ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 15th September 2008, 03:31 PM   #1
Turbofan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
G Forces - Scene From 9/11: Attack On The Pentagon

An update to Pilots For 9/11 Truth Arlington Topography and Obstacles Article.

"G FORCES", a scene from the new film "9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON" produced by professional pilots, Aeronautical Engineers and physicists analyzes the G forces required for a 757 to negotiate the Arlington region on September 11, 2001 based on flight data provided by the US Govt. For full high quality film and detailed description, please visit:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...86758033&hl=en
Turbofan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 04:06 PM   #2
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,444
So, they still didn't fix any of their errors from the original?
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 04:24 PM   #3
Bobert
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,126
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
An update to Pilots For 9/11 Truth Arlington Topography and Obstacles Article.

"G FORCES", a scene from the new film "9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON" produced by professional pilots, Aeronautical Engineers and physicists analyzes the G forces required for a 757 to negotiate the Arlington region on September 11, 2001 based on flight data provided by the US Govt. For full high quality film and detailed description, please visit:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=en[/quote]
This doesnt even seem like a conspiracy discussion but rather PFT just trying to pimp their "movie".
Maybe this annoucement should go into Movies, TV, Music, Computer Gaming, and other Entertainment (1

Last edited by Bobert; 15th September 2008 at 04:25 PM.
Bobert is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 04:45 PM   #4
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 25,766
Why don't you PfTers just write up an article, with a little math? I can read a hell of a lot faster than that guy narrates, and I don't have to put up with crappy quality video while I do it.



Oh, wait, I know why.....
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 05:02 PM   #5
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
That's exactly how Woodward and Bernstein did it!

__________________
Vive la libertť!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 05:07 PM   #6
Pinch
Critical Thinker
 
Pinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
...professional pilots, Aeronautical Engineers and physicists...
Is there a reason why Aeronautical Engineers is capitalized and the others aren't? Is there something special about Aeronautical Engineers that renders professional pilots and physicists impotent with regards to capitalizing? Are Aeronautical Engineers the fruit of your bounty while professional pilots and physicists are mere toads?

In any event, I've no interest to watch some cartoon made up of unverified, unvalidated and unaccredited aeronautical (lower case) data created by a bunch of people who don't even understand departure plates or flight clearances.
Pinch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 05:32 PM   #7
Turbofan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
That's too bad that you're too lazy to watch because it exposes Myriad,
R. Mackey and other 'pros', or "Pros" on this board.

Is there a reason why many of your pick on the most rediculous points of
a post?
Turbofan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 05:57 PM   #8
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,444
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
That's too bad that you're too lazy to watch because it exposes Myriad,
R. Mackey and other 'pros', or "Pros" on this board.

Is there a reason why many of your pick on the most rediculous points of
a post?

(a) I did watch. It is garbage.
(b) The movie, via vigorous use of straw men, attempts to deflect attention from the bogus calculations upon which it was based.
(c) Myriad, R. Mackey, et al., remain better at math, and physics, etc., than PFT.
(d) Why is it so difficult to correctly spell 'ridiculous'? It seems to be a systemic problem, not just an affliction of Turbofan.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 06:06 PM   #9
Turbofan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
a. That's your opinion.

b. That's your perception

c. Myriad, Mackey et al continue to form calculations that are not
based on flight data provided by the NTSB. I don't see how their
math is above PFT when they are producing values not even listed
in the data file.

d. Thanks for catching my spelling error. I'll be sure to look for yours
and point them out as well. I've caught a few too many from your
JREF buddies. I guess you didn't see those?
Turbofan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 06:08 PM   #10
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 16,625
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
a. That's your opinion.

b. That's your perception

c. Myriad, Mackey et al continue to form calculations that are not
based on flight data provided by the NTSB. I don't see how their
math is above PFT when they are producing values not even listed
in the data file.

d. Thanks for catching my spelling error. I'll be sure to look for yours
and point them out as well. I've caught a few too many from your
JREF buddies. I guess you didn't see those?
All thru' the day I me mine, I me mine, I me mine.
All thru' the night I me mine, I me mine, I me mine.
Now they're frightened of leaving it
Ev'ryone's weaving it,
Coming on strong all the time,
All thru' the day I me mine.

Mod WarningPlease post on topic.
Posted By:Lisa Simpson
__________________
All You Need Is Love.

Last edited by Lisa Simpson; 15th September 2008 at 08:47 PM.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 06:15 PM   #11
TheLoneBedouin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 733
Originally Posted by jsfisher
Why is it so difficult to correctly spell 'ridiculous'? It seems to be a systemic problem, not just an affliction of Turbofan.
Why is it so difficult to not be so immaturely legalistic? It seems to be a systemic problem, not just an affliction of jsfisher.
TheLoneBedouin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 06:17 PM   #12
bje
Graduate Poster
 
bje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,280
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
An update to Pilots For 9/11 Truth Arlington Topography and Obstacles Article.
No eyewitnesses to a flyover there, either.

It's really simple: P4T still has no eyewitnesses to a flyover. No eyewitnesses, no flyover.

Any questions, Turbofan?
__________________
- There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong.
bje is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 06:21 PM   #13
Turbofan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
As a matter of fact yes.

What hit the light poles if the NTSB, FAA and PFT data shows too high,
or off course from the OGCT?
Turbofan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 06:21 PM   #14
Bobert
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,126
Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin View Post
Why is it so difficult to not be so immaturely legalistic? It seems to be a systemic problem, not just an affliction of jsfisher.

Wow and now you have demonstrated you cannot use a word in its correct context.

Last edited by Bobert; 15th September 2008 at 06:22 PM.
Bobert is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 06:25 PM   #15
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,814
Hi Turbofan,

I have a question about the clip. Please refer to 8:02, where a side-on diagram depicts a pull-up arc about 370 feet wide, with a radius (the narration later claims) of 2085 feet.

Note that this arc is intersected by three radii, which I'll call the left, center, and right radii.

The right radius is vertical, indicating that the tangent of the arc at that point which is perpendicular to the radius is horizontal. In other words, the plane has leveled off at that point; the trajectory has become horizontal.

The left radius should similarly be perpendicular to the tangent of the arc, that is to the trajectory of the plane at that point, which is at or near where it hit the first light pole.

You are assuming in this scenario that the plane's trajectory is a straight line intersecting the top of the VDOT and the top of the first struck light pole (that is, that it does not begin to pull up until reaching the light pole, which is an unwarranted and unjustified assumption that makes this whole exercise pointless, but bear with me). So at that point the plane has been descending, up to that point, in a straight line from 304 ASL to 80 ASL over a distance of 2400 feet. That's a descent angle of 4.07 degrees from horizontal.

Why, then, is the left radius not 4.07 degrees from vertical? It's more than twice that. Where did the angle at which the left radius is drawn come from? How can that radius have an angle other than perpendicular to the tangent of the trajectory? It makes no sense.

It's wrong.

If you draw the left radius at the correct angle, perpendicular to the trajectory just before the pull-up, the radius ends up being about 3980 feet.

That radius gives you about 4.4g of centripetal acceleration, plus 1g = 5.4g total.

Of course, if the plane starts pulling up sooner, the necessary g forces go way down, exactly as R.Mackey and I calculated before. Whether you approximate the trajectory as a parabola or as an arc of a circle will make little difference. What makes the result in the clip so high, besides the geometry error, is the assumption that the plane flies in a straight line from the tower to the pole and then does its entire pull-out within a 370-foot ground distance.

(Note that in the other thread, my figures are a little different because I used a rougher approximation, 400 feet instead of 370, for the ground distance covered by the arc.)

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 15th September 2008 at 06:28 PM.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 06:30 PM   #16
bje
Graduate Poster
 
bje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,280
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
As a matter of fact yes.

What hit the light poles if the NTSB, FAA and PFT data shows too high,
or off course from the OGCT?
As you already know, the physical evidence, that physical evidence you cannot refute.

Now, answer the question, Turbofan. Where are the eyewitnesses to your flyover? Why won't you present any?
__________________
- There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong.
bje is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 06:32 PM   #17
Bobert
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,126
Sheesh they cant even get a friggin preview clip right.
Bobert is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 06:38 PM   #18
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
As a matter of fact yes.

What hit the light poles if the NTSB, FAA and PFT data shows too high,
or off course from the OGCT?

But they don't. The NTSB and FAA seem to agree that flight 77 hit the light poles. Can you tell us according to your conspiracy thoeries what hit the light poles?
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 06:39 PM   #19
Turbofan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
Originally Posted by bje View Post
As you already know, the physical evidence, that physical evidence you cannot refute.

Now, answer the question, Turbofan. Where are the eyewitnesses to your flyover? Why won't you present any?

Stay on topic please. This is about the calculations.

Physical evidence? pfff! LMAO! The magic Pentagon walls, and lack of debris found? Lack of photos...yeah. Carry on.

Back on flight data and Myriad's questions. I'll have to ask PFT about
some of those questions, however how do you justify the new values
against the NTSB flight data?
Turbofan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 06:39 PM   #20
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
I will watch when I have the time and I won't be bugging my wife with the sound on.

However, can you tell me that it arrives at any conclusion other than that on the ridiculous 11.2 G page?

Do you still divide feet by the acceleration due to gravity to obtain something you claim would be the 'G forces'?

Since we are pointing out bad grammatical form, I should mention that the nominal acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth is written in lower case, 'g'.
Upper case, 'G' is the gravitational constant, 6.674 X 10-11 N(m/kg)2
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 06:40 PM   #21
Pinch
Critical Thinker
 
Pinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
That's too bad that you're too lazy to watch because it exposes Myriad,
R. Mackey and other 'pros', or "Pros" on this board.

Is there a reason why many of your pick on the most rediculous points of
a post?
What I'm "lazy" about is, as I mentioned before, not being interested in a cartoon that attempts to push a specific theory that is made up with data that is unverified, unvalidated and unaccredited.

I work in the field of modeling and simulation, specifically in the Verification, Validation and Accreditation field. Any simulation or model that is used in training, acquisition, test or evaluation or any other discipline needs to be verified that it accurately represents the developerís conceptual description, validated to determine the degree to which a model is an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses of the model and it must be accredited by an independent authority as official certification that the model or simulation is acceptable for use for a specific purpose.

Anything else is a cartoon - it might look slick and neat and cool, but it is a presentation that lacks all the above criteria to make it meaningful and truthful.

Last I heard, the FDR data was from a "working copy", meaning it was by no means a final, validated and verified data set. Building your little cartoon from a "working copy" of a data set and not verifying the results and validating the data it produces makes it worthless from a technological and practical perspective.

Even if the FDR data set is indeed a finalized copy, the development of your little cartoon is still not worth anything more than a warm bucket of spit until you spend the time and effort to go through a VV&A process.

Go read up on the first launch of the Ariane 5 launch vehicle or the Mars Climate Orbiter to see what happens when you don't pay attention to VV&A in the design process of a model or simulation. You get data and results that can trash a multi-billion dollar program. And Captain Bob's penchant for arithmetical errors does not bode well for a quality product.

This is pretty much par for the PffT course, though. Make something look pretty and snazzy and cool - and forget the math problems, we'll fix those later! - and you'll get those people who don't know about accuracy and verification and validation to say "Wow!". Those of us who know, though, just sit back and laugh.

Like I'm doing now.

And work on your spelling, please. The poor use of grammar and poor spelling makes you look foolish when you try to talk about graduate-level issues. But go ahead and rub your hands together and giggle with Captain Bob and the Sky Kings about your little cartoon. Serious people know what tripe it is.
Pinch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 06:42 PM   #22
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
What was magical about the Pentagon walls and what was the problem with the wreckage o flight 77 which was found at the Pentagon along with the FDR which Turbo is trying to use to claim that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon?
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 06:49 PM   #23
Pinch
Critical Thinker
 
Pinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
That's too bad that you're too lazy to watch because it exposes Myriad,
R. Mackey and other 'pros', or "Pros" on this board.

Is there a reason why many of your pick on the most rediculous points of
a post?
What I'm "lazy" about is, as I mentioned before, not being interested in a cartoon that attempts to push a specific theory that is made up with data that is unverified, unvalidated and unaccredited.

I work in the field of modeling and simulation, specifically in the Verification, Validation and Accreditation field. Any simulation or model that is used in training, acquisition, test or evaluation or any other discipline needs to be verified that it accurately represents the developerís conceptual description, validated to determine the degree to which a model is an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses of the model and it must be accredited by an independent authority as official certification that the model or simulation is acceptable for use for a specific purpose.

Anything else is a cartoon - it might look slick and neat and cool, but it is a presentation that lacks all the above criteria to make it meaningful and truthful.

Last I heard, the FDR data was from a "working copy", meaning it was by no means a final, validated and verified data set. Building your little cartoon from a "working copy" of a data set and not verifying the results and validating the data it produces makes it worthless from a technological and practical perspective.

Even if the FDR data set is indeed a finalized copy, the development of your little cartoon is still not worth anything more than a warm bucket of spit until you spend the time and effort to go through a VV&A process.

Go read up on the first launch of the Ariane 5 launch vehicle or the Mars Climate Orbiter to see what happens when you don't pay attention to VV&A in the design process of a model or simulation. You get data and results that can trash a multi-billion dollar program. And Captain Bob's penchant for arithmetical errors does not bode well for a quality product.

This is pretty much par for the PffT course, though. Make something look pretty and snazzy and cool - and forget the math problems, we'll fix those later! - and you'll get those people who don't know about accuracy and verification and validation to say "Wow!". Those of us who know, though, just sit back and laugh.

Like I'm doing now.

And work on your spelling, please. The poor use of grammar and poor spelling makes you look foolish when you try to talk about graduate-level issues. But go ahead and rub your hands together and giggle with Captain Bob and the Sky Kings about your little cartoon. Serious people know what tripe it is.
Pinch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 06:54 PM   #24
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,118
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
That's too bad that you're too lazy to watch [...]

I'd just like to point out that given watching a video or reading a mathematically-supported paper, watching the video is actually the lazier of the two options.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 06:54 PM   #25
bje
Graduate Poster
 
bje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,280
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
Stay on topic please. This is about the calculations.
Yes, the topic always concerns AA77 hitting the Pentagon or not. It would be helpful for you to stay focused.

Quote:
Physical evidence? pfff! LMAO! The magic Pentagon walls, and lack of debris found? Lack of photos...yeah. Carry on.
Quite right, the physical evidence you can't refute. Let's not forget those widely separated, completely disconnected eyewitnesses who witnessed the impact and the over 1,000 people who saw or recovered the wreckage that your leader Bubba Balsamo said were "irrelevant."

Yet not a single witness to AA77, or any other low-flying twin-engine jet, overflying the Pentagon. How can you continue to claim an "overflight" without a stitch of evidence???

Such is the nature of your denial, Turbofan.

Quote:
Back on flight data and Myriad's questions. I'll have to ask PFT about some of those questions, however how do you justify the new values
against the NTSB flight data?
Actually, the topic is about AA77. Tell us about those eyewitnesses to a 'flyover" you claim exist, Turbofan. Why won't you give us their statements? Just like you won't give us the testimony of the 1,000 people who saw or recovered the wreckage.

Turbofan, why won't you deal with actual evidence? Really, give us some - any - good reasons why you and P4T are so bloody afraid of presenting evidence.

Are you SO afraid of being WRONG?
__________________
- There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong.
bje is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 07:01 PM   #26
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Am I to assume that, despite the claims of the Pilots For Truth, I have yet to be "exposed?"

Shocking.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 07:09 PM   #27
MarkyX
Master Poster
 
MarkyX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,157
I'm still trying to figure these guys out.

There is light pole damage, numerous witnesses, and the damage done to the generator (pointing towards the Pentagon), pieces of the plane's fuelsage, pieces of the engine, the FDR, and bodies found in the Pentagon. There is even books written by the fire fighters and first responders describing the wreckage.

Yet they still buy into the whole "flyover" theory which has as much evidence as Godzilla destroying the Pentagon.

And these morons wonder why I call them "9/11 Deniers"
__________________
MarkyX's Haunted Bloghouse - Read my boredom
MarkyX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 07:20 PM   #28
Turbofan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
Originally Posted by Pinch View Post
What I'm "lazy" about is, as I mentioned before, not being interested in a cartoon that attempts to push a specific theory that is made up with data that is unverified, unvalidated and unaccredited.

I work in the field of modeling and simulation, specifically in the Verification, Validation and Accreditation field. Any simulation or model that is used in training, acquisition, test or evaluation or any other discipline needs to be verified that it accurately represents the developer’s conceptual description, validated to determine the degree to which a model is an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses of the model and it must be accredited by an independent authority as official certification that the model or simulation is acceptable for use for a specific purpose.

Anything else is a cartoon - it might look slick and neat and cool, but it is a presentation that lacks all the above criteria to make it meaningful and truthful.

Last I heard, the FDR data was from a "working copy", meaning it was by no means a final, validated and verified data set. Building your little cartoon from a "working copy" of a data set and not verifying the results and validating the data it produces makes it worthless from a technological and practical perspective.

Even if the FDR data set is indeed a finalized copy, the development of your little cartoon is still not worth anything more than a warm bucket of spit until you spend the time and effort to go through a VV&A process.

Go read up on the first launch of the Ariane 5 launch vehicle or the Mars Climate Orbiter to see what happens when you don't pay attention to VV&A in the design process of a model or simulation. You get data and results that can trash a multi-billion dollar program. And Captain Bob's penchant for arithmetical errors does not bode well for a quality product.

This is pretty much par for the PffT course, though. Make something look pretty and snazzy and cool - and forget the math problems, we'll fix those later! - and you'll get those people who don't know about accuracy and verification and validation to say "Wow!". Those of us who know, though, just sit back and laugh.

Like I'm doing now.

And work on your spelling, please. The poor use of grammar and poor spelling makes you look foolish when you try to talk about graduate-level issues. But go ahead and rub your hands together and giggle with Captain Bob and the Sky Kings about your little cartoon. Serious people know what tripe it is.

Grammar and spelling? Is JREF full of English masters? Let's see how many
errors I can find in your post:

1. Your first paragraph contains a 'run on' sentence.

2. The second paragraph is another example of 'run on'. Try using a period,
or two.

3. Paragraph three is an incomplete thought; read by itself, it makes no sense.

4. The fourth paragraph is missing some punctuation.

5. The fifth contains an acronym which is not referenced. You should define
your acronym prior to using it.

6. It's poor practice to start a sentence with a conjunction such as "AND".

7. "Like I'm doing now." is an incomplete sentence.




The video does not contain any mathematical errors. The data has been
verified. It was released by the NTSB. PFT based their calculations on
the DATA, not the animation. The Data is NOT a 'working copy'. Please
learn the difference.
Turbofan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 07:23 PM   #29
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,730
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
a. That's your opinion.

b. That's your perception

c. Myriad, Mackey et al continue to form calculations that are not
based on flight data provided by the NTSB. I don't see how their
math is above PFT when they are producing values not even listed
in the data file.

d. Thanks for catching my spelling error. I'll be sure to look for yours
and point them out as well. I've caught a few too many from your
JREF buddies. I guess you didn't see those?
How can you get everything wrong with ease?
11.2 g, 256 w/s, everything wrong.

The lawn is not level, it is going down to the Pentagon. LOL BUSTED

Balsamo does not understand physics. Still flawed. How can he be this bad. One dimensional, the p4t ideas. That video is worse than 11.2 Gs.
Balsamo is wrong again!!!! Seems nuts.

Last edited by beachnut; 15th September 2008 at 09:06 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 07:32 PM   #30
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
So what happened, Turbofan? Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon and then agents ran around knocking down light poles?

(And since when has P4T been teamed up with CIT?)
CHF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 07:35 PM   #31
Turbofan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
11.2 g's has been updated.

When are you going to fix your errors?

256 wps was an oversight and corrected. It works in my favour, so have
a nice day.

I hope you liked the video and the corrections made to all of the myths
produced by you and your 'experts'.
Turbofan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 07:38 PM   #32
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,444
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
Grammar and spelling? Is JREF full of English masters? Let's see how many
errors I can find in your post:...
You may want to double check your work. You didn't do so well.


Quote:
The video does not contain any mathematical errors. The data has been
verified. It was released by the NTSB. PFT based their calculations on
the DATA, not the animation. The Data is NOT a 'working copy'. Please
learn the difference.
Ok, for the sake of discussion, let's assume all that is true. When can we expect a written version of the analysis? That's nothing specific in the cartoon worth reviewing.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 08:18 PM   #33
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,814
To continue, here's what happens with a pull-up on a circular arc when you don't assume the plane waits until reaching the first light pole before pulling up.

For this, I'll define the origin as sea level at the base of the VDOT tower. The light pole is 2400 feet away and the wall is 3416 feet away.

We have a trajectory that is a circular arc passing through three points:

(0, 304) -- the top of the VDOT tower

(2400, 80) -- the top of the first pole

(3416, 45) -- impact

We must find the center and radius of the circle that passes through these three points. We must also make sure the arc between the three points does not intersect the ground.

To find the center by hand is a lot of tedious algebra. Instead I use this circle solver applet. The source code and the methodology used are available at the site, and anyone not trusting the results can check them by calculating the distance from each of the three points to the calculated center, to verify that each distance equals the calculated radius.

The center of our pull-up arc ends up at (3914, 29274) and has radius 29233.

The center's x is farther from the origin than the pentagon wall's x, meaning that the lowest point in the circle is past the impact point. So the plane is descending the entire time, and reaches no point lower than the impact point. The arc does not intersect the ground.

The g force generated by this maneuver (at v=781 ft/sec) is v2/r = 0.65g. With gravity, 1.65g.

As with R.Mackey's previous analysis with parabolic trajectories, the parameters can be adjusted for more conservative cases such as clearing the VDOT tower by larger distances, resulting in a range of higher, but still tolerable, g forces.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 08:41 PM   #34
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,873
I keep telling you all. The lightpoles were brought down by rogue Canadian Lumberjacks!

Sheesh.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 08:42 PM   #35
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
Grammar and spelling? Is JREF full of English masters? Let's see how many
errors I can find in your post:

1. Your first paragraph contains a 'run on' sentence.
Not true. It is a long sentence but not a run on sentence.

Quote:
2. The second paragraph is another example of 'run on'. Try using a period,
or two.
Actually a few comas would suffice

Quote:
3. Paragraph three is an incomplete thought; read by itself, it makes no sense.
Bot true, it follows from the previous paragraph so there is no requirement to repeat the thoughts contained in the previous paragraph.

Quote:
4. The fourth paragraph is missing some punctuation.
Not true, it contains one more comma than necessary.

Quote:
5. The fifth contains an acronym which is not referenced. You should define
your acronym prior to using it.
Try reading the second paragraph again, it is obvious what VV&A stands for even if he did not include the acronym in the second paragraph.

Quote:
6. It's poor practice to start a sentence with a conjunction such as "AND".
True, he could have eliminated the word "and".

Quote:
7. "Like I'm doing now." is an incomplete sentence.
True, he could have tried a comma to join it with the previous sentence. His usage indicates that he is typing a conversation rather than a docuement.



Quote:
The video does not contain any mathematical errors.
So say you and PfT. However, given the history of PfT this is by no means a given simply because you claim it is so.

Quote:
The data has beenverified. It was released by the NTSB. PFT based their calculations on
the DATA, not the animation. The Data is NOT a 'working copy'. Please
learn the difference.
You based it on your interpretation of the data and where it puts the plane over ground objects. those ground objects obviously do not get referenced at all in the FDR data. If you used the NTSB animation to determine what the plane was flying over then you used a 'working copy' that was never intended as a forensic tool and which has been shown to erroneously position the ground under the aircraft.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 08:47 PM   #36
Turbofan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Why, then, is the left radius not 4.07 degrees from vertical? It's more than twice that. Where did the angle at which the left radius is drawn come from? How can that radius have an angle other than perpendicular to the tangent of the trajectory? It makes no sense.

It's wrong.
No, it's not wrong. It's based on flight data trends. Please watch the video
again.

Quote:
If you draw the left radius at the correct angle, perpendicular to the trajectory just before the pull-up, the radius ends up being about 3980 feet.
That radius gives you about 4.4g of centripetal acceleration, plus 1g = 5.4g total.
Where might I find 5.4 g in the data file (averaged, or single point data)?

Why haven't you accounted for horizontal velocity in your previous calculation?
You did not correct your equation to include horizontal distance.

You should contact members of PFT for a more detailed explanation of how
to properly compute the values. It might make more sense if a professional
explains the procedure rather than myself.

At the ~6:00 minute marker, you can find an overlay of your arc in question
(the red line).

Once again, where are these 4.0, and 5.4 values found in the CSV file?

These data files are NOT working copies.
Turbofan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 09:00 PM   #37
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
11.2 g's has been updated.

.
Not on the web page.

It remains unchanged other than including a promo for the new cheese produced by PfT.

.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 09:02 PM   #38
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
Perhaps spontaneous combustion would explain the downed light poles. Or perhaps Magic? I guess we'll never know if we rely on people who are "just asking questions dude".
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 09:02 PM   #39
Turbofan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
To continue, here's what happens with a pull-up on a circular arc when you don't assume the plane waits until reaching the first light pole before pulling up.

For this, I'll define the origin as sea level at the base of the VDOT tower. The light pole is 2400 feet away and the wall is 3416 feet away.

We have a trajectory that is a circular arc passing through three points:

(0, 304) -- the top of the VDOT tower

(2400, 80) -- the top of the first pole

(3416, 45) -- impact

We must find the center and radius of the circle that passes through these three points. We must also make sure the arc between the three points does not intersect the ground.

To find the center by hand is a lot of tedious algebra. Instead I use this circle solver applet. The source code and the methodology used are available at the site, and anyone not trusting the results can check them by calculating the distance from each of the three points to the calculated center, to verify that each distance equals the calculated radius.

The center of our pull-up arc ends up at (3914, 29274) and has radius 29233.

The center's x is farther from the origin than the pentagon wall's x, meaning that the lowest point in the circle is past the impact point. So the plane is descending the entire time, and reaches no point lower than the impact point. The arc does not intersect the ground.

The g force generated by this maneuver (at v=781 ft/sec) is v2/r = 0.65g. With gravity, 1.65g.

As with R.Mackey's previous analysis with parabolic trajectories, the parameters can be adjusted for more conservative cases such as clearing the VDOT tower by larger distances, resulting in a range of higher, but still tolerable, g forces.

Respectfully,
Myriad
You see the problem with your calculation and R. Mackey's math is that
the values don't appear in the CSV file!

How do you arrive at 1.65 g when averaging the values in the data file
over the duration needed to complete the pull up?

EDIT:
I can't find 4.0 g, or 5.4 g for even an eight of a second; forget a full four
second duration as stated in your case. Furthermore, that is figured from
the top of the VDOT antenna!

Once again, the data files are extracted from the FDR, they are not
some sort of 'working copy'.

Last edited by Turbofan; 15th September 2008 at 09:11 PM. Reason: See edit
Turbofan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th September 2008, 09:06 PM   #40
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless View Post
Perhaps spontaneous combustion would explain the downed light poles. Or perhaps Magic? I guess we'll never know if we rely on people who are "just asking questions dude".
Its magic! CiT assures us that the reason no one at all saw a low,fast over-flight is due to the misdirection by the plotters of this charade, thus its all just a big ol' magic trick.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:47 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.