IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Alternate Analysis for light poles, Working backwards from impact point

rob balsamo
post Sep 15 2006, 08:27 AM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
UnderTow
post Sep 15 2006, 08:59 AM
Post #2





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 28-August 06
From: Virginia, USA
Member No.: 19



worthy.gif cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 15 2006, 09:20 AM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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 )
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 17 2006, 03:14 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 19 2006, 07:36 AM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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... USGS Seamless Data Distribution

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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 19 2006, 01:44 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 6 2006, 10:42 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fransan
post Aug 25 2008, 12:43 AM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 27-April 08
Member No.: 3,238



A question: Has wake turbulence been considered as the possible force, to knock down those light poles?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Aug 25 2008, 09:56 AM
Post #9





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,198
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



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.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Aug 26 2008, 01:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 25 2008, 11:03 AM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fransan
post Aug 26 2008, 02:51 AM
Post #11





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 27-April 08
Member No.: 3,238



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 26 2008, 09:40 AM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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 115 feet or more is wide enough. But, no one saw a plane on that path... see http://thepentacon.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Aug 26 2008, 03:00 PM
Post #13





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,198
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Aug 26 2008, 03:18 PM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 747
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



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'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fransan
post Aug 27 2008, 02:22 AM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 27-April 08
Member No.: 3,238



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
UnderTow
post Aug 27 2008, 09:06 AM
Post #16





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 28-August 06
From: Virginia, USA
Member No.: 19



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Aug 27 2008, 09:37 AM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,985
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fransan
post Aug 27 2008, 12:10 PM
Post #18





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 27-April 08
Member No.: 3,238



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Aug 27 2008, 12:29 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
UnderTow
post Aug 27 2008, 12:42 PM
Post #20





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 28-August 06
From: Virginia, USA
Member No.: 19



..My oxymoron filter just broke..

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

-Peace
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st September 2017 - 05:36 AM