Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ American 77 _ Alternate Analysis for light poles

Posted by: johndoeX Sep 15 2006, 08:27 AM

Without using FDR data as far as the barometric altimeter. I decided to work backwards from the impact point for further clarity that no matter how you slice it.. the aircraft was too high to hit the poles.

Pentagon impact ground elevation - 33'MSL
Light pole 1 elevation - 39'MSL
Light pole length - 40'
Total MSL height at pole - 79' MSL (top of light pole)
Total difference in height working backwards from impact to top of light pole 1 - 46' (79-33=46').


Distance to pole 1 - 1,036'
Speed - 781ft/sec at :44 (with speed trend 784ft/sec at :45 impact time)
Descent rate - 3980 fpm or 66 ft/sec
1,036/784 = 1.32 seconds
1.32 seconds*66ft/sec = 87.12 feet at that point in time.

Working backwards from the impact point based on descent rate of 3980 fpm
The aircraft was 87' above the impact point elevation. We need to be at 46' to hit the top of the pole as noted above.

Conclusion: Working backwards from the impact hole based on the elevations, speed and descent data, the aircraft is still too high to hit pole #1. 41 feet too high to be exact. 87-46 = 41.

Keep in mind this has nothing to do with the altimeter indication aside from descent rate. If the altimeter was lagging, the descent rate would be greater, therefore the aircraft would be even higher above the poles. We are basing the above information on elevation alone for height.

Once actual altimeter indications are introduced, we get a more accurate picture of how high above the poles the aircraft was.

Will be added to Pilots For Truth website in my signature.

cheers.gif

Posted by: UnderTow Sep 15 2006, 08:59 AM

worthy.gif cheers.gif

Posted by: johndoeX Sep 15 2006, 09:20 AM

Let me add... i will also give a +/- 5 feet for error. Based on the fact that DCA was showing a 5 foot error from Google Earth as compared to Jeppesen Airway Manuals.

(my point being, you'll need a 41 foot margin of error for this to confirm the official story... not likely.. wink.gif )

Posted by: johndoeX Sep 17 2006, 03:14 AM

Using Russ' numbers.. i went ahead and did the rest of the poles...

Pole 2 - 74+40'elevation of pentagon+10.38 impact hole height = 125MSL aircraft height above sea level.

Pole 3- 60+40'+10.38= 110MSL aircraft height above seal level.

Pole 4 - 50+40+10.38 = 100MSL aircraft height above sea level.

Pole 5 - 39+40'+10.38= 89MSL aircraft height above sea level.

Numbers in bold were calculated based on descent rate of 66ft/sec and 784ft/sec horizontal speed with distance to pole.

Conclusion - Working backward from the impact hole, based on the descent rate, this aircraft was still to high to hit all poles.

As a reminder for Pole 1 - 87+40+10.38= 137MSL aircraft height above sea level.


Get to work Russ. Bring all those poles up to those MSL heights. thumbsup.gif


Then when you get done with trying to fit your poles to those heights.. bring them up to the more accurate height of 480MSL as shown by the Flight Data Recorder provided by tne NTSB.

cheers.gif

Posted by: johndoeX Sep 19 2006, 07:36 AM

Final Draft: New Elevations/Calculations from the USGS




Pole 1 - 43'MSL ground elevation + 31.5 pole impact height = 74.5 MSL Total height above sea level.
Pole 1 aircraft height - 87'+38'ground elevation of pentagon+10.38' imapct hole height = 135.38 MSL.
Aircraft was 60.88 feet above Pole #1.

(not sure of exact reported impact height so i'll use the full 40' for pole length)
Pole 2 - 43'+ 40' = 83' MSL Pole Height
Pole 2 Aircraft Height - 74' + 48.38 = 122.38 MSL
Aircraft was 39.38' above pole #2

Pole 3 - 42'+ 40 = 82' MSL pole height
Pole 3 Aircraft Height - 60' + 50.38 = 110.38 MSL
Aircraft was 28.38' above Pole #3

Pole 4 - 42' + 40 = 82' MSL
Pole 4 Aircraft Height - 50' + 50.38 = 100.38 MSL
Aircraft was 18.38' above Pole # 4

Pole 5 - 41' + 40 = 81' MSL
Pole 5 Aircraft Height - 39' + 50.38 = 89.38
Aircraft was 8.38' above Pole #5

Numbers in black bold above represent the height above impact hole at pentagon based on descent rate of 66 ft/sec and distance from impact hole at pentagon to pole with a forward speed of 784 ft/sec.

To draw your own line.. go here... http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless/viewer.php

As a reminder, the above an alternate analysis based on working back from the pentagon impact hole. For a more accurate Aircraft height, please visit here for the Flight Data Recorder analysis mid page.
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

Posted by: johndoeX Sep 19 2006, 01:44 PM

The ground elevation is drawn directly over the USGS Profile shown in the first post, then stretched/skewed to match distance based on GE measuring tool for the specified length of flight path.



Posted by: johndoeX Oct 6 2006, 10:42 PM

Using a more accurate descent rate based on G Force.

Official Impact time of 09:37:45.
Speed used - 784ft/sec
Descent rate = 5247 fpm = 87.5 ft/sec. (based on G Force recorded between :44-:45)

Pole 1 distance from impact hole = 1012 feet/784 = 1.30 seconds
Pole 2 = 886 feet/784 = 1.13 seconds
Pole 3 = 708 feet/784 = .90 seconds
Pole 4 = 598 feet/784 = .76 seconds
Pole 5 = 467 feet/784 = .60 seconds

Pole 1 height in MSL = 74.5 MSL
Pole 1 aircraft height = 87.5(1.3 seconds)+10.38 impact hole height + 38' MSL at pentagon = 162.13 MSL at pole 1
Aircraft was 87.63 feet above Pole 1

Pole 2 = 83' MSL pole height
Pole 2 aircraft height = 87.5(1.13)+48.38= 147.25MSL
Aircraft was 64.25 above Pole 2

Pole 3 = 82'MSL
Pole 3 Aircraft height = 87.5(.90)+48.38 = 127.13'MSL
Aircraft was 45.13' above Pole 3

Pole 4 = 82'MSL
Pole 4 Aircraft Height = 87.5(.76)+48.38 = 114.5'MSL
Aircraft was 32.5 feet above Pole 4

Pole 5 = 81' MSL
Pole 5 Aircraft Height = 87.5(.60)+48.38 = 100.88'MSL
Aircraft was 19.88' above Pole 5


As a reminder, this analysis is a hypothetical based on working back from the impact hole with new G Force analysis added for a more accurate descent rate between :44-:45 time stamps. For a more accurate aircraft altitude in terms of MSL indicated by the altimeter and corrected for local pressure, please visit pilotsfor911truth.org pentagon page.. mid page.

Posted by: fransan Aug 25 2008, 12:43 AM

A question: Has wake turbulence been considered as the possible force, to knock down those light poles?

Posted by: Omega892R09 Aug 25 2008, 09:56 AM

QUOTE (fransan @ Aug 23 2008, 03:43 AM) *
A question: Has wake turbulence been considered as the possible force, to knock down those light poles?

Considering any 'flightpath' was not over the light poles in question then you are throwing straws into the man.

Posted by: rob balsamo Aug 25 2008, 11:03 AM

QUOTE (fransan @ Aug 25 2008, 01:43 AM) *
A question: Has wake turbulence been considered as the possible force, to knock down those light poles?



Wake turbulence? Ever done a low approach to landing with a highway just prior to the threshold? Ever knock down any light poles? Wake turbulence would be greater on landing than high speed and clean, no? And you say you're a pilot? lol...

Does wake turbulence split light poles in half?

Instead of trying to speculate on what happened in order to fit your already formed belief, why not try to hold accountable those who provide conflicting information/data to the public?

Posted by: fransan Aug 26 2008, 02:51 AM

I know the question is kind of silly. I only wanted to know what research if any, had been done on that idea.
About wake turbulence slow or fast, what I can say is that a transport airliner is never flown in those conditions of altitude and speed. (Perhaps only on test flights.) About the knockin down of the light poles, issue I have a question too. Has the wingspan of possible military missiles or drones been checked to see if one or more can fit the necesary space?
Thanks.

Posted by: rob balsamo Aug 26 2008, 09:40 AM

Wake turbulence is greatest when induced drag is highest. Since you are unfamiliar with an L/D max chart, here is one for you to study...



ok class, What happens to induced drag when speed increases? smile.gif

As for your other question, anythng with a wingspan of about http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/global/specs.html or more is wide enough. But, no one saw a plane on that path... see http://thepentacon.com

Posted by: Omega892R09 Aug 26 2008, 03:00 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 24 2008, 01:40 PM) *
ok class, What happens to induced drag when speed increases? smile.gif

Yes, counter-intuitive isn't it - unless you are familiar with aerodynamics.

I wonder if our 'guest' knows what causes induced drag.

I would have thought that the effects of two large turbofans flying in close formation near the deck would have been more obvious culprits - but then WTF do I know? laugh.gif

Posted by: Ricochet Aug 26 2008, 03:18 PM

One other point of height reference would be the generator trailer. A standard trailer is 13' tall landing legs down no power unit (truck) attatched. If the engine clipped the top of it that would put the bottom of the engine housing about 12'.

Posted by: fransan Aug 27 2008, 02:22 AM

Thanks Rob. Now, about "no one" seeing the plane on that path. I assume you are reffering to where the light poles were knocked down, correct? So what is the accepted or likely scenario? They were knocked down by what? By whom? At what time? What for? What do you believe personally? A drone or missile hit the Pentagon and there was a flyover by a B757 that didnīt crash. The drone knocked the poles down?
I would just like to know what you think, because it seems too complicated to me.

Posted by: UnderTow Aug 27 2008, 09:06 AM

QUOTE
because it seems too complicated to me


I'm not trying to be an ass or anything, but if it's too complicated for you (and it shouldn't be, if it is, your making it that way) then how is someone telling you what they think going to make it any better.

Your questions are not valid, because of several reasons, like missing/invalid/corrupt evidence, multiple cover ups, and other reasons.
We could solve a lot of these by Investigation, but when the government goes shell like a turtle, it's quite difficult.

Finally, what anyone personally believes, is not going to change anything.

Posted by: lunk Aug 27 2008, 09:37 AM

Does anyone know what happens to a light pole when it is hit, at the top, by a heavy object?

Wouldn't they break only at one part of the pole?

How would they sheer?
Compression on one side of the base; tearing on the other?
The metal should be bent in the direction that they were "knocked" over...

Is this anything like, what the knocked-over poles, looked like?

Were they hit near the top by something,
or were they staged?

Posted by: fransan Aug 27 2008, 12:10 PM

The thing here is "I donīt question the fact that AA77 was hijacked and crashed at the Pentagon".
I have seen and read lots of evidence to that effect. There are dozens of eyewitness statements and there are lost of photos taken at the Pentagon, and (Iīm guessing here, American Airlines officially tells us thatīs their plane, they lost there, correct? Now there is plenty of stuff out there that warrants
an investigation for many people, I agree with that, and Iīm being told thereīs a big cover up by the
Bush Gov. and lots of obstruction to independant research and investigation like P4T is doing. On that I feel that the Gov. IS HIDING something, but then again this is something I have been told, Iīm not possitive of.

Posted by: Sanders Aug 27 2008, 12:29 PM

QUOTE (fransan @ Aug 31 2008, 11:10 AM) *
...On that I feel that the Gov. IS HIDING something, but then again this is something I have been told, Iīm not possitive of.



Let me get this straight, I don't want to misinterpret. The idea that the government is hiding something (just hiding something - nothing more sinister than that) is something you've been told, and it's something you're leaning in the direction of believing but you're not sure ... is that an accurate representation of what you just said?

Posted by: UnderTow Aug 27 2008, 12:42 PM

..My oxymoron filter just broke..

Welcome aboard anyway and have a good stay. I guess.

-Peace

Posted by: fransan Aug 28 2008, 12:56 AM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Aug 27 2008, 11:29 AM) *
Let me get this straight, I don't want to misinterpret. The idea that the government is hiding something (just hiding something - nothing more sinister than that) is something you've been told, and it's something you're leaning in the direction of believing but you're not sure ... is that an accurate representation of what you just said?


As I have said before. I think the hijackings took place, the hijacked flights were the ones we all know, and they were flown by the terrorists into the WTC, the Pentagon, and U93 crashed in Shanksville. What I believe is wrong with all that we have been seeing these 7 years now is that the Gov. doesnīt want people to know everything that happened, or everything that they knew, specially were intelligence is concerned, and thatīs were P4T and other groups are hitting brick walls. Maybe some things that are being hidden from the public havenīt been disclosed because of national security, or because they would expose great negligence on the part of high Gov. officials.
I think P4T is doing a good job at trying to get a new independant investigation.
Hope this makes things clear enough.

Posted by: rob balsamo Aug 28 2008, 01:11 AM

QUOTE (fransan @ Aug 28 2008, 01:56 AM) *
I think...


speculation

QUOTE
..the ones we all know...


Strawman

QUOTE
I believe...


argument based on incredulity

QUOTE
...all that we have been seeing these 7 years now is that the Gov. doesnīt want people to know everything that happened, or everything that they knew, specially were intelligence is concerned, and thatīs were P4T and other groups are hitting brick walls.


Speculation

QUOTE
Maybe some things that are being hidden from the public havenīt been disclosed because of national security


Speculation/Excuse

QUOTE
, or because they would expose great negligence on the part of high Gov. officials.


Speculation/Excuse/Argument based on incredulity

QUOTE
I think P4T is doing a good job at trying to get a new independant investigation.


Your opinion... i actually disagree. Care to guess why?


QUOTE
Hope this makes things clear enough.


Crystal. But not what you intended.


Further, professional pilots dont speculate. You act just like many of our opposition who claim to be professionals, yet expose themselves for amatures. Clean up your act if you want to play with the big boys.

Posted by: lunk Aug 28 2008, 08:19 PM

My question is were the light poles actually hit by something,
or were they staged?

Posted by: aristo Oct 12 2008, 07:44 AM

I have some questions.

How it is possibly the light pols only a few feet flown?

If an aircraft with 700 ft/s hit the light pols, the light pols should have flown more as
few feets.

If a light pol which fly with 700 ft/s hit the wing of a standing aircraft, what
happen with the wing?

Posted by: dMole Oct 12 2008, 06:19 PM

Hi aristo,

The light pole "collision" momentum is discussed at post #30 and SPreston's #33:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=13034&view=findpost&p=10744451

Posted by: aristo Oct 13 2008, 12:23 PM

Hi dMole,

thanks for information.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)