Flight 77 obstacles

[jaydeehess]

double post

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by DGM

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

Well going by the alledged marks on the pole and that the camera glass was shattered, I'd suggest that the wingtip hit it.

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Well going by the alledged marks on the pole and that the camera glass was shattered, I'd suggest that the wingtip hit it.

I thought I remembered seeing this, but I haven't been able to find the photo again. Do you have a link to the photo?

[jhunter1163]

I remember seeing it too (see post #76 in this thread). There was a scuff-like mark on the mast a few feet down from the top. IIRC, there was some question as to whether the mark was made by AA77. Was that ever resolved?

[Reheat]

IIRC, it was posted by Russell Pickering on the old LC site. I've searched for it and can't locate it. Russell believed it was from AA77 if that means anything.

There is a chance I'm confusing this with another pole down near the highway with a camera on it. It was somewhere near pole 1. There is a possibility I'm confusing the two structures, I'm not sure at all.

[Mangoose]

Are we talking about two different things here? The mast on Wash. Blvd. versus the VDOT antenna next to the Columbia Pike. Yeah, there is excellent photographic evidence that shows not only a scuff-mark on the mast (halfway up to the camera) but also there's a missing rung in that location. A definite impact site, imho. And as jhunter says, that's an excellent means for estimating the altitude of the plane when it passed over the road.

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by Mangoose

Are we talking about two different things here? The mast on Wash. Blvd. versus the VDOT antenna next to the Columbia Pike. Yeah, there is excellent photographic evidence that shows not only a scuff-mark on the mast (near where the camera got damaged) but also there are a few rungs missing in that location. A definite impact site, imho. And as jhunter says, that's an excellent means for estimating the altitude of the plane when it passed over the road.

Yes, I believe that's correct. I suspect both jhunter and I were thinking of the mast and not the VDOT tower. Oh well....

[Mangoose]

[PhantomWolf]

Possibly, it was mentioned in a post I skimmed the other day in one of the threads back a while. Of course another indicator of how low the plane was and where it's flight path was is the tree that lost its top to one of the engines (which looks like it's in the same photo)

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by Reheat

Yes, I believe that's correct. I suspect both jhunter and I were thinking of the mast and not the VDOT tower. Oh well....

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA_Sept21.txt

Quote:

Just before impact, the plane clipped off two VDOT light poles on
Washington Boulevard, a football field or two away from the Pentagon. In
the same area, the blast from the plane's impact damaged the lenses of one
of VDOT's traffic monitoring cameras and knocked the camera sideways.

[Mangoose]

Here is an image of the VDOT antenna taken just minutes after the attack by Steve Riskus, compared with a photo I took of it in 2005:

[Timothy]

Originally Posted by Mangoose

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/739/mast1df0.jpg

This is excellent evidence? I would like to see the same scrutiny applied to this contention as others commonly seen in this forum.

Is there a credible trail of data that can be used to ascertain either the original contention (AA77 cleared the VDOT antenna) or that the scuff mark was caused by AA77?

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Mangoose

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/739/mast1df0.jpg

Pah!!

Obviously planted the day before

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by Timothy

This is excellent evidence? I would like to see the same scrutiny applied to this contention as others commonly seen in this forum.

Is there a credible trail of data that can be used to ascertain either the original contention (AA77 cleared the VDOT antenna) or that the scuff mark was caused by AA77?

Not really. At some point the questions become too detailed and the bar of proof becomes so absurd that its no longer realistic to expect ironclad answers.

It is more than just a scuff mark though, as there is a piece clearly missing as well.

But, no, placing AA77 in the air at any point and time with that type of precision is simply not possible to do with any certainty at all.

[Mangoose]

I just took a look at the 9/11 Commission animation of Flight 77 flight path, and not even the "official story" has the plane that close to the antenna. And I think also Adam Larson's analysis of the ground track placed it at 60 or 61 degrees, which I think would also have missed the antenna. Who was the person here who had analyzed the FDR? What ground track did he propose?

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist

Not really. At some point the questions become too detailed and the bar of proof becomes so absurd that its no longer realistic to expect ironclad answers.

It is more than just a scuff mark though, as there is a piece clearly missing as well.

But, no, placing AA77 in the air at any point and time with that type of precision is simply not possible to do with any certainty at all.

maybe a maintenance person was climbing the vdot cam pole and the peg broke off and he immediately **** his pants causing the skid mark that we see in the photo!
It could happen!!! Now all CIT needs to do is interview the dirty underwear.

[jhunter1163]

Originally Posted by Mangoose

I just took a look at the 9/11 Commission animation of Flight 77 flight path, and not even the "official story" has the plane that close to the antenna. And I think also Adam Larson's analysis of the ground track placed it at 60 or 61 degrees, which I think would also have missed the antenna. Who was the person here who had analyzed the FDR? What ground track did he propose?

It was Anti-Sophist, I think, who analyzed the FDR, and he placed the ground track at 61 degrees.

[Turbofan]

Originally Posted by 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

Myriad, et al:

How are you able to correct PFT's calculations when you are using a one
dimensional formula?

At the least, you need to account for vertical and horizontal vectors. Possibly a third to get the lateral force if significant enough! The
formula you should have used is located here:

http://tutor4physics.com/motioncircular.htm

Your equation clearly states the obvious and therefore you cannot use
your math to 'correct' PFT's calculation:

http://tutor4physics.com/motion1d.htm

Quote:

One dimensional motion
By one dimension we mean that the body is moving only in one plane and in a straight line. Like if we roll a marble on a flat table, and if we roll it in a straight line (not easy!), then it would be undergoing one-dimensional motion.

Myriad, where do you account for known horizontal velocity in your formula? You only account for the vertical.

Quote:

From Myriad, 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.

I don't see it in your above calculation?

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Myriad, where do you account for known horizontal velocity in your formula? You only account for the vertical.

I don't see it in your above calculation?

Under the assumption of constant horizontal component of velocity (which is the same assumption you Rob Balsamo made in the original "11.2g" calculation I was responding to, on this thread several months ago), the horizontal position is in direct proportion to elapsed time and the horizontal motion has no effect on the g forces.

The horizontal velocity is accounted for in the time intervals: 3.0 seconds from the VDOT tower to the light pole, 1.3 seconds from the light pole to the wall. At a different horizontal velocity, those times would change in proportion, affecting the results of the calculation.

Quote:

At the least, you need to account for vertical and horizontal vectors. Possibly a third to get the lateral force if significant enough! The
formula you should have used is located here:

http://tutor4physics.com/motioncircular.htm

The posted approach scenario of the 11.2g calculation that I was showing to be erroneous did not include a turn. Hence I did not use any formulas for circular motion.

Quote:

Your equation clearly states the obvious and therefore you cannot use your math to 'correct' PFT's calculation.

Sorry, this claim makes no sense. If my calculation states the obvious, then it is correct, and it is also obvious is that the 11.2g calculation is wrong. (Which PfT has admitted anyhow.)

Now, if since then you've come up with a different impact path scenario, inclusive of turns or other accelerations with horizontal components that introduce lateral forces, go ahead and present the path and the calculations for it. Naturally the results will be different from the one I calculated based on the "11.2g" (constant horizontal component of velocity, no turns) scenario.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Turbofan]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Under the assumption of constant horizontal component of velocity.

What do yuo mean "constant"? It's a dive! I don't understand?

Quote:

The horizontal velocity is accounted for in the time intervals: 3.0 seconds from the VDOT tower to the light pole, 1.3 seconds from the light pole to the wall. At a different horizontal velocity, those times would change in proportion, affecting the results of the calculation.

Where are the distance figures? You are only showing ONE vector here.

Quote:

Now, if since then you've come up with a different impact path scenario, inclusive of turns or other accelerations with horizontal components that introduce lateral forces, go ahead and present the path and the calculations for it.

Are you saying your formula is correct for the current presented scenario?

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

What do you mean "constant"? It's a dive! I don't understand?

I mean, the horizontal component of velocity is assumed not to change during the 4.3 seconds in question by an amount sufficient to make a significant difference in the results.

Quote:

Where are the distance figures? You are only showing ONE vector here.

The distance figures are repeated in my previous posts in this thread, and came originally from the "11.2g" essay that I was refuting.

Quote:

Are you saying your formula is correct for the current presented scenario?

Yes, because the only current presented scenario is the same one PfT presented back in March that was the topic of this thread. If you have a more recent scenario, please feel free to present it.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Turbofan]

A scene from PFT's latest presentation. Calcs and updates:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...86758033&hl=en

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

A scene from PFT's latest presentation. Calcs and updates:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...86758033&hl=en

Cool.

What this shows is that if the plane didn't start pulling until after hitting the first light pole (leveling off entirely within about 400 feet after crossing the east edge of the highway), it would have had to pull 10.14g to pull up.

That's an overestimate, because the angle of the left radius of the pull-up arc shown in the clip, and hence the 2085-foot radius of curvature, was pulled out of somebody's ass. That left radius should be perpendicular to the plane's trajectory at that point. You've assumed a dive, that is a constant descent, from the top of the VDOT antenna to the top of the light pole, so those points define the angle of the trajectory. The angle from the top of the VDOT antenna to the top of the first light pole is arctan((delta height) / distance) = atan (224 / 2400) = 0.0931 radians. That's the same angle as the angle between the radii of the arc, and the sine of that angle is the ratio of the radius to the distance of the arc projected along the horizontal (which in the diagram in the clip is 400 feet), which makes the radius 4304 feet.

v²/r = 4.07g + 1g = 5.07g.

Of course, there's nothing in the scenario preventing the plane from starting to pull up sooner, so as to be flying nearly level before reaching the first light pole. Then it would require about... 2.2g.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[CurtC]

Maybe I missed it, but why would the plane have to go directly over the VDOT antenna, instead of just to the side of it? That's what, a mile away, and the distance from the center line of the plane to a wingtip is only 62 feet. Have we determined its flight path to within that precision a mile away?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Cool.

What this shows is that if the plane didn't start pulling until after hitting the first light pole (leveling off entirely within about 400 feet after crossing the east edge of the highway), it would have had to pull 10.14g to pull up.

That's an overestimate, because the angle of the left radius of the pull-up arc shown in the clip, and hence the 2085-foot radius of curvature, was pulled out of somebody's ass. That left radius should be perpendicular to the plane's trajectory at that point. You've assumed a dive, that is a constant descent, from the top of the VDOT antenna to the top of the light pole, so those points define the angle of the trajectory. The angle from the top of the VDOT antenna to the top of the first light pole is arctan((delta height) / distance) = atan (224 / 2400) = 0.0931 radians. That's the same angle as the angle between the radii of the arc, and the sine of that angle is the ratio of the radius to the distance of the arc projected along the horizontal (which in the diagram in the clip is 400 feet), which makes the radius 4304 feet.

v²/r = 4.07g + 1g = 5.07g.

Of course, there's nothing in the scenario preventing the plane from starting to pull up sooner, so as to be flying nearly level before reaching the first light pole. Then it would require about... 2.2g.

Respectfully,
Myriad

... to the p4t physics flawed fysics brains, you are 1 dimensional. lol

Balsamo is not able to think past his implied lies. They will never understand physics, they are only selling implication of lies for people too dumb to figure it out. 15 bucks buys pure stupid put out by terrorist apologists, or are they now terrorist loyalist. What do you call people who deny that the terrorist killed those on 77 and people working in the Pentagon?

Does Balsamo have a clue? He can't figure out a simple model to use to estimate the G force, but calls it one dimensional, but the only one dimensional problem is Balsamo and his understanding of physics.

[R.Mackey]

At the risk of adding scientific rigor to another battle of incredulity, I addressed the issue of increased speed in my parabolic model due to the dive itself in this post. The additional horizontal speed is not expected to change more than a percent or two and can be safely neglected.

Regarding other maneuvers, e.g. banking left or right, these are not needed, nor were they reported by witnesses. We can assume the aircraft was more or less at a zero roll angle during the terminal dive and pull-up. Nothing to see here.

[jaydeehess]

double post

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

What do yuo mean "constant"? It's a dive! I don't understand?Myriad, et al:

Clearly!

Quote:

How are you able to correct PFT's calculations when you are using a one
dimensional formula?

At the least, you need to account for vertical and horizontal vectors. Possibly a third to get the lateral force if significant enough! The
formula you should have used is located here:

http://tutor4physics.com/motioncircular.htm

Your equation clearly states the obvious and therefore you cannot use
your math to 'correct' PFT's calculation:

http://tutor4physics.com/motion1d.htm

It seems, Turbofan, that you have never attended any actual class room instruction in physics. It is common practise to reduce motion to component vectors in relevent directions. At no time has anyone ever suggested much in the way of lateral motion between the VDOT and the Pentagon. Even if there had been the g accelerations would be listed as in the lateral directon and would not add or subtract from those in the vertical.
PfT assumes a constant forward velocity and thus acceleration in that direction is zero.
Thus only accelerations in the vertical remain to be calculated.

Quote:

Myriad, where do you account for known horizontal velocity in your formula? You only account for the vertical.

Precisly! That is the whole point of PfT's calculations too, the vertical acceleration! There is no or little acceleration in the horizontal and thus little or no 'g forces' in the horizontal either. PfT never asked about horizontal accelerations anyway.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

I don't see it in your above calculation?

You do know Balsamo is wrong? You can estimate G force with simple models, they are not one dimensional. People are warning you again, just like your 64 words per second, when it was 256, you have hooked up to another failed p4t flight of fantasy and errors. You can take the descent rate and prove it yourself if you would take the time. Physics is your friend.

Where is Latas to correct your latest errors? Looks like the ides of Sept have killed the p4t efforts, but they are still the kings of failed flawed fysics.

I like the instantaneous Gs for 1/2 second. How do you do that? Do you tie a rope to a pivot point? Why is 77 level in a fish eye lens when everyone saw it hit in a dive?

How do you guys mess up the easy stuff?

You guys forgot to take physics. Our high school football coaches were the physics teacher and the calculus teacher. Great classes! We all got A in freshman calculus and physics. It appears some JREFers also had excellent teachers! You p4t guys need to get a refund if you took physics!

This is interesting how bad you guys mess up this stuff. How many DVDs are now proof of p4t failed fysics.
Parallel was a problem for CIT/p4t experts, now perpendicular may be the latest problem.

[Turbofan]

Apparently, most people here haven't been to class for many other things.

Did anyone actually watch the video? Do any of YOUR calculations work
with the NTSB data?

I can't find any of your figures in the CSV file.

It turns out your values are based on your specific model, and do not
support the FDR data.

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Apparently, most people here haven't been to class for many other things.

Did anyone actually watch the video? Do any of YOUR calculations work
with the NTSB data?

I can't find any of your figures in the CSV file.

It turns out your values are based on your specific model, and do not
support the FDR data.

I love this ignorant tactic. They make up a scenario. They screw up the math. We correct the math. They say that our values aren't in the CSV file. So what? We didn't invent the scenario. We just fixed your errors.

It's not _our_ fault your made-up scenario doesn't match reality. All we are doing is fixing your stupid math.

Besides, you don't even know WHERE to look in the CSV file for the numbers you want because you have absolutely no handle at all on the potential time-slip issues present. See other thread.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Apparently, most people here haven't been to class for many other things.

Did anyone actually watch the video? Do any of YOUR calculations work
with the NTSB data?

I can't find any of your figures in the CSV file.

It turns out your values are based on your specific model, and do not
support the FDR data.

illustrate for us then that the FDR data shows that the plane experienced no vertical accelerations between the tower and the lamp post.

Of course the only way to do this would be to take the 'working copy' animation's placement of the ground objects as gospel since the FDR data does not indicate at all what objects are below the aircraft at any one time.

I suppose one could also take the DME data and place the aircraft on the map but then you are working with, at minimum, a 1/10th of a nautical mile error which hardly would place the aircraft OVER the tower now would it?

How about using RADES data? No, you probably want to stay away from that as it shows the plane on the accepted flightpath and also would have both a spatial error and a temporal error wrt to the FDR time stamp. For instance, if the two clocks are 1/10th of a second different then the plane position has a minimum of 70 foot positional error due soley to the time difference that would have to be added to the radar position error which IIRC would be around +/- 75 feet.

[Turbofan]

That would be all nice and stuff, however it would place the aircraft WELL
over the tower when you correct the altitude. Don't forget about that!

BTW, if horizontal velocity is constant, how the hell is a plane going to pull
out of a dive? Where will the vertical velocity go as it decreases to zero?

PFT admitted their mistake since day one and tried to inform the 'critics' of
the mistake. They chose to plug their ears and now they are trying to blame
it on PFT mistakes? Are you all for real?

Check this out. Note the date:


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//...ost&p=10735436

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

PFT admitted their mistake since day one...

Well, day 5. But whose counting. In the interim 5 days, they posted that hilariously awful **** all over the internet. They didn't do anywhere near as much work "correcting" the record as they did humiliating themselves with the massive spam-job of the original.

http://digg.com/world_news/Arlington...ach_Impossible

I don't see any "owning up" there. Let's drop the pretension that you cared about your reputation for accuracy, ok? This is and was about propaganda, and nothing else.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

That would be all nice and stuff, however it would place the aircraft WELL
over the tower when you correct the altitude. Don't forget about that!

BTW, if horizontal velocity is constant, how the hell is a plane going to pull
out of a dive? Where will the vertical velocity go as it decreases to zero?

PFT admitted their mistake since day one and tried to inform the 'critics' of
the mistake. They chose to plug their ears and now they are trying to blame
it on PFT mistakes? Are you all for real?

Check this out. Note the date:


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=11360&view=findpost&p=10735 436

Their new video is full of errors, they are off just like you were off with 54 words per second when it was 256 word per second. You guys do not get along with math, geometry and physics.

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Apparently, most people here haven't been to class for many other things.

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Did anyone actually watch the video? Do any of YOUR calculations work
with the NTSB data?

I can't find any of your figures in the CSV file.

It turns out your values are based on your specific model, and do not
support the FDR data.

No it turns out you have zero math, geometry, and physics skills. What is new for you and p4t, your new video full of major errors. Why can't Balsamo mount better than a moron level effort with math, geometry and physics"?

Balsamo did not let us down, he still is math challenged.

It turns out you have no ability to see 77 is over 6 second away from impact only 273 feet above the ground at 130 MSL. This means 77 is only 403 feet away losing 100 to 60 feet each second. This means it is going to be hard for Hani not to hit the ground before impact. He only has 4 to 6 second to the ground or the exact impact point going down, and 6 seconds of ground to cover!

Sad you have target fixation on the p4t lies. You need to be independent and think for yourself.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

That would be all nice and stuff, however it would place the aircraft WELL
over the tower when you correct the altitude. Don't forget about that!

Once again, only if one uses PfT's interpretation of matchinmg the FDR data to position over the ground to determine altitude while over the VDOT tower.

Quote:

BTW, if horizontal velocity is constant, how the hell is a plane going to pull
out of a dive? Where will the vertical velocity go as it decreases to zero?

Horizontal velocity in this case is the ground speed of the aircraft. Although it will vary slightly in an arc in which the instantaneous velocity along the line of the fuselage remains constant but it will be small.

The question was what was the vertical acceleration required to change the vertical desent rate to zero.

Either calculation will be accurate within the errors inherent in determining the figures for altitude and desent rate. ETA: I will add that calculating the vertical acceleration both ways should agree within a few percent of each other.

The PfT animation hand waves how the radius of the arc they use is determined. In fact it was done by drawing a scale of the problem on a piece of paper. No determination of any inherent error in doing so was made. Is the radius accurate? How was the orthogonality of the radi to the curve determined? By dead reckoning on a piece of paper?

PFT admitted their mistake since day one and tried to inform the 'critics' of
the mistake. They chose to plug their ears and now they are trying to blame
it on PFT mistakes? Are you all for real?

Check this out. Note the date:


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//...ost&p=10735436[/quote]

[Turbofan]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Horizontal velocity in this case is the ground speed of the aircraft. Although it will vary slightly in an arc in which the instantaneous velocity along the line of the fuselage remains constant but it will be small.

Then why did R. Mackey use a constant total velocity of 781 fps?

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

BTW, if horizontal velocity is constant, how the hell is a plane going to pull out of a dive? Where will the vertical velocity go as it decreases to zero?

This question scares me slightly by dint of its implied ignorance, especially for one who spouts so freely on technical matters.

Turbo - a plane coming in to a normal controlled landing is - technically - "in a dive", in that it's losing height. It isn't necessarily speeding up in the horizontal plane though. In fact it might well be slowing down. Your mission - should you choose to accept it - is to identify the mechanism whereby this happens.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Then why did R. Mackey use a constant total velocity of 781 fps?

I'm trying to figure out what the deal is with the talk of horizontal velocity. Is your objection that a plane flying at 781 ft/s on a downward slope of maybe six degrees, would have a ground speed less than 781 ft/s?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

BTW, if horizontal velocity is constant, how the hell is a plane going to pull
out of a dive? Where will the vertical velocity go as it decreases to zero?

Do you understand estimation? I guess not with your ideas it appears you live in delusional dimensional world where you say 77 did not hit the Pentagon with hearsay and talk to back up your lie.

For small angles we can approximate the G force using methods Balsamo can't understand they are too simple for his delusional terrorist apologist mind. Go get some engineering experience, and stop supporting those who put lies in your mouth.

Is Balsamo a terrorist loyalist now that he is selling implication of lies to let the terrorist off the hook for 9/11? Selling false ideas, p4t moves into their bigfoot days of woo. Balsamo's terrorist loyalist work is capitalism, buyer beware, no one is coming to jail Balsamo. In Balsamo's world those who do not believe in his delusion are to be hung. What a joke.

You can use Balsamo's work as it is to see he has errors, just using simple models, which you protest due to ignorance in physics and engineering. Good job supporting the p4t guys who make you tell a lie of 77 not hitting the Pentagon, something Balsamo can't say; he lets you tell the lie. What is that called, lying by proxy?