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 )

7 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The Pentagon Attack Arguments List : Fly-over, Or Head-on Impact?, Just two options left : NoC fly-over, or NoC 90° impact.

onesliceshort
post Mar 16 2011, 08:51 AM
Post #101



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
..GishGallop..


laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Mar 17 2011, 04:09 AM
Post #102



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 844
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



I'm time poor at the moment however ...

Roosevelt Roberts saw only one plane - that is obvious to any sensible person. When interviewed by Aldo and questioned about the plane he saw, Roberts never states "which plane?". He only saw one plane hence he answers about that plane.

Incredible how much spinning has taken place over his words - especially amongst the "Truth" community.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LaBTop
post Mar 17 2011, 09:15 AM
Post #103





Group: Troll
Posts: 81
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064



QUOTE (KP50 @ Mar 17 2011, 10:09 AM) *
I'm time poor at the moment however ...

Roosevelt Roberts saw only one plane - that is obvious to any sensible person. When interviewed by Aldo and questioned about the plane he saw, Roberts never states "which plane?". He only saw one plane hence he answers about that plane.

Incredible how much spinning has taken place over his words - especially amongst the "Truth" community.


I have to quote KP50 first in this post, since he is wrong about that (see the bolded text), but most of it was addressed to Onesliceshort last long post on page 5, and some other posters too :

Onesliceshort (OSS) and some others with a strong "home-plate" defending urge.
I was four years long, just as you did and do, feverishly defending ALL of CIT's witnesses, including Roosevelt Roberts. Based on exactly the same reasoning and arguments as I see you all still use.

Then I got into a heated discussion with some skeptics, ONLY about RR.
And by reading my posts on page 52 of this thread,
CODE
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread541460/pg52

you can find out what convinced me that this time, they were right, RR is not a fly-over witness, but solely a NoC or SoC AA 77 flight path witness, and, also a witness to the C-130 flight path.

Here I start to doubt myself regarding RR :
CODE
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread541460/pg52#pid8414146


I have extensively listened to both RR interviews, combined all directions and other descriptions he gave in BOTH interviews, listened to his intonations (What?, Uhh, WHY? Definitely TWO planes, Aldo asking him about the SECOND plane, etc.), and that lead me to only one conclusion.
I have admitted to those two skeptics, that I was wrong and they were right.
CODE
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread541460/pg52#pid8414274


And here you can read that I still defend the NoC flight path with all my heart, and why :
CODE
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread541460/pg52#pid8418645


And now, in this thread, I slowly get the impression that not one of you will ever overcome your antipathy towards all these debunkers and skeptics, from the well known sites, which have made your life so "difficult", as you express it in all your posts towards these people their arguments.
You forget however, that a solid and reasonable argument is just that, an argument.
Not some hate-mail or such, but something which stimulate us all, to review our basic argumentation, and perhaps let us find out, we all are wrong for that subject.
As I did, and admitted it
.
Without any firm opposition, there will never be a honest consensus. We are only human, and can and will make mistakes too.
Rob once showed you the way, by admitting a few calculation mistakes he made. No big deal, we all got over it. But he admitted it, and the show of character to admit your faults, that shows you want to really adhere to solid, credible and honest 911 research.
That's what counts in my books.
Without that solid opposition, we all would still hold to those first instance, faulty conclusions.

Without good opposition, we will only be a cheerleader club, the "hail to the leader" kind of happy crowd. No deeper research, no better calculations, no further witness interviews. No further stimulating hidden witnesses or holders of solid evidence of wrongdoing on 911.
Like Christine Peterson and Penny Elgas. Just a small interview with them, only to prove that they stood where they said they stood on 911 on Route 27.
In front of the Helipad or very near to it.
And then the whole false flag Pentagon Operation is floored instantly.
Why not go on that quest, instead of diverging into so many unprovable soft evidence paths?
It must be so damn easy for an honest American, to find them.

I need solid opposition, to review every day of my life, all these so called set in stone definitions and laws of nature. We are on an everlasting journey along with an everlasting switching of generations who all must first reach the boundaries of that days knowledge, before they can advance to the next level of understanding.
How sad we did not found that "Well of youth", yet. We are so damn near, too late for me and most of us.

For all the rest of my arguments I had with skeptics and debunkers, I have never met anybody who could convince me that I am wrong for my arguments (WTC 7 seismic evidence of demolition, UAL 93 reasoning about missing minutes and doctored FDR and CVR files etc.)

And, without a solid opposition, we would have never gone so far in our efforts, as we have done and still do, after we met that opposition.
All the extra calculations, videos, animations, argumentations would have been absent when no one would have ever "obstructed" our reasoning that 911 was a false flag operation from within the USA power block.
I have sometimes thought that the US perpetraItors sometimes must have had sour thoughts about sending their minions over the world wide net, to counter our arguments.
It worked contra-productive against their hope to block the rising opposition against the officially pushed 911 stories.

OSS and some others, do not fall back on that condescending tone you start to use, it's a descend towards the same Jay-REF culture you so abhor (Btw, me too). And some of you seem to me in possession of an above normal intelligence, so stop it, you show your weakness in doing so, and that is sad, no need for that here.

Now let's show some respect again to eachother, just wait and give me some time to answer all the other posters, who brought some interesting points to the plate.
Which should not stop you from posting anything new, to build up your arguments.
I do the same, so no hard feelings, ever.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Mar 17 2011, 10:12 AM
Post #104





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,012
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



I'm with KP50. When RR talks about the 2nd plane, he's in fact talking about the 1st plane.

It seems obvious to me too.






Cheers

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Mar 17 2011, 10:15 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Mar 17 2011, 02:35 PM
Post #105



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 844
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE (LaBTop @ Mar 18 2011, 02:15 AM) *
I have to quote KP50 first in this post, since he is wrong about that (see the bolded text), but most of it was addressed to Onesliceshort last long post on page 5, and some other posters too :

....

OSS and some others, do not fall back on that condescending tone you start to use, it's a descend towards the same Jay-REF culture you so abhor (Btw, me too). And some of you seem to me in possession of an above normal intelligence, so stop it, you show your weakness in doing so, and that is sad, no need for that here.

Now let's show some respect again to eachother, just wait and give me some time to answer all the other posters, who brought some interesting points to the plate.
Which should not stop you from posting anything new, to build up your arguments.
I do the same, so no hard feelings, ever.

Please don't lecture on condescending tone and please stop writing screeds of words, it is tiresome.

Your interpretation of RR's words is totally bizarre and unsupported by what he says. It is an idea that has been floated all over the internet and furiously adopted by the control police over at 9/11 Blogger. His reference to second plane does not mean that he saw 2 planes - that is obvious - it means he believes the story that a plane flew into the Pentagon. Thus when he feels the explosion, runs outside and sees a plane he believes he is seeing a "second plane". Your theory relies on a trained man running outside because he saw a repeated clip of the WTC on the TV - and his location was such that he would have no view of any impact plane even if he did rush out. And he certainly would not describe it as being over Pentagon parking. The fact that you can believe in all this shows to me that you have very poor critical thinking powers and you will literally "believe anything".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 17 2011, 03:22 PM
Post #106



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



So, LabTop, tell us exactly what happened for the first three minutes, using Roberts' own words from the explosion until the C130 arrived. Please use Roberts' testimony. Lay it out for us mindless cultists.

1) Did you read the real transcript I posted?

2) When did Roberts claim to be at the "southwest corner of the building"?

3) What plane did he see in South Parking?

4) If he claimed to have seen "two planes" and you believe the "second plane" was the C130, why didn't he say "three planes"? "Impact" plane, "another plane flying about in South Parking" and the C130?

5)
QUOTE (onesliceshort)
how likely is it that he first saw the second tower being struck for the first time at the exact same moment that the attack plane was in the area? That he saw this on TV and actually "ran" out to the dock to witness it??


Third time..

6) What do you think was "timed for preciseness"?

7)
QUOTE
LaBTop translation :

RR: It seem like uhh.., when I sure by the time I got for the shack it was already in the parking lot at Lane One, anyway it sure was, you couldn't miss it seeing it.

Aldo : Right, but where did it seem from where it came from?

RR: It seem like uhh.., that it came from uhh.., it, hold on a second, it seem like it came from uhh.......let's look, the same way it came in or it appeared to came in from the same way from where it came in, uhh.., [u]almost like where the first plane hit[/b], so uhh.., it looked like.., it looked like it came from that direction.


In your own "translation" (highlighted by me), what difference does it make to the point I was making in my previous post?

Is "it" one plane Roberts is referring to in the above quote?

Cheers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LaBTop
post Mar 18 2011, 04:24 PM
Post #107





Group: Troll
Posts: 81
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064



Let's first address this :
Omega892R09 : ""given the fatal flaws pointed out by Rob""

Which fatal flaws? He linked me to his calculations, which use as its basis, as far as I can find, solely this :

Source : http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...post&id=122
CODE
Constant Velocity Flight Path
[b]All[b] of the arcs were calculated using [b]a constant speed and Bank Angle[/b] as we do not have flight data for the North Approach. By [u]using a final constant speed and Bank Angle[/u], as [b]opposed[/b] to demonstrating [b]an acceleration to such a final speed[/b], a G Load can be figured for a specific arc radius consistent with witness statements. Speeds demonstrated are the worst case Bank Angle and G Load at a constant speed. Any speed slower than the speed used per arc scenario would require less G Load, and Bank Angle.
Math for Pull-Up
Due to the fact that the Navy Annex is situated at a higher elevation than the Pentagon and the Annex roof height measures approximately 110 feet ASL over the Pentagon roof top, considerations for pull-up force are insignificant and are not required to clear any obstacle.
However, we have hypothetically demonstrated that the most challenging scenario for such a “pull out” utilizing a finite limit such as the ground, are well within structural limits of a transport category aircraft.


Why does everybody here accept the exceptional case of an arc or parabola, as the only possible way to express the last 10 seconds flight path from AA 77? And then on top of that, add a constant speed to it, while all witnesses who heard the plane said they heard the plane accelerate with an increasingly high whining sound?
The math used is solely for a Pentagon fly-over its roofs scenario, while neglecting all other, just as possible scenarios.

Making such calculations while using only those two constants are totally unrealistic, since just the wind effect alone breaks already down such an ideal approach to a certainly much more complex AA 77 flight path.
Not even talking about pilot inputs, or use of the autopilot system inputs. Or inputting acceleration values.
Or remote software controlled equipment which is programmed in advance to hold on to a certain point on the west wall from the Pentagon. Thus introducing many different inputs to keep the plane aimed on a constantly influenced, but steady as possible path to that wall.
Which can thus never be expressed as a constant speed and constant bank angled arc.


All in all, so many variations that it becomes increasingly difficult to ever be able to calculate the most realistic 911 flightpath flown by AA 77.
Especially since we may expect all official data fed to us to be false. So we can't rely on radar data from RADES, which show to not line up the C-130 and AA 77 flight paths, as filmed and photographed on 911.


If you want to do any realistic calculations on the real flight path of AA 77 from the Sheraton Hotel to the west wall onwards, you have to introduce far more complex mathematics then a simple vector graphic. It will need the addition of a lot of integral additions of different arcs, paraboles and straight partitions, all indicative of certain moments during that last part of AA 77's flight path, to arrive at a combination of all flight inputs in that actual flight path.
Which is as good as impossible, since we have no reliable radar data to plot even a path consisting of time, height and distance.

Just read all the CIT and other witness reports and sift out the flight descriptions. There is in no way, any kind of description to sift out from these reports, that would come even close to an ideal arc as used by Rob in his calculations page he linked me to.
They are all ideal arcs he calculated.
Which never occur in the real world, there are always further vectors influencing the flight.
What Rob used in those pages are all mathematically correct ideal cases, and I repeat, they never occur.
That's why I told Rob to not get into a mathematical pissing context, that's a lost case from the start, trying to influence logical thinking persons. It was an unnecessary call on authority, and that mathematician from the link that Rob so hates, should have been the first one to realize it.


In reality we hear from witnesses who were actually there on 911, about changes from level flight at the Sheraton and Annex, to a slight right bank while passing north of the CITGO, then back to level flight over Route 27, and a last tiny slight left bank over the lawn.

I ask the flight instructor that Rob is/was, how many more ways there are, by means of pilot inputs, to let a plane make a flat descending turn, or a curved descending turn, in a 200 meter high horizontal plain.
And which tail rudder inputs are needed, and which wing and tail ailerons inputs, so that its flight characteristics and movements confirm to what most eyewitnesses saw.

The plane was slowly descending following a small descent angle, during most of its last approach path, and the nearer it got to the obstacles on the ground, the smaller that descent angle became.
It was not diving as is said here before, but it was in a slowly decreasing descending motion, while it reduced its downward motion to a nearly level position, so it could pass over the obstacles along Route 27 and then managed to get to a nearly level position in perhaps the last 50 meters, aided by the then fast increasing ground effect on a clean plane (clean: as if flying at cruising altitudes, flaps retracted). We could calculate roughly its overall speed with the help of Sean Boger's 10 to 12 seconds from Annex to impact remark, a few others mentioned the same seconds.

Handy links, found by searching for 'boeing 757 flight manual' :

Boeing 757/767 Flight Crew Training Manual :
http://www.pprune.org/questions/219109-boe...ing-manual.html

http://www.lookpdf.com/result-boeing+757+f...ual-page-5.html

Boeing 757-200/300 Flight Manual :
http://www.amevoice.com/forum/topic/1698
http://www.filefactory.com/file/a0g0680/n/..._1241791068_rar
It's however a fairly recent Revision, 08-Jul-20-2007.

Boeing 757-200 Boeing Operations and Training Manual, and Boeing 757 Systems Manual :
http://www.esscoaircraft.com/p-8215-boeing...ing-manual.aspx
http://www.esscoaircraft.com/p-16832-boein...ems-manual.aspx
See also their other 757 manuals. They possess the largest collection of aircraft manuals, they say.

Biggles Software. Boeing 757-200/300 Flight Crew Operating Manual (FCOM) :
http://www.biggles-software.com/software/boeing_757.htm

757 Flight Crew Training Manual (good read, lots of good, explanatory drawings :
http://dream-air.ucoz.ru/new/pilotam/_757_..._071031_B8P.pdf
At page 144 of 328 pages starts the "Descent" procedures, which should be read by non-pilots, to understand all the possibilities laid out to understand what type of descent was also possible towards the Pentagon, opposed to a fixed arc as used by Rob, to prove to detractors, that a arced path from Annex to Pentagon roof was aeronautically possible.
However, lots of other paths were also possible.
QUOTE
Shallow vertical path segments may result in the autothrottle supplying partial thrust to maintain the target speed.
Vertical path segments steeper than an idle descent may require the use of speedbrakes for speed control.

See further "Offpath Descent", "Descent Planning", "Speedbrakes"(see Note), "Decision Altitude or Height - DA(H)" and "Approach".

Boeing 757/767 Simulator Checkride Procedures Manual :
http://flightsimulatorgamesnow.com/boeing-...cedures-manual/

QUOTE
Intended for use by professional airline pilots in preparation for their simulator checkride, this manual also has great carry-over information for the serious PC simmer who desires to know how the airline pilots “do it.” Written in an entertaining and witty style, it is a great read for anyone who is interested in flying the Boeing 757/767 series airplanes.


This kind of affordable software would be the best bet we have to come to some understanding of what really happened onboard AA 77, when we feed the program with all the data we can sift from all the witness reports.
And the known heights of obstacles and terrain slopes.
Let's see then if a NoC impact is really so impossible. Especially since we have a bus load of people who were no further than 100 meters from that impact. And saw it impact.
Do you seriously think all those people are lunatics, liars, wannabe celebrities, military plants, confused by the smoke, explosion, whatever? At 100 meters away?

Smart Cockpit Boeing 757 :
http://www.smartcockpit.com/plane/boeing/B757/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Mar 18 2011, 04:45 PM
Post #108





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LaBTop
post Mar 18 2011, 04:49 PM
Post #109





Group: Troll
Posts: 81
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064



Editing not allowed anymore for me. Thus repost to clean the mess in my link to Rob's text. Please delete my above last post.

Let's first address this :
Omega892R09 : ""given the fatal flaws pointed out by Rob""

Which fatal flaws? He linked me to his calculations, which use as its basis, as far as I can find, solely this :

Source : http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...post&id=122

QUOTE
Constant Velocity Flight Path
All of the arcs were calculated using a constant speed and Bank Angle as we do not have flight data for the North Approach. By using a final constant speed and Bank Angle, as opposed to demonstrating an acceleration to such a final speed, a G Load can be figured for a specific arc radius consistent with witness statements. Speeds demonstrated are the worst case Bank Angle and G Load at a constant speed. Any speed slower than the speed used per arc scenario would require less G Load, and Bank Angle.

Math for Pull-Up
Due to the fact that the Navy Annex is situated at a higher elevation than the Pentagon and the Annex roof height measures approximately 110 feet ASL over the Pentagon roof top, considerations for pull-up force are insignificant and are not required to clear any obstacle.
However, we have hypothetically demonstrated that the most challenging scenario for such a “pull out” utilizing a finite limit such as the ground, are well within structural limits of a transport category aircraft.


Why does everybody here accept the exceptional case of an arc or parabola, as the only possible way to express the last 10 seconds flight path from AA 77? And then on top of that, add a constant speed to it, while all witnesses who heard the plane said they heard the plane accelerate with an increasingly high whining sound?
The math used is solely for a Pentagon fly-over its roofs scenario, while neglecting all other, just as possible scenarios.

Making such calculations while using only those two constants are totally unrealistic, since just the wind effect alone breaks already down such an ideal approach to a certainly much more complex AA 77 flight path.
Not even talking about pilot inputs, or use of the autopilot system inputs. Or inputting acceleration values.
Or remote software controlled equipment which is programmed in advance to hold on to a certain point on the west wall from the Pentagon. Thus introducing many different inputs to keep the plane aimed on a constantly influenced, but steady as possible path to that wall.
Which can thus never be expressed as a constant speed and constant bank angled arc.


All in all, so many variations that it becomes increasingly difficult to ever be able to calculate the most realistic 911 flightpath flown by AA 77.
Especially since we may expect all official data fed to us to be false. So we can't rely on radar data from RADES, which show to not line up the C-130 and AA 77 flight paths, as filmed and photographed on 911.


If you want to do any realistic calculations on the real flight path of AA 77 from the Sheraton Hotel to the west wall onwards, you have to introduce far more complex mathematics then a simple vector graphic. It will need the addition of a lot of integral additions of different arcs, paraboles and straight partitions, all indicative of certain moments during that last part of AA 77's flight path, to arrive at a combination of all flight inputs in that actual flight path.
Which is as good as impossible, since we have no reliable radar data to plot even a path consisting of time, height and distance.

Just read all the CIT and other witness reports and sift out the flight descriptions. There is in no way, any kind of description to sift out from these reports, that would come even close to an ideal arc as used by Rob in his calculations page he linked me to.
They are all ideal arcs he calculated.
Which never occur in the real world, there are always further vectors influencing the flight.
What Rob used in those pages are all mathematically correct ideal cases, and I repeat, they never occur.
That's why I told Rob to not get into a mathematical pissing context, that's a lost case from the start, trying to influence logical thinking persons. It was an unnecessary call on authority, and that mathematician from the link that Rob so hates, should have been the first one to realize it.


In reality we hear from witnesses who were actually there on 911, about changes from level flight at the Sheraton and Annex, to a slight right bank while passing north of the CITGO, then back to level flight over Route 27, and a last tiny slight left bank over the lawn.

I ask the flight instructor that Rob is/was, how many more ways there are, by means of pilot inputs, to let a plane make a flat descending turn, or a curved descending turn, in a 200 meter high horizontal plain.
And which tail rudder inputs are needed, and which wing and tail ailerons inputs, so that its flight characteristics and movements confirm to what most eyewitnesses saw.

The plane was slowly descending following a small descent angle, during most of its last approach path, and the nearer it got to the obstacles on the ground, the smaller that descent angle became.
It was not diving as is said here before, but it was in a slowly decreasing descending motion, while it reduced its downward motion to a nearly level position, so it could pass over the obstacles along Route 27 and then managed to get to a nearly level position in perhaps the last 50 meters, aided by the then fast increasing ground effect on a clean plane (clean: as if flying at cruising altitudes, flaps retracted). We could calculate roughly its overall speed with the help of Sean Boger's 10 to 12 seconds from Annex to impact remark, a few others mentioned the same seconds.

Handy links, found by searching for 'boeing 757 flight manual' :

Boeing 757/767 Flight Crew Training Manual :
http://www.pprune.org/questions/219109-boe...ing-manual.html

http://www.lookpdf.com/result-boeing+757+f...ual-page-5.html

Boeing 757-200/300 Flight Manual :
http://www.amevoice.com/forum/topic/1698
http://www.filefactory.com/file/a0g0680/n/..._1241791068_rar
It's however a fairly recent Revision, 08-Jul-20-2007.

Boeing 757-200 Boeing Operations and Training Manual, and Boeing 757 Systems Manual :
http://www.esscoaircraft.com/p-8215-boeing...ing-manual.aspx
http://www.esscoaircraft.com/p-16832-boein...ems-manual.aspx
See also their other 757 manuals. They possess the largest collection of aircraft manuals, they say.

Biggles Software. Boeing 757-200/300 Flight Crew Operating Manual (FCOM) :
http://www.biggles-software.com/software/boeing_757.htm

757 Flight Crew Training Manual (good read, lots of good, explanatory drawings :
http://dream-air.ucoz.ru/new/pilotam/_757_..._071031_B8P.pdf
At page 144 of 328 pages starts the "Descent" procedures, which should be read by non-pilots, to understand all the possibilities laid out to understand what type of descent was also possible towards the Pentagon, opposed to a fixed arc as used by Rob, to prove to detractors, that a arced path from Annex to Pentagon roof was aeronautically possible.
However, lots of other paths were also possible.
QUOTE
Shallow vertical path segments may result in the autothrottle supplying partial thrust to maintain the target speed.
Vertical path segments steeper than an idle descent may require the use of speedbrakes for speed control.

See further "Offpath Descent", "Descent Planning", "Speedbrakes"(see Note), "Decision Altitude or Height - DA(H)" and "Approach".

Boeing 757/767 Simulator Checkride Procedures Manual :
http://flightsimulatorgamesnow.com/boeing-...cedures-manual/

QUOTE
Intended for use by professional airline pilots in preparation for their simulator checkride, this manual also has great carry-over information for the serious PC simmer who desires to know how the airline pilots “do it.” Written in an entertaining and witty style, it is a great read for anyone who is interested in flying the Boeing 757/767 series airplanes.


This kind of affordable software would be the best bet we have to come to some understanding of what really happened onboard AA 77, when we feed the program with all the data we can sift from all the witness reports.
And the known heights of obstacles and terrain slopes.
Let's see then if a NoC impact is really so impossible. Especially since we have a bus load of people who were no further than 100 meters from that impact. And saw it impact.
Do you seriously think all those people are lunatics, liars, wannabe celebrities, plants, confused by the smoke, explosion, whatever? At 100 meters away?

Smart Cockpit Boeing 757 :
http://www.smartcockpit.com/plane/boeing/B757/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 18 2011, 04:50 PM
Post #110



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (LaBTop @ Mar 18 2011, 05:24 PM) *
Let's see then if a NoC impact is really so impossible.



Once again LabTop, you fail to provide a path which is compatible with witness statements and does not leave a path of destruction from the NoC with a first floor impact.

Let us know when you will as you have failed thus far.

As a reminder...

It is impossible for a 757 to impact from the NoC without leaving a trail of damage from the NoC.

Learn the formulas. Do the numbers. Draw us a path compatible with your theory. Good luck!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 18 2011, 04:55 PM
Post #111



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (LaBTop @ Mar 18 2011, 05:49 PM) *
I ask the flight instructor that Rob is/was, how many more ways there are, by means of pilot inputs, to let a plane make a flat descending turn, or a curved descending turn, in a 200 meter high horizontal plain.


A fixed wing aircraft cannot make a "flat descending turn". laughing1.gif


Google "horizontal component of lift" or call your local flight school.

LaBTop, now you're just making stuff up to fit your theory. Sorry, you cannot ignore physics nor aerodynamics. Again, unless of course you wish to speculate Alien technology.

You are on the wrong forum to be making such absurd statements. That is why most arent even paying attention to you, and the rest are falling asleep from your long convoluted nonsensical posts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LaBTop
post Mar 18 2011, 05:07 PM
Post #112





Group: Troll
Posts: 81
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 18 2011, 10:55 PM) *
A fixed wing aircraft cannot make a "flat descending turn". laughing1.gif


Google "horizontal component of lift" or call your local flight school.

LaBTop, now you're just making stuff up to fit your theory. Sorry, you cannot ignore physics nor aerodynamics. Again, unless of course you wish to speculate Alien technology.

You are on the wrong forum to be making such absurd statements. That is why most arent even paying attention to you, and the rest are falling asleep from your long convoluted nonsensical posts.


Shallow vertical path segments.
So good?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LaBTop
post Mar 18 2011, 06:11 PM
Post #113





Group: Troll
Posts: 81
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 18 2011, 10:50 PM) *
Once again LabTop, you fail to provide a path which is compatible with witness statements and does not leave a path of destruction from the NoC with a first floor impact.

Let us know when you will as you have failed thus far.

As a reminder...

It is impossible for a 757 to impact from the NoC without leaving a trail of damage from the NoC.

Learn the formulas. Do the numbers. Draw us a path compatible with your theory. Good luck!



Why did I fail?

I drew a quick proposal for a flight path, just as you made a nice Shadow Analysis animation which used 80% of its running time to describe a flawed flightpath, but you said it "is not precise and was just put together quickly for reference."" Well, same for me.

I leave it up to you to construct a flight path that is in agreement to all NoC witnesses, and ends above Route 27 in level flight. Because you have the expertise.
And we both know it did not hit anything before it arrived above Route 27.
But we also both know about the picture Pier made for Steve Riskus. So why do you bother me with those strongly right-banking plane animations?


From that point above Route 27 on, we have just one minor difference, you let it "rise" 10 meters, I let it "sink" 10 meters.

I hope you agree it's "easier" on the airframe to let it "sink" than "rise" from that point on?

I already multiple times proposed to you a logical thought experiment.
Very simple, my plane sinks 10 meter over a 100 meter trajectory.

Simple, straight question : Is that impossible, a 10 % descent over the last 100 meters. When that plane was probably already all the time after it passed the Annex roofs, in that 10% descent trajectory.

I do not want to loose more time on nitpicking away on each others arguments, just one simple answer.
Because I am not really interested in how the plane achieved the task to be seen by all your NoC witnesses.
NoC, in my mind that's a passed station and proven solved.
They all saw it and described its attitude.

And this is what Steve Riskus saw flying over Route 27, a level flying Boeing 757 just above the light poles there :



So please, spare us all the right banking animations from that point on, from above Route 27, and then mowing the grass on the lawn with its wing.

You said : "It is impossible for a 757 to impact from the NoC without leaving a trail of damage from the NoC."
Just admit that Riskus is not lying, then proceed with my logical thought experiment.

And please do not forget to include all the "new" NoC witnesses I introduced to you, are they all nuts?
They described nearly exactly the same as what Steve Riskus saw passing him and them above Route 27.


PS: If the others could stop filling up this thread with the immature snickering posts, and just let me answer all these yet unanswered intelligent recent posts, you could perhaps read some of my points that you can't refute. I am 3 pages behind. Aren't you a tad bit curious?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 18 2011, 06:31 PM
Post #114



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (LaBTop @ Mar 18 2011, 07:11 PM) *
Why did I fail?

I drew a quick proposal for a flight path, just as you made a nice Shadow Analysis animation which used 80% of its running time to describe a flawed flightpath, but you said it "is not precise and was just put together quickly for reference."" Well, same for me.


Witnesses are subjective.... math, physics and aerodynamics are not.

I have constructed many different flight paths. Some which are witness compatible, some which are not. All of which are aerodynamically possible.

You have yet to construct one flight path to support your theory. Let us know when you do, as the only flight path you have offered, failed miserably. I wont hold my breath as i already know it is impossible for a 757 to impact the first floor of the pentagon from the NoC without leaving a trail of damage from the NoC. But good luck trying!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Mar 18 2011, 07:43 PM
Post #115





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE (LaBTop @ Mar 18 2011, 01:11 PM) *
If the others could stop filling up this thread with the immature snickering posts, and just let me answer all these yet unanswered intelligent recent posts...

When did “immature snickering posts” ever prevent redundant BS?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LaBTop
post Apr 4 2011, 05:42 PM
Post #116





Group: Troll
Posts: 81
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064



Equations of Motion.
Normally, a 757 pilot will descent with idle thrust and in clean configuration (no flaps, no speed brakes).
When arriving too high at the destination it requires circling to descend further.
The flaps are normally not used for increasing the descent rate. Normal descents are made in the clean configuration to pattern- or instrument approach altitude.
While using the speed brakes in descent, allow sufficient altitude and airspeed margin to level off smoothly. Lower the speed brakes before adding thrust. Speed brakes should be retracted before reaching 1,000 feet AGL (Above Ground Level).

Important Aircraft Speed Terms to Know
• Indicated Airspeed (IAS) - is the speed registered in the cockpit instrument.
• True Airspeed (TAS) - is the actual speed of the vehicle with respect of the mass of air surrounding the aircraft (accounts for compressibility effects).
• Calibrated Airspeed (CAS) - similar to IAS but corrected for instrument position errors (airflow problems outside the vehicle).
• Ground speed (GS) - TAS corrected for wind.
• Stalling speed (Vstall ) - minimum speed for safe flight.
• Top of descent point (TOD).

FAR Regulation Principles
Regulations (FAR 25) specify that:
• Aircraft should lift off at 10% above the stalling speed (Vlof )
• Aircraft climb initially at 20% above the stalling speed (V2)
• Aircraft speed during a regular approach be 30% above the stalling speed (Vapp)
• During takeoff aircraft should clear an imaginary 11 m (35 ft.) obstacle
• During landing aircraft should cross the runway threshold 15 m (50 ft.) above ground)

Forces Acting in the Aircraft
V = the airspeed.
L = lifting force provided by the wing and body of the vehicle.
D = drag force to the vehicle body, nacelle(s), landing gears, etc.
T = Tractive force, or engine(s) thrust in Newtons.
Ff = friction force due to rolling resistance.
m = the mass of the plane.
g = the G-force, center of gravity, pulling with 1 G on every object on earth or in the sky.
γ = the flight path angle.
mg cos γ = the gravitational component normal to the flight path.
dh/dt = the rate of descent.

And then 18 pages more of exact calculations followed, which were mysteriously absent when I re-opened them a day later. I have no idea how that happened, so I took a few days off after weeks of calculations, and then worked on the following, much denser notes.
If you are interested which formulas you have to use for example for Lift and Drag coefficients, air density calculations and a lot more, see my References list. Professor Trani's lectures are the best and the shortest.
========================


This is a picture from Ligon, showing the plane in level flight, just before it passed over Route 27's light poles G, H and B :




In my next picture the little cross-hair down right is the center point of your pair of compasses, and the other leg's point should point at one of the five yellow stars, that will give you a viable G-load flight path, however, that's one where the plane is all the time flying with the same speed at the same angle as in the viable G-load flight path that Rob Balsamo drew.

The first yellow cross is Edward Paik, the second is Terry Morin, the third is the Y-shaped antenna on the roof of Annex building 8, as described by a few witnesses, the fourth is William Lagasse under the CITGO's northern canopy, and the fifth cross is the impact point.
See the drawing of Robert Turcios and the report by Penny Elgas, who both described the plane's right wing as just passing over the CITGO's northern canopy roof.




This is Robert Turcios who shows his drawing of the flight path he witnessed :



Now Rob and me both have a viable flight path, regarding viable G-loads, but Rob's and my­­­­­­­­ plane's attitudes, are in a constant right bank. And that's not viable when all witness statements are also implemented.
They all saw a nearly level flying plane, passing Route 27.

This is Rob's proposal of a viable G-load flight path arc, and Rob's drawing :




This is my proposal of a viable G-load flight path arc, derived from Rob's drawing :



All I have to do is shifting the center point of the full circle where the arc is cut from, a tiny bit down to the right. This pushes the arc's right end down, while lifting the left end up, but keeps the lowest point above Route 27's light poles. This way, all the obstacles to the left of the CITGO (in this drawing) are cleared, and the light poles on the Pentagon side of Route 27 are also just cleared.

We both have to introduce a point on that arc, at which the pilot had to level the plane again, to safely pass over Route 27 its obstacles, and in case of a flyover clear the Pentagon roofs, and in case of an impact, impact at the second floors floor slab.


At about 258 knots, the plane is descending 600 m/min which equals 10 meter/sec :




The distance from the light poles to the west wall is 110 meters, near the Helipad.
The height of a VDOT light pole was and is 12.2 meters (40 feet).
The impact point of the plane's bottom at the west wall was at the second floor slab, that's 3 meters high. Pentagon ground level and Route 27 level are nearly equal near the Helipad.

The plane thus had to descent 10 meters during 110 meters, to clear the light poles at 13 meters high and to impact at 3 meters high.
That's a 10 / 1.1 = 9.09 % shallow descent percentage.
One percent of 90° is 0.9°, then 9.09% of 0.9° = a 8.18° shallow angle of attack.

If you have any faith left in the official FDR, then you believe that the plane's angle of attack as shown by its falsified data, was about 23°, a lot steeper than needed to cover that 110 meters lawn.
We can therefore simply state that an 8.18° angle of attack from light poles to impact is easily within the performance envelope of a 757.

To construct a viable leveling off before the plane reached Route 27, we have to calculate the necessary data. We can use the BADA performance model from Professor Trani's Aircraft_perf_notes2.pdf, since we only need a simplified version, instead of the more complex exact performance calculations where all data are implemented in the lectures of Professor Trani, in his Aircraft_perf_notes1.pdf, his integral calcs.
Since the air density and the heights involved are nearing equality over the distance we have to calculate a viable flight path, we use the simplified BADA calculation :

mg(dh/dt) + mV(dV/dt) = V[T – D]

dh/dt is the rate of climb (m/s)
dV/dt is the acceleration along the flight path (m/s˛)
h is the aircraft altitude (m)
m is the aircraft mass (kg)
V is the aircraft true airspeed (m/s)
g is the gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s˛)
T is the aircraft thrust (Newton)
D is the aircraft drag (Newton)

In the last 110 meters, where we have all witnesses report a nearly level flying plane, the rate of descent -(dh/dt) can be defined as -10 m/s as we found out above, and the acceleration dV/dt as somewhere near the maximum possible for a 757. If we may believe all witnesses near the road-crossing AA 77 plane, who all said it was accelerating at maximum thrust, according to the high wining sound of its two jet engines.
The height h at 110 meters from impact is minimum 13 meters and at impact maximum 3 meters, and we already established the rate of climb being -10 m/s.
The 757 mass m at that 110 meters point was the max. fuel needed for a LAX route, minus used fuel over the flight path flown from departure to the Pentagon, plus the known mass of a 757-223 and the eventual mass of the passengers and freight.
The 757's true airspeed V at 110 meters we defined from the above graph as being 258 knots, at which speed its rate of descent was about 10 m/s.
The 757 thrust coefficient T in Newton is at that point defined as the maximum possible, and can be retrieved from the 757 data sheets.
The same goes for the 757 drag coefficient D in Newton.

Note that drag generated by the aircraft and the thrust supplied by the engine are equal for steady and level flight. Similarly, the lift and weight are then also equal.
Since we are looking at a slight descent angle of 8.18°, the rate of descent can be filled in as -10 m/s. The acceleration could be computed, since all other data are knowns or approximated.

The same calculation can be used for a trajectory (X - 110) meters long, from somewhere north of the CITGO, where the pilot started to level the plane off, to be able to clear the light poles at Route 27 in level flight, and then descent the last 110 meters in level flight over the Pentagon lawn with an angle of attack of 8.18°.

All we have to do now, is to adjust the viable G-load arc in my altered drawing of Rob, in such a way, that the new arc ends north of the CITGO station, but is aiming a tiny bit north of the impact point (since the NNW wind-drift will move the plane south, but is slightly compensated by more lift for the plane in a near level flight, instead of less lift at a 28° right bank angle). Then we only have to construct the arc in such a way, that it ends at a certain height (Y + 13) meters at that point NoC (clearing all obstacles), and connect our straight trajectory to that point, by defining the same height Y + 13 meters as the starting point of that trajectory, towards Route 27.



REFERENCES :

1. 757 Flight Crew Training Manual - 328 pages.
Descent : page 144-150 / 328

2. Boeing 757-200/300 Flight Crew Operating Manual (FCOM).
Click on the 757-200/300 link, then agree with their terms. You can not copy from them, but a screen shot works always.

3. Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge.

4. SmartCockpit-Boeing 757.

5. Boeing 757/767 Simulator Checkride Procedures Manual.

6. Courses from -"The Air Transportation Systems Lab" (ATSL)- :

7. Main Source, the Syllabus files.

8. Aircraft_perf_notes1.
All definitions and calcs : Page 1 to 40 / 130
Functional Forms of the Forces : page 28 / 130
Stalling speed calcs : page 40 / 130
Integration of Acceleration Equation : page 44 / 130
Basic Climb Performance Analysis : page 117 / 130
Incorporation of a Parabolic Drag Polar Model : 119 / 130

9. Aircraft_perf_notes2.
Example of Aircraft Climb Performance : page 2-15 / 93
Cruise Analysis : page 17-19 / 93
Descent flight calculations : page 32 / 93
Turning Calculations : page 36-42 / 93
BADA performance model : page 66-70 / 93.

10. Aircraft_perf_notes3.

11. Descent Analysis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 4 2011, 05:57 PM
Post #117



Group Icon

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



Why am i not surprised LaBTop has failed to provide a Flight Path ONA to NoC to the Impact hole.

LaBtop, we already know a vertical descent can impact the Pentagon. Heck, it can be done at a 90 degree vertical angle. But, it will not be compatible with witness statements, just as your claims are not compatible.

Again LaBTop,

You fail to provide a path which is compatible with witness statements and does not leave a path of destruction from the NoC with a first floor impact (BTW, your "viable" path does not impact the first floor, nor have you provided a radius to properly calculate G loading),

Let us know when you will as you have failed thus far.

You also do not understand and improperly use the term "Angle Of Attack".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LaBTop
post Apr 4 2011, 07:59 PM
Post #118





Group: Troll
Posts: 81
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 3,064



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Apr 4 2011, 11:57 PM) *
Why am i not surprised LaBTop has failed to provide a Flight Path ONA to NoC to the Impact hole.

LaBtop, we already know a vertical descent can impact the Pentagon. Heck, it can be done at a 90 degree vertical angle. But, it will not be compatible with witness statements, just as your claims are not compatible.

Again LaBTop,

You fail to provide a path which is compatible with witness statements and does not leave a path of destruction from the NoC with a first floor impact (BTW, your "viable" path does not impact the first floor, nor have you provided a radius to properly calculate G loading),

Let us know when you will as you have failed thus far.

You also do not understand and improperly use the term "Angle Of Attack".


Did you really miss the little second yellow cross EXACTLY over Terry Morin's head, between the 4th and 5th Annex building? ONA, over the Navy Annex. And the third one, over the Annex 8th wing, and its Y-shaped roof antenna?
Did you also turn a blind eye to the fourth yellow cross, over the shadow of the north canopy of the CITGO? NoC.
And the impact hole is the fifth yellow cross in the west wall.

And if you found your pair of compasses, you can use that little cross in the right bottom of the white part of my picture,

to place one of your compass legs in, and put the other leg in the impact hole. Then make an arc.
It will pass through all yellow crosses.

Where can I find your drawing, set up like mine? I only found your G-load proposal PDF, but no accompanying aerial proposal. Did you post it somewhere else?
And still, we both fly at an 28° angled right bank, all the way, with the same speed.

1. All witnesses said the engines reffed up in the last few hundred meters. So, no constant speed.
2. All witnesses said the plane crossed Route 27 in a leveled out position. Not at an 28° angle.

That's why we have to introduce a return to level flight, somewhere at a point NoC, or a bit further, but still at enough distance from Route 27, to perform that return to level flight. And then pass over Route 27, in level flight.

My path is compatible with as good as all witness statements, because I introduce a return to level flight after it passed the CITGO just north of its northern canopy. Lagasse said he could see that the window blinds were down...That means the plane's body flew damn near him, standing under the rim of that northern canopy.
Your path is a constant speed, constant angled path, which is not at all comparable with any witness statement.

So, what does this mean, regarding my above points?
Rob: ""You fail to provide a path which is compatible with witness statements and does not leave a path of destruction from the NoC with a first floor impact (BTW, your "viable" path does not impact the first floor, nor have you provided a radius to properly calculate G loading)""

I gave you the means to calculate the whole flight path after the return to level flight. The plane does not hit anything on the way in, it clears the light poles at a height of 13 meters and it flies over the lawn in a 8.18° angle towards impact at 3 meters high at the first floors floor slab. With its longitudinal cabin floor beams.
It will hit the diesel generator tank with the tip of its right wing, and hit a few of the cable spools on its way in, but only lightly, just enough to bent their rims, no more.
And, I used the exact same radius "to properly calculate G loading" as you used, or did that slip under your radar? I really thought I made that clear enough by now.
I only shifted the center of your arc a tiny bit down and to the right, which does not change anything substantially in the G-load calculation.

By angle of attack I mean the angle at which the "Attack on the Pentagon" was performed, not the aeronautical term.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 4 2011, 08:25 PM
Post #119



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (LaBTop @ Apr 4 2011, 08:59 PM) *
Did you really miss the little second yellow cross EXACTLY over Terry Morin's head, between the 4th and 5th Annex building? ONA, over the Navy Annex. And the third one, over the Annex 8th wing, and its Y-shaped roof antenna?
Did you also turn a blind eye to the fourth yellow cross, over the shadow of the north canopy of the CITGO? NoC.
And the impact hole is the fifth yellow cross in the west wall.


I missed it all, because you did not provide a radius. Just as you have still failed to provide one in every one of your posts for any arc you have attempted to draw.

Let me know when you do, plug it into the formulas I have provided based on aerodynamics, and produce numbers based on speed. So far, you fail.


QUOTE (LaBTop @ Apr 4 2011, 08:59 PM) *
And, I used the exact same radius "to properly calculate G loading" as you used, or did that slip under your radar? I really thought I made that clear enough by now.


My arc you used is in the vertical. You have failed to provide a lateral radius for the turn NoC.


Do you even understand the argument? If past experience with you is any indication, you clearly do not.

QUOTE
I gave you the means to calculate the whole flight path after the return to level flight.


Do you think a 757 has an instantaneous roll rate?

Do you even know what a roll rate is?

Clearly not.

Let us know how much time you will allow for the aircraft to roll "level" from your NoC turn, after producing the numbers for radius, bank angles and G Loading for the NoC turn, combined with my vertical arc "pull" (which doesnt even impact the first floor).

Good luck!

QUOTE
By angle of attack I mean the angle at which the "Attack on the Pentagon" was performed, not the aeronautical term.


Ever hear the term, "When in Rome..."?

In other words LaBTop, if you are going to discuss the information with verified professionals, you may at least want to learn the terminology as you'll only end up confusing yourself, while the rest of us laugh.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 4 2011, 09:18 PM
Post #120



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (LabTop)
The plane does not hit anything on the way in, it clears the light poles at a height of 13 meters and it flies over the lawn in a 8.18° angle towards impact at 3 meters high at the first floors floor slab. With its longitudinal cabin floor beams.
It will hit the diesel generator tank with the tip of its right wing, and hit a few of the cable spools on its way in, but only lightly, just enough to bent their rims, no more.


Pssst...a few clues LT..

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/7711/75786ft.png

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/130/757dimensions.jpg

(M - B..)

and

http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/4921/ascefloors.gif

The spools were "slightly" hit? The generator was "struck" by the "tip of its right wing"? How??

Ignoring the fact that you've disregarded the speed and aerodynamics of an immediate descent over the poles, how did the aircraft "penetrate" the first floor completely? No buckling effect? No foundation damage? No stabilizer marks on the facade or debris on the lawn???

Twilight Zone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 11th December 2017 - 02:08 PM