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 )

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

Posts in this topic
- johndoeX   Alternate Analysis for light poles   Sep 15 2006, 08:27 AM
- - UnderTow   RE: Alternate Analysis for light poles   Sep 15 2006, 08:59 AM
- - johndoeX   Let me add... i will also give a +/- 5 feet for er...   Sep 15 2006, 09:20 AM
- - johndoeX   Using Russ' numbers.. i went ahead and did the...   Sep 17 2006, 03:14 AM
- - johndoeX   Final Draft: New Elevations/Calculations from the ...   Sep 19 2006, 07:36 AM
- - johndoeX   The ground elevation is drawn directly over the US...   Sep 19 2006, 01:44 PM
- - johndoeX   Using a more accurate descent rate based on G Forc...   Oct 6 2006, 10:42 PM
- - fransan   A question: Has wake turbulence been considered as...   Aug 25 2008, 12:43 AM
|- - Omega892R09   QUOTE (fransan @ Aug 23 2008, 03:43 AM) A...   Aug 25 2008, 09:56 AM
|- - rob balsamo   QUOTE (fransan @ Aug 25 2008, 01:43 AM) A...   Aug 25 2008, 11:03 AM
- - fransan   I know the question is kind of silly. I only want...   Aug 26 2008, 02:51 AM
- - rob balsamo   Wake turbulence is greatest when induced drag is h...   Aug 26 2008, 09:40 AM
|- - Omega892R09   QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 24 2008, 01:40 P...   Aug 26 2008, 03:00 PM
- - Ricochet   One other point of height reference would be the g...   Aug 26 2008, 03:18 PM
- - fransan   Thanks Rob. Now, about "no one" seeing ...   Aug 27 2008, 02:22 AM
- - UnderTow   QUOTE because it seems too complicated to me I...   Aug 27 2008, 09:06 AM
- - lunk   Does anyone know what happens to a light pole when...   Aug 27 2008, 09:37 AM
- - fransan   The thing here is "I donīt question the fact ...   Aug 27 2008, 12:10 PM
|- - Sanders   QUOTE (fransan @ Aug 31 2008, 11:10 AM) ....   Aug 27 2008, 12:29 PM
|- - fransan   QUOTE (Sanders @ Aug 27 2008, 11:29 AM) L...   Aug 28 2008, 12:56 AM
|- - rob balsamo   QUOTE (fransan @ Aug 28 2008, 01:56 AM) I...   Aug 28 2008, 01:11 AM
- - UnderTow   ..My oxymoron filter just broke.. Welcome aboard ...   Aug 27 2008, 12:42 PM
- - lunk   My question is were the light poles actually hit b...   Aug 28 2008, 08:19 PM
|- - aristo   I have some questions. How it is possibly the lig...   Oct 12 2008, 07:44 AM
- - dMole   Hi aristo, The light pole "collision" m...   Oct 12 2008, 06:19 PM
- - aristo   Hi dMole, thanks for information.   Oct 13 2008, 12:23 PM


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: 12th December 2017 - 04:48 PM