Alternate Analysis for light poles, Working backwards from impact point |

Sep 15 2006, 09:27 AM
Post
#1
|
|
![]() Group: Admin Posts: 9,266 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. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif) |
|
|
|
![]() |
Aug 27 2008, 10:06 AM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Group: Valued 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. |
|
|
|
johndoeX Alternate Analysis for light poles Sep 15 2006, 09:27 AM
UnderTow RE: Alternate Analysis for light poles Sep 15 2006, 09:59 AM
johndoeX Let me add... i will also give a +/- 5 feet for er... Sep 15 2006, 10:20 AM
johndoeX Using Russ' numbers.. i went ahead and did the... Sep 17 2006, 04:14 AM
johndoeX Final Draft: New Elevations/Calculations from the ... Sep 19 2006, 08:36 AM
johndoeX The ground elevation is drawn directly over the US... Sep 19 2006, 02:44 PM
johndoeX Using a more accurate descent rate based on G Forc... Oct 6 2006, 11:42 PM
fransan A question: Has wake turbulence been considered as... Aug 25 2008, 01:43 AM
Omega892R09 QUOTE (fransan @ Aug 23 2008, 03:43 AM) A... Aug 25 2008, 10:56 AM
rob balsamo QUOTE (fransan @ Aug 25 2008, 01:43 AM) A... Aug 25 2008, 12:03 PM
fransan I know the question is kind of silly. I only want... Aug 26 2008, 03:51 AM
rob balsamo Wake turbulence is greatest when induced drag is h... Aug 26 2008, 10:40 AM
Omega892R09 QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 24 2008, 01:40 P... Aug 26 2008, 04:00 PM
Ricochet One other point of height reference would be the g... Aug 26 2008, 04:18 PM
fransan Thanks Rob. Now, about "no one" seeing ... Aug 27 2008, 03:22 AM
lunk Does anyone know what happens to a light pole when... Aug 27 2008, 10:37 AM
fransan The thing here is "I donīt question the fact ... Aug 27 2008, 01:10 PM
Sanders QUOTE (fransan @ Aug 31 2008, 11:10 AM) .... Aug 27 2008, 01:29 PM
fransan QUOTE (Sanders @ Aug 27 2008, 11:29 AM) L... Aug 28 2008, 01:56 AM
rob balsamo QUOTE (fransan @ Aug 28 2008, 01:56 AM) I... Aug 28 2008, 02:11 AM
UnderTow ..My oxymoron filter just broke..
Welcome aboard ... Aug 27 2008, 01:42 PM
lunk My question is were the light poles actually hit b... Aug 28 2008, 09:19 PM
aristo I have some questions.
How it is possibly the lig... Oct 12 2008, 08:44 AM
dMole Hi aristo,
The light pole "collision" m... Oct 12 2008, 07:19 PM
aristo Hi dMole,
thanks for information. Oct 13 2008, 01:23 PM
![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd May 2013 - 03:03 AM |