Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: William D. Clinger - Physics Of Conspiracy - Debunked
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Study > Debate
SwingDangler
Hey guys long time no type. I got my computer dirty over at screwloosechange and they are linking to

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jok...o2.html#correct The information was posted back in Sept. so forgive me if you have shredded his work.

The site claims to debunk Rob's work on the VDOT pull up and g calculations.

The math is above me but I know you guys can handle it. At the site, he attacks your presentation at
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html

Can you type up a rebuttal to this William D Clinger stuff? Thanks again for all of your hard work and tireless efforts in exposing the truth.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Nov 10 2009, 10:00 AM) *
Hey guys long time no type. I got my computer dirty over at screwloosechange and they are linking to

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jok...o2.html#correct The information was posted back in Sept. so forgive me if you have shredded his work.

The site claims to debunk Rob's work on the VDOT pull up and g calculations.

The math is above me but I know you guys can handle it. At the site, he attacks your presentation at
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html

Can you type up a rebuttal to this William D Clinger stuff? Thanks again for all of your hard work and tireless efforts in exposing the truth.


Hi Swing,

One of our forum members sent me an email awhile ago with the above link. Although the above paper appears to be intended as mostly an ad hom attack and as such, the author refuses to confront us directly, basically, the above paper shows what we have already demonstrated in our presentation, that it is possible for a 757 to hit the pentagon when removing all the variables. See the 6 minute mark here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=14670

What the above paper fails to address is that our analysis was based on topography, obstacles AND data. The above paper does not account for data and the near linear trends provided and plotted by the NTSB.

Hope this helps.
SwingDangler
QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Nov 8 2009, 02:00 PM) *
Hey guys long time no type. I got my computer dirty over at screwloosechange and they are linking to

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jok...o2.html#correct The information was posted back in Sept. so forgive me if you have shredded his work.

The site claims to debunk Rob's work on the VDOT pull up and g calculations.

The math is above me but I know you guys can handle it. At the site, he attacks your presentation at
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html

Can you type up a rebuttal to this William D Clinger stuff? Thanks again for all of your hard work and tireless efforts in exposing the truth.


Thanks Rob, I appreciate it!
rob balsamo
Just wanted to bump this thread as it appears Clingers BS is making the rounds again.

For those who source Clinger, you may want to actually read his paper. The best part is where he tried to use FD Pitch for Aircraft pitch.

The paper was so bad and littered with personal attacks, that his own employer, Northeastern University, pulled his pages from their server.



He also thinks i'm a "former pilot". Wrong again Will, I am very current and qualified.

Gotta love it when idiots source JREFer's. The blind leading the blind....
onesliceshort
I actually had a go at listing the flaws in his "work". It's from a layman's perspective but even I busted his ass.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...t&p=2433040

QUOTE
To me, the second scenario was in response to detractor manipulation of the data to convince the onlooker of the "argument" that "impact" was possible from SOC within the parameters of the officially released NTSB data and directional damage path. It was pointed out in the video that government loyalists had moved away completely from the official data and had indeed introduced whatever figures suited them.

Dishonest boy number 1

QUOTE (Clinger)
The initial values consist of the aircraft's position and velocity at the end of its data. I took the x-y position to be the origin, and the altitude (z) to be the height of the Pentagon lawn above sea level. The velocity involved a little guesswork: My initial guess came from running the last recorded velocity forward to the end of data as an initial value problem. I then adjusted that guess slightly to improve the match between the shape of the calculated altitude and the shape of the pressure altitude


The "velocity that involved a "little guesswork" is depicted as 540mph by the ASCE report on taken from the "5 frames"
His "calculations" are his personal adjustments to make his theory "work".
He claims that the NTSB data "stopped" (up to and over 6 seconds before alleged impact) - based on what officially verified capacity exactly??

QUOTE (Clinger)
My numerical solution of the initial value problem is inherently unstable for exactly the same reason that dead reckoning becomes inaccurate over long distances: the errors tend to add up over time. The accumulation of error could be corrected using feedback to bring the calculated altitude back into line with the recorded pressure altitude and radio height, but that seems pointless in this case: We already know the recorded pressure altitude and radio height, and we also have radar data that tell us the aircraft's position and altitude up until its radar return disappeared into ground clutter during its final seconds. Since the final seconds were the only ones for which we did not know the altitudes, and my unsophisticated open-loop solution of the initial value problem is adequate for the final seconds, I didn't bother to add a feedback mechanism.



He has based his "theory" on the fraudulent RADES data and again totally ignored the available data. And the non witness compatible Radalt readings.

His "possibilities" and "maybes" stretch throughout the thread.

The second thread makes this claim as if Rob Balsamo had "manipulated" his figures! Ryan "4gs" Mackey is quoted..

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=65369

QUOTE
All in all, though, you have clearly demonstrated that considering the approach as a straight line is not a safe or credible assumption


As far as I can tell, Rob used the data and the necessary descent rate to make the directional damage possible from the lightpoles onward.
What available time was there in the last few seconds at 540mph to "gradually" descend from the last recorded altitude to an area that is near sea level?
From an area of land (not counting obstacles, the actual "recorded altitude" and the Pressure altitude that JREFers ignored) 145ft ASL through an incredibily sharp descent to 30 ft ASL in a very short period of time.

In the real world, the directional damage seen requires a constant almost "straight line". Even their hero, Warren Stutt points to this "straight line" in his "data" (data that points to no left bank, I might add)

Sorry for waffling, but the point is that Rob Balsamo was using all of the official data that government loyalists had to adhere to to the letter. They didn't. Their "parabolic" figures are based on nothing other than what suits their argument. They in effect ignored the necessary official data. Speed, FDR data (on the unproven assumption that some of it was "irrelevant"), "5 frames" and of course the witnesses.

I know the plane was going "slower" according to witnesses, but many of these same witnesses also pointed unaminously to the NOC path

His calculations are based on the SOC path, warts and all. Theirs is based on nothing. They worked back from a desired conclusion. They have in effect abandoned the data available (which I know is shit btw) and constructed their "math" around their theory.



Basically, Clinger uses Stutt's "data" as and when it suits, (particularly the "Radalt data" even though the "4ft" reading is recorded before it reaches Route 27 and the recently published inherent problems at low altitude above 330fps), while Rob used the official NTSB released data.

The guy is a joke.

2cents
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.