting" someone. That stale argument is useless for the desperate. Ask Ron. He feels Rob is rather "pleasant" and an "intelligent guy". It recorded and on this forum. I'd dig out the link, but im sure Ron wont deny it.

Mr. Balsamo has made death threats to Mark Roberts, Billzilla, and who knows who else in the past. The man is dangerous and unstable. Even assuming he's successfully undergone anger management, this doesn't predispose me to speak to him. Particularly given his shocking ignorance of basic physics.

Originally Posted by TC329

Mackey, we are willing to learn. Come on over to P4T forum so you can discuss this with them. Dont worry, no one will shoot you at our forum. :-)

I'm not worried. But neither am I interested. If you hacks managed to put together a halfway decent argument, it might be different, but thus far you have a) failed to set up the problem correctly, b) failed to solve it correctly, c) failed to comprehend multiple corrections offered by myself and others, and d) continuously changed the subject.

You need my help (or someone's help, anyway). Not the other way around. Once again, I don't do house calls.

[TC329]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

That wasn't the point. I find it very easy to believe you're part of that mob. However, your posts here are identical to those spammed all over the Internet.



It's not that it isn't "sinking in," it's that it's crap. The different loads are due to different assumptions. Either of our derivations are valid.

And you still don't seem to understand the difference between distance, velocity, and acceleration.



Mr. Balsamo has made death threats to Mark Roberts, Billzilla, and who knows who else in the past. The man is dangerous and unstable. Even assuming he's successfully undergone anger management, this doesn't predispose me to speak to him. Particularly given his shocking ignorance of basic physics.



I'm not worried. But neither am I interested. If you hacks managed to put together a halfway decent argument, it might be different, but thus far you have a) failed to set up the problem correctly, b) failed to solve it correctly, c) failed to comprehend multiple corrections offered by myself and others, and d) continuously changed the subject.

You need my help (or someone's help, anyway). Not the other way around. Once again, I don't do house calls.

For a man so "dangerous and unstable", he sure knows how to gain credible support. But we know you guys think they're all "nuts" anyway. Right?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html
http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots

Where is the list of your "experts" faces and names backing their statements.

And arent "death threats" illegal? Why isnt Rob in jail or served with a TRO?

Perhaps Mark and "Billzilla" (whoever that is) exaggerated and quoted information out of context? It certianly wont be the first time. But you guys sure do love to trot out something posted over a year ago which was done at a Super Bowl party with everyone having a laugh at Marks expense, when you get backed into a corner.. dont you?..

Mark lives in NYC no? Does he and his peers cry this much when harsh words exchanged each time they cannot find a better excuse for debating from a distance and not directly confronting the individual or organization?

I know you would prefer to derail this thread Mackey. But please. Stick to topic.

Can you please input the FDR numbers into your formula for me? Remember, im not a pilot or NASA Engineer. Have you been able to find the FDR information that has been available for download for over a year and is linked in this very thread? Or do you need me to provide it again.

Thanks again for your "expert" review and analysis.

Regards.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by TC329

Thank you for your input Mackey.

Please note you have the pull starting at the Antenna through pole 1 to the pentagon. Your number is 3.49 G's for the duration. Which exceeds Transport Category G limits by 1 G.

Myriad has the pull starting at pole 1 to the pentagon. He has 3.2 G for that segment also exceeding Transport Category G limits.

This is the third time we have explained this to you and you still do not see the descrepency between your calculation and how it applies to what is being demonstrated.

As has been pointed out, airliners are designed with a minimum safety factor of 1.5. Further, even assuming that 2.5 g is the point at which structural failure will occur, that limit would apply at the aircraft's maximum takeoff weight, or possibly if either cargo, passengers, or fuel were at their maximum weight.

From Boeing specifications for the 757-200 (RB211-535E4B engines):

• Operating empty weight: 136,900 lb
  
• Maximum zero-fuel weight: 188,000 lb
  
• Maximum takeoff weight: 255,000 lb
  
• Maximum structural payload: 47,060 lb
  
• Cargo volume: 1790 ft³
  
• Maximum fuel: 11,489 US gal (78,000 lb @6.8 lb/gal)

According to an NTSB report, American 77 had about 36,200 lb of fuel remaining at impact.

So, even assuming the maximum zero-fuel weight of 188,000 lb, plus fuel on board of 37,000 lb, the aircraft's maximum weight would have been 225,000 lb.

However, there were 118 empty seats (176 - 53 pax - 5 hijackers), so assuming maximum zero-fuel weight is probably not realistic. Even if the cargo hold was full of baggage and freight (which I was unable to determine), average baggage weight is 10 lb/ft³, so there'd be 1790 * 10 = 18,000 lb in the hold. Average passenger weight is 170 lb + 30 lb carry-on luggage = 200 lb, so (53 + 6 + 5) * 200 = 12,000. That gives about 30,000 lb of structural payload out of 47,060 lb max.

Operating empty weight plus fuel plus structural payload = 136,900 + 37,000 + 30,000 = 204,000 lb. We can't just directly divide 255,000/204,000 to obtain a multiplier for the aircraft's revised g-limit without grossly oversimplifying; however, we can state with confidence that the aircraft would likely have been able to pull significantly more gees without suffering catastrophic structural failure.

[Jonnyclueless]

Yet not as much credible support as the flat earth society.

And love the list of pilots. But of course by pilot they mean "Someone who can pilot others to the truth". Making the site all that much more "credible".

[Timothy]

For the third time (http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=132 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=232) -- The math requires that AA77 cleared the VDOT Antenna. What is that supposition founded on?

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by TC329

By the way, someone may want to tell Myriad that 23 fps over 3 seconds only equates to 69 feet.

Very good! You got that one correct. Your journey towards becoming a participant in one of the fundamental and universal arts of our civilization has begun. When you combine a correct physical model (in this case, Euclidean space of at least one dimension orthogonal to time), correct units (feet per second * seconds gives you a result in feet), and correct arithmetic (23 * 3 = 69), you can calculate things like this, that are actually true and potentially useful to know. Furthermore, when you calculate something correctly you show that it is true in a way that is completely impervious to anyone's opinion about what is true. You have proven beyond all possibility of rational contradiction that an object moving 23 fps for 3 seconds moves 69 feet. That is a significant accomplishment!

But don't stop there. Keep learning and exploring. With a little more experience and practice, you might be able to figure out and prove (when your physical model, units, and arithmetic are indeed correct) more complex things, also beyond all possibility of rational contradiction. Things like:

If a plane accelerates upward at 1.2g, for 3 seconds, at the end of which it is descending at 23 feet per second, then during those three seconds it will have descended 239 feet.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by TC329

For a man so "dangerous and unstable", he sure knows how to gain credible support. But we know you guys think they're all "nuts" anyway. Right?

Yes, I'm so impressed by the size of your fan club. Argumentum ad populum won't get you much around here.

If he has so much "credible support," how come there's not a one of you who can do basic algebra?

Originally Posted by TC329

Where is the list of your "experts" faces and names backing their statements.

Now you're talking like a sock for LastChild. I'll tell you, too. Every single published paper in the world, in every discipline, from every researcher, in every country is inconsistent with your claims. Every paper is likewise consistent with the commonly accepted hypothesis of September 11th, including building performance. My "list" encompasses every professional society, every engineering department at every university, and every regulatory body in the world.

Originally Posted by TC329

And arent "death threats" illegal? Why isnt Rob in jail or served with a TRO?

Perhaps Mark and "Billzilla" (whoever that is) exaggerated and quoted information out of context? It certianly wont be the first time. But you guys sure do love to trot out something posted over a year ago which was done at a Super Bowl party with everyone having a laugh at Marks expense, when you get backed into a corner.. dont you?..

I don't know why he's not in jail. Not everyone who issues a threat goes to jail. Depends on the strength of the case and the willingness of the person threatened to prosecute.

The excuses you make for this guy are amazing. "Maybe it was out of context." "It was over a year ago." "It was at a superbowl party." Actually the ones I know about had nothing to do with a superbowl party, so this is apparently yet another death threat you're talking about.

Bottom line, I have no interest in talking with Mr. Balsamo. He's crazy. If you want to hang around him, that's your problem.

And how, precisely, are you dropouts planning to "back me into a corner?" I showed you my work. You can't even understand it. There is no corner.

Originally Posted by TC329

Mark lives in NYC no? Does he and his peers cry this much when harsh words exchanged each time they cannot find a better excuse for debating from a distance and not directly confronting the individual or organization?

I know you would prefer to derail this thread Mackey. But please. Stick to topic.

This has got to be some kind of record for confusion. You are trying to derail this thread, trying to move it to friendly territory... I see no point to doing so.

And you're not debating. You don't appear capable of it. You STILL don't understand the calculation, even though it's no more difficult than an average tenth-grade word problem... and you were the one who brought it here.

If you can't keep up, you can't debate. What's needed here is not a "debate," it's for you to learn. You are not a peer in this discussion.

Originally Posted by TC329

Can you please input the FDR numbers into your formula for me? Remember, im not a pilot or NASA Engineer. Have you been able to find the FDR information that has been available for download for over a year and is linked in this very thread? Or do you need me to provide it again.

Thanks again for your "expert" review and analysis.

You have not provided it. But yes, I can. Give me the coordinates or constraints you want your plane to fly through, and we can find the curve together. Very simple.

Pick whichever ones you like.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by TC329

Your argument from incredulity noted Beachnut. Thank you. The data had to have stopped 2800 feet or more becuase you believe AA77 hit the pentagon. We understand.

Why did the NTSB not stop the data at a point more than 2800 feet away? Why did the NTSB report impact time as 09:37:45 with vertical acceleration recorded up to that point if you say all this data was recorded more than 2800 feet away? Why are they working for the NTSB and you are accumulating almost 7000 posts on JREF making excuses for the govt story and trolling the web attacking people you think are nuts? Say it Beachy, the NTSB provides "junk" data.. right? Just like P4T is junk. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

Thanks again for your replies.

By the way "Reheat". The animation reconstruction produced by the NTSB based on what they claim is the Flight Data Recorder information from AA77 is not a "cartoon". But your evasiveness to report the altitude plotted by the NTSB (which you claimed the "dumb" P4T plotted), noted.

Regards.

The NTSB did not stop the data. The data is missing, you can see the data is missing in the raw data with time stamps missing data; even the p4t decode is missing a second the NTSB did decode. Not very good at decoding what the NTSB did, are you?. If you decode all the data the NTSB gave you, you can see the FDR came from 77, with all 25 hours of flying confirming it was 77. Do not tell your truther believing drones the truth.

The NTSB animation was a working copy and the ground is not aligned with the data from the FDR except in a relative manner. The NTSB working copy Pentagon is 20 degrees off on line up. P4t are so research challenged, they are unable to understand “working copy”. Who would guess?

The animation is made with data from the FDR, but the position data in the FDR is not accurate enough to place the relation of the plane’s position to the ground better then thousands of feet; as in 2000 to 3000 feet! Understand this yet TC? Therefore the animation is not accurate with where 77 is really! Therefore the line up the NTSB WORKING COPY shows is not right! END OF STORY. Understand this? I doubt it. Therefore, please show me the data they used to line up the FDR data as seen in the cartoon, which is a “working copy” as stated by the NTSB. You can explain how the animation came up showing the wrong heading, right? You can tell me why the data stops with a next the last RAD ALT reading greater than 200 feet. You will never come up with good answers to the missing data, and you will never explain the animation errors in a “working copy”. You do not understand how they made the animation in the first place. You can’t do math, you can’t check math, you can’t figure out 9/11. What is new? I actually know I can make mistakes; why are you unable to see yours?

The pilots for truth make up stuff so they can imply false conclusions. I think your list of pilots is a small fringe of people who can not use rational thinking, knowledge and logic to figure out 9/11. Not one of the "core" p4t are capable of making rational statements on 9/11. If any of them worked for me, they would all be at the shrink before they moved a jet they flew for me. I was the chief instructor for 200 aircrew members, if any of them had displayed the fantasy paranoid ideas the p4t have, I would ground them.


(I would have to ground jdx for making death threats, and the rest would be grounded for not being about to math!)

Got math?

[celestrin]

Why are you debunkers so mean? You're confusing the arrogant little ol' twoofer. When you speak of his math errors, he's imagining something like 1+2=7. Or perhaps like

280% X 4.0 G's = 8.0 G's

You see, he had already fixed errors just like that, apparently with a little help from such certified masterminds as Craig and Aldo, so he's obviously getting confused. His math is solid now (280% of 4 = 11.2). 4Sure, on the level of 12 year old kids, but solid. Why are you not telling him it's his physics that's wrong?! You meanies!! Leave Robbie alone!!! How can you expect an out of work copilot to have the 14 year old kid's understanding of physics???!!! Real pilots never need knowledge of nerdy concepts such as distance, velocity or acceleration!!!1!! And besides - when PfT core membership reaches 1000 they will replace your current debunker physics with their own!!!! That'll shut you up for good!!UNDICI!!!

[chillzero]

This thread is being closed temporarily, pending further review, due to the amount of reports being generated. Do not restart this topic elsewhere.

Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:chillzero

[chillzero]

Thread re-opened.

Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:chillzero

[DGM]

I missed it. What's the proof that Fl 77 didn't just miss the mast to one side or the other?

[Myriad]

No proof has been offered.

By the way, here's a link to R.Mackey's new and more comprehensive analysis of the accelerations and g forces along the flight path, under various cases of possible altitudes at specific points along the path.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=109066

Respectfully,
Myriad

[jaydeehess]

Once again TC

You state:

Quote:

Pole 1 distance to Pentagon = 1016 feet

1016 feet/781 fps = 1.3 seconds

4480 fpm descent needs to be arrested within 1.3 seconds.

75 * 1.3 = 97.5 foot descent within 1.3 seconds

Note the bolded part.

What you have done is multiply a desent rate of 75 fps by 1.3 seconds.
What this gives you is how far (in the vertical) an aircraft that is desending at 75 fps will travel during 1.3 seconds. It says nothing about having 'arrested' a desent rate of 75 fps. This calculation would ONLY apply to an aircraft that is desending at 75fps at the beginning AND at the end of that 1.3 seconds. In other words, one that is NOT 'arresting' its vertical desent rate at all.

To go from 75 fps to zero fps in 1.3 seconds requires causing an upwards acellertion on the aircraft.

Since v= v_(initial) + at
we can figure out what that acelleration would have to be
We require a v=0, you give us a v_(initial)=75 fps and a time span of 1.3 seconds

Forgetting all assumptions on your part up to this point and using YOUR numbers then
0= 75 + a(1.3)
solving for a gives an upwards acelleration of 57.69 f/s²
57.69/32 will give us the 'g' number of 1.8

So how far in the vertical would plane travel if it started at a velocity of 75 fps and was subject to an upward velocity of 57.69 g for 1.3 seconds

d= v_(initial)(t) +(1/2)at²
d= 75(1.3) -(0.5)(57.69)(1.3)²
d=48.75 feet

Which means that IF the plane had a desent rate of 75fps as it passed pole 1 AND was at a desent rate of ZERO fps as it impacted the Pentagon AND it arrested this desent velocity at a steady rate then it would have desended less than 50 feet from its altitude as it passed over pole 1.

Sucj=h is high school physics using the numbers you supply and still the brain trust at p4t cannot see why it that their calculation (what is it ? the 3rd calculation on the page) is wrong.

It is only slightly better than Killtown's style of calculation.