G Forces - Scene From 9/11: Attack On The Pentagon Rating Options

[rob balsamo]

[dMz]

Got your troll repellent handy? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Craig Ranke CIT]

yeah buddy!

Time to watch the duh-bunkers squirm!

[Craig Ranke CIT]

They're already suggesting the plane missed the tower and was at lower altitude.

(Ignoring the fact that the NTSB data has it higher!)

You should do the calculations from the top of the VDOT building roof too.

[rob balsamo]

Dont forget to rate the video at...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5732289044586758033

[rob balsamo]

They're already suggesting the plane missed the tower and was at lower altitude.

(Ignoring the fact that the NTSB data has it higher!)

You should do the calculations from the top of the VDOT building roof too.

If it were at a lower altitude and parabola as suggested by the critics, it would be taking out the tree line between the Annex and Citgo and the higher poles west of pole 1.

[dMz]

If it were at a lower altitude and parabola as suggested by the critics, it would be taking out the tree line between the Annex and Citgo and the higher poles west of pole 1.

Oooohhh... Well sh*t, then... trees/telephone poles... "no problem!" (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

http://www.wreckedexotics.com/newphotos/weird/weird801.shtml

EDIT:
"Car:
2002 Chevy Suburban

Description:
Drunk driver drove head on into a tree. After not being able to remove the car from the tree, the tow truck operation had to cut the tree and tow it along with the car.

Location:
Sunny Seal Beach, California"

[clue2mystery]

I watched it now twice.

Looks and sounds for me logical. Two suggestions: The original 5 frame video should be included to compare with your simulation and translate to many languages.

Excellent job!

This post has been edited by clue2mystery: Sep 15 2008, 09:00 PM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

I think the loyalists are scurred!

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

This is too much fun.

The FAA animation and now this???

They are clearly exhausted.

Note how silent retreat has been!

What a riot.

[dMz]

I think the loyalists are scurred!

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

This is too much fun.

The FAA animation and now this???

They are clearly exhausted.

Note how silent retreat has been!

What a riot.

How do you like our "maths" now, you pathetic Randiites? [I'd say something about a hookah, rolling, or a crack pipe, but I'll be nice... for the next ten minutes at least.]

Where are all our "critical thinking" duh-bunkers? I think TF and I are ready for a tag-team "cage match" over in Debate if we can find any takers! I think rcane said he was ready with the chair/garbage can too. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/box.gif)

[SwingDangler]

Almost 11 G's to pull up and both engines still attached!?

It seems to me the pylons would have snapped before the alleged impact and we would have witnessed a real plane crash.

Try this one on for size....

As the plane pulled nearly 11 G's to level out on the lawn, both engines ripped off of their pylons, smashed into the Pentagon at the same point creating a huge hole that would then swallow the plane. Just before entering the newly created hole by the engines, the wings ripped off of the fuselage from the high G pull up of course. This follows the OS of course because there are no spars or wings at the alleged crash site...oh yeah and all of this occurs a mere inch or two above the foundation.

Now can I be a leading member of the govt loyalist site? Huh? Can I, can I pleeeease???? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

This post has been edited by SwingDangler: Sep 15 2008, 09:26 PM

[dMz]

Actually Swing,

I'd have expected 11+ g's to shear both wing stub boxes, not the engine pylons (but TOmato, TomAto- it ain't vury good for Boeings... or F-16's... or... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif) )

I imagine O892 will be along in a few hours to add his however-many shillings (or is it pence? or did you finally get assimilated by the EU?).

EDIT: Did Hani have his Superman underoos or a "classified" SR-71 pressure suit on that morning? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Myriad is the first to get his feet wet:

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

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

v2/r = 4.07g + 1g = 5.07g.

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

Now I may be a layman but wouldn't this earlier "pull-up" be reflected in the FDR?

Isn't the entire point here that the FDR does not reflect this?

Why do they keep removing the evidence out of equation?

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Sep 15 2008, 10:17 PM

[dMz]

"That's an overestimate, because the angle of the left radius of the pull-up arc shown in the clip, and hence the 2085-foot radius of curvature, was pulled out of somebody's ass."

UP "MYRIAD"'S ASS!!!! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/angry.gif)

Based upon my firsthand telephonic communications direct with the producer of the vid, Rob used a 3D modeling program by these fine folks (and I have used their software professionally off-n-on since the 1980's- Autodesk is considered an INDUSTRY STANDARD in the PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING world, as is SolidWorks, and Pro/E mostly).

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/home?...2&id=129446

Be sure to read that "...Architecture, Engineering, Construction, Manufacturing, ..." part of the Autodesk title bar in your browser.

Propagandist fools, I tell 'ya...

EDIT: Autodesk software is GOOD ENOUGH for Boeing, based upon those .DXF files that I've been working with.

EDIT the next day: Ahem... I meant "see the video linked above at 06:56 Myriad." (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[lunk]

Dont forget to rate the video at...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5732289044586758033

I couldn't find the rating feature,
so I left a comment, and rated it there.

5/5

(edit) update,
interesting the comment hasn't been posted yet...

maybe I spelled irrefutable wrong.

This post has been edited by lunk: Sep 15 2008, 10:50 PM

[SwingDangler]

Myriad is the first to get his feet wet:



Now I may be a layman but wouldn't this earlier "pull-up" be reflected in the FDR?

Isn't the entire point here that the FDR does not reflect this?

Why do they keep removing the evidence out of equation?

Excellent point. I don't recall seeing 2.5g's anywhere in the FDR. He must be pulling this number out of his ass.

Oh and my new the govt loyalist site theory: The NTSB made a mistake in the FDR. And ummm the FAA made a mistake in their animation. Now do I get to be head debunker? Please, Rmackey, pleaseeeeeee!!!!! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

[rob balsamo]

Myriad and the GL's will try to spin this to no end, thats why i included the scene at 6:00 in the clip above. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)


And as usual, Myriad et al will hide out on the govt loyalist site instead of coming here to ask questions. I guess they are familar with the fact we dont tolerate ad hom debate style and they are unable to debate otherwise.

[rob balsamo]

Heres another reply from Myriad that was written more than an hour after his reply above...

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

His calculations in Craigs post are 5.07 G. An hour later its up to 5.4 G. Maybe tomorrow he'll be higher? Keep going Myriad, you're getting there.. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

(still, his numbers are no where to be found in the csv file which is not a 'working copy', and he still doesnt realize his first calcs from months ago didnt account for horizontal velocity, although he thinks it did...lol)

[Craig Ranke CIT]

GL jaydeehess says:

You cannot even be assured that the aircraft flew directly over the VDOT tower. In fact the physical evidence suggests it flew beside it close enough to clip a rung off the ladder.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

+ about 10 laughing dogs!

[rob balsamo]

lol..... Jayduhees is so confused its not even funny. We're still waiting to see how long it takes him to find our "technical paper". Been awhile now. We should run a pool on it...