Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible

Blogads

Banner Exchange

Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible

Entries in this section are created by individual users who register with this site and are largely unmoderated. Content in this section should not be interpreted as being supported by 911blogger.com, or by any other members of this site, and should only be viewed as a posting of the individual who created it. Please contact a team member if you notice a post which violates our general rules.

Submitted by rob balsamo on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 8:20pm.

Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible

By Rob Balsamo, Pilots For 9/11 Truth

03/13/08 - "Beware The Ides Of March" could not be a more appropriate introduction to this article as it appears the government story regarding the events at the pentagon is officially dead. Thanks to the hard work done by Citizen Investigation Team, they alerted us to review figures regarding topography and obstacles along the flight path of American 77 according to the government story. Physically and aerodynamically, Arlington's unique topography and obstacles along American 77 "final leg" to the pentagon make this approach completely impossible as we will demonstrate.

According to the government, American 77 final approach to the pentagon is depicted below.

(Picture Courtesy Citizen Investigation Team, Click to Enlarge)

You'll notice the Virginia Department Of Transportation (VDOT) Antenna rising from the ground in the reported flight path of American 77. This antenna has been determined to be 169 ft above the ground with a ground elevation of 135 feet (FCC Registration Number 1016111).

(Picture Courtesy Citizen Investigation Team, Click to Enlarge)

For those who have seen Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight American 77, you will recall the government claims American 77 struck down light poles on Washington Blvd of which the first pole is 2400 feet east of the above antenna. The topography in this area slopes down significantly once east of the Navy Annex/VDOT Antenna on its way to the pentagon. The ground elevation of the pentagon is 33 feet according to USGS.

Based on this topography combined with the height of the VDOT Antenna protruding into the reported flight path of American 77, it is aerodynamically and physically impossible for this aircraft to have performed the way the government would have us believe.

Top of VDOT Height = 304 MSL (above sea level)
Top of Pole 1 height = 80 MSL

Difference = 224 feet descent required.

Distance between VDOT - Pole 1 = 2400 feet

2400/Speed 781 feet per second (according to Flight Data Recorder) = 3 seconds

224/3 seconds = 75 fps descent rate x 60 = 4480 fpm descent rate needed to reach top of pole 1 from top of VDOT Antenna.

Pole 1 distance to Pentagon = 1016 feet

1016 feet/781 fps = 1.3 seconds

4480 fpm descent needs to be arrested within 1.3 seconds.

75 * 1.3 = 97.5 foot descent within 1.3 seconds.

97.5/32 fps accel due to gravity = 3.0 G's + 1 G = 4.0 G's needed to arrest descent within 1.3 seconds and 97.5 feet vertically. However, 97.5 feet vertically is not available.

Top of pole 1 height = 80 MSL
"Impact hole" height = 33 (pentagon ground level) + 12 feet (center of pentagon hole height) = 45 MSL

80 feet (top of pole 1) - 45 (height of "impact hole") = 35 feet vertically available to arrest descent rate of 4480 fpm.

97.5/35 = 280% (G Load required to arrest 4480 fpm descent rate within 1.3 seconds and 97.5 feet vertically needs to be increased by 280%.)

280% x 4.0 G's = 11.2 G's needed to arrest descent.

Conclusion = Impossible for any transport category aircraft to descend from top of VDOT Antenna to top of pole 1 and pull level to "impact hole" as reported by the government story and seen in the DoD "5 Frames Video". 11.2 G's was never recorded in the FDR. 11.2 G's would rip the aircraft apart.

This does not account for response time to initiate the arrest. Increased time is needed or higher altitude at pentagon in order to be within aircraft structural limits, or higher peak G loads. The VDOT Antenna was present on September 11, 2001, and was not struck by any object.

Transport Category aircraft are limited to 2.5 G's positive and 1.0 negative. Although there is a margin of error built into these limits, it is not anywhere near 448% or 11.2 G's positive. Aerobatic Category Aircraft have a positive G load limit of 6.0 G's. Some may argue that the flight path "just missed" the VDOT Antenna, in which case we also worked out the numbers if the aircraft were at ground level at the antenna. The G loads required would be ~4.3 G's. Still excessive for a transport category aircraft. Not to mention the aircraft certainly was not at ground level abeam the Navy Annex and such G loads were never recorded in the Flight Data provided by the NTSB. Feel free to input the numbers yourself using above calculations as a guide and ground elevation of antenna.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

Special thanks to the Citizens Investigation Team for bringing this to our attention and for providing above pictures.

Forum discussion - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=11342

» rob balsamo's blog | login to post comments | printer friendly version

» login to post comments | 15 points

Keep it civil.

If you can point out specific factual problems with this blog entry, please do so, and back it up with linked documentation. Rebuttals must follow this pattern.

Refrain from calling another user an agent; stick to the facts, and let the chips fall where they may.

This applies to all parties:

If all you can do is make a comment about the other poster's intent, or character, then don't bother. Anybody can allege anything about another person's intent.

Submitted by Reprehensor on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 9:23pm.

» login to post comments | 7 points

I have a feeling....

There won't be many replies!

The implications of this important evidence are undeniable.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Submitted by Craig Ranke CIT on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 12:44am.

» login to post comments | 6 points

Can "facts" break a psyops?

The Pilots and Architects and Engineers and Theologians and some Scientists and some Military and Intelligence (mostly retired) are all doing great work in trying to break the psyops with "facts."

And many, many laypersons are doing their part - also trying to break the psyops with "facts."

WHERE ARE THE "PSYCHOLOGISTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH" ???????

A PSYOPS IS ABLE TO WITHSTAND "FACTS" THAT DISPOVE IT ---- BECAUSE IT IS A PSYOPS. A psyops operates at a level deeper than "facts."

And so - I ask again: WHERE ARE THE "PSYCHOLOGISTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH" ???????

Submitted by zmzmzm on Sat, 03/15/2008 - 11:04pm.

» login to post comments | -3 points

The Antenna was Damaged on 9/11. What caused this?

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

http://911files.info/blog/?p=26
Farmer writes:

(Quote)Paik says “…antenna broken.” Makes clear motions with his hands describing how the 2-meter antenna was broken over.>

Some folks are still having trouble making out the significance of the photograph. I took the tower top section and converted it to grayscale so that the dark and light contrast better. The enlargements were created using bicubic enhancement.

The antenna to the right appears bent over just as Paik describes it. In the original photograph, the bend is towards the smoke rising from the Pentagon.(Endquote)

The witness described the tower as being DAMAGED on 9/11. So I suppose this post will be retitled to "New evidence that the flight path as suggested by the FDR is CORRECT and a plane really did approach the Pentagon."

I've already explained in a lot of detail why your witnesses alleging that an alternative flight path are WRONG (including misplacing light poles and being seen on the opposite side of the Gas station in the CITGO video, etc.), but this evidence of a damaged tower is even stronger evidence that they are wrong. Let's not forget the light pole damage and generator damage (being knocked backwards) as well.

Your explanation that "it was for enhancements" is extremely suspect as far as I can tell. Let's see, a tower is damaged, and it is being repaired the next day and it lines up perfectly with the flight path and approximate altitude of the plane as suggested by the FDR. The tower was observed to be damaged by your own witnesses and you don't even mention this?

Your excuse that it was because the VDOT was "enhancing" the tower appears quite frankly very fishy. The fact that you wouldn't even mention that they were working on the tower when you knew this information is deceitful enough. If you have any documentation to prove that the tower was not being repaired due to an impact from the plane approaching the Pentagon, please supply it. You'll forgive me if I don't accept your word at face value, based on your past history of deceptive statements and trickery.

I'll also note that this image shows that the tower was far lower (in altitude) than many of your photos suggest.

Noteworthy is the fact that the tower would have been at the APPROXIMATE height of the Plane as it approached the Pentagon. The fact that the witness described it as being damaged only suggests that the FDR data is ACCURATE and that indeed a plane approached the Pentagon, descended further and knocked down the light poles and struck the Pentagon. This is all physical evidence, and the eyewitness accounts speak for themselves.

The image suggests the tower was damaged on 9/11. The witness said it was damaged--on 9/11. And yet here we are, a thread alleging that the plane didn't hit the tower and that this is somehow evidence of a government cover-up?

The only thing being covered-up here is the fact that CIT knew the tower was damaged! How low can you get?

In your words: "The implications of this important evidence are undeniable."

The evidence is undeniable, and that's not the only thing unfortunately...
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Submitted by Arabesque on Mon, 03/17/2008 - 7:49pm.

» login to post comments | 3 points

wow just wow.

The witness says he did NOT see the plane hit the antenna and specifically places the plane far from the antenna.

But the VDOT specifically told Russell Pickering and ALL of us that it was not damaged.

I already told you this.

If the antenna was damaged don't you think the VDOT would know?

Don't you think Russell Pickering would have reported this fact? Don't you think ANYONE would have reported this fact by now?

Why don't you call the VDOT and find out for yourself?

Why are you pushing false information that you haven't bothered trying to verify?

Why are you accusing ME of covering the information up while the only source of the information you have is a youtube clip that I created and uploaded?

This is getting ridiculous.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Submitted by Craig Ranke CIT on Mon, 03/17/2008 - 8:17pm.

» login to post comments | -2 points

Your words:

"The VDOT became emergency headquarters for the feds so they were merely adding extra communication to the antenna the next day which led the Paik brothers to think maybe they were repairing it."

Paik says “…antenna broken.” Makes clear motions with his hands describing how the 2-meter antenna was broken over."

Do you have any proof that this was merely "extra communication" and was not in fact repairs to the tower? I am well aware of Paiks account (5 years after 9/11). The relevant point here is that he claims the tower was damaged, and that they were working on the tower.

It makes perfect sense that this "extra communication" would be the "broken antenna" that Paik described.
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Submitted by Arabesque on Mon, 03/17/2008 - 8:57pm.

» login to post comments | 5 points

Get your own "proof"

Call the VDOT Arabesque!

They will tell you. That is what they told us. All of us, Russell Pickering included.

Here is my full reply to this nonsense:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=112

This exact same Edward Paik interview was included in Loose Change Final Cut as was his brother Shinki.

Dylan knew better than to report this proven incorrect information.

Hell just look at the image of the antenna from 2006 and you can tell they look the same!

You are DESPERATE to make us look bad but it's merely coming back to bite you in the rear over and over and over and over.

Get a grip man.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Submitted by Craig Ranke CIT on Mon, 03/17/2008 - 9:22pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Interesting

For the sake of discussion, can someone provide a link to the informtion utilized by the government that places AA 77 over the same coordinates as the tower and also a link to the information regarding the height of the tower?

Submitted by Aidan Monaghan on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 12:10pm.

» login to post comments | 4 points

Hi Aidan

Keep in mind the height we used is the lowest possible based on the antenna. If we really want to get technical, we could use the FDR altitude at this position which would cause the G loads required for the "pull level" to be astronomical. Right now we are using 304 MSL - 80 MSL. Feel free to punch in the numbers using FDR Altitude of 699 MSL - 80 MSL. Wow! Or even try 273 AGL (radar altitude) + 135 ground elevation. = 408 MSL. Both will require much more than 11.2 G's.

This article was written on the hypothetical that the aircraft was as low as the VDOT antenna. Basically giving the govt story the benefit of the doubt on altitude. According to the FDR, it was much higher.

But to answer your question, CIT looked up the numbers. I sourced the antenna with the FCC Registration code. Im sure you can google it.

Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum

Submitted by rob balsamo on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 1:45pm.

» login to post comments | 2 points

Thanx Rob

Is there a link reference cited by the U.S. government, that places AA 77's trajectory along the same coordinates as the VDOT tower?

Submitted by Aidan Monaghan on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 5:21pm.

» login to post comments | 6 points

I think it would also be quite useful to post a photo

showing the locations of the downed light poles in relation to the VDOT Antenna.

This is an extremely valuable addition to our knowledge base regarding the events at the Pentagon.

Thank you and keep up the great work!

How can anyone still think we don't need a new and thorough investigation into what happened here?

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Submitted by LeftWright on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 10:14pm.

» login to post comments | 7 points

Seems like another smoking gun to me

This should be sent to as many people who HAVE to be able to understand it as possible, and their responses, or refusal to respond, publicized.

Submitted by Michael Morrissey on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 4:24am.

» login to post comments | 12 points

Topography is commanding...

Robin Hordon

I am both an X air traffic controler and commercial pilot with only 1600 hours of flight time, but I'm no fool. In addition to the work I've done in other elemnts of the 9/11 Truth Movement and Peace Movements, I took it upon myself to visit the Pentagon site and check out the topography all around the area including sitting for some tme in the Naval Annex's parking lot, the gasstation, and getting a sense of the topography of the area. One thing that I can bring into this debate is how much room it takes to turn, climb and desend, and manuever high speed airliners with smaller load [G force] limitations...they just can't do what fighters can do...its as simple as that.

My conclusion after sitting at the Naval Annex is that I could BARELY get a light aircraft flying 200K down over the hill and highway and nail the Pentagon where the entry point is alleged to be. Airliners who fly at the speeds that we are talking need almost the entire state of Rhode Island to make even uncomfortable turns. Many folks look at this Pentagon event as they do driving their cars...this just isn't so. This is why so many professional pilots with hundreds of times the experience that I have, tell us quite consitantly that this manuever would be nearly impossible with such topographical limitations when added onto the speeds, weights, and reaction times that are common to flight.

Aircraft "swoop" left, right up and down...its not at ll like coming to a stop light with your car and taking a hard right turn at 8 mph. Its a completely different world in aviation.

The HI PERPS "know" that the public does not know these truths and their "psy-ops" were designed to make "the first impression"...an impression that defies the facts of aviation life. The HI PERPS have Intelligence Agencies and budgets to set all this "psy-ops" up, as most of us in the 9/11TM know too well. So, it takes some good work and constant digging into facts that will counter their lies. This is a great example, and I feel that you can take this info to the bank.

Also, I'm doing more and more work on looking at other "radar" aspects of AA77...THE "Achilles Heel" of their entire scheme. AA77 will not go away, and I personally see the flight as the TRUE "false-flag-fight" of 9/11. This is because the WTCs didn't actually have to come down for this country to attack Afghanistan-Iraq, and many think that the actual "mid building crash points" are pretty special feats of aviation. [ I'm not one at the moment...]

The HI PERPS who planned/allowed this event most likely KNEW of the possibility of some "misses" and I postulate that they established the "one airliner" in the various War Games that day that would serve in a fashion that was described in Operation Northwoods. Before P4T got any info out about the FDR, I had found it way too coincidental about Burlingame at the controls, and him being involved in schemeing or debugging similar "attack scenarios" at the Pentagon a few years earlier. Plus, as an air traffic controller, it is CRITICAL to remember that AA77 was the ONLY airliner that was lost to positive radar contact on 9/11, and that NOBODY ever positively re-radar identified any aircraft as being the missing AA77. Some folks have only "presumed" that the primary target in question was AA77. I do not "presume" anything...nor do air traffic controllers.

I look at what Bush said: "Looks like I hit the trifecta..." much differently than most folks do...like the pundits who were fed that crap tha it was popularity, the ecomony, and testosterone flowing in the cowboy from Maine and Connecticut making the trifecta. Maybe it was three buildings?

MORE...If we hadn't been successfuly "psy-opted" to believe....

If one were to look at some other available evidence about the Pentagon crash, and that person had NOT been pre-conditioned to think of an airliner being the vehicle that crashed into the Pentagon, one would look very, very suspiciously at:

...the streak in the Pentagon's lawn that is virtually the same flight path as the airliners...
...the FAB FIVE FRAMES and notice that there is NO separation between the "vehicle" and the ground...
...and then consider the white exhaust coming from this vehicle...turbojet engines do not create this plume...

...and then one would perhaps consider or think that the vehicle that was in the FAB FIVE FRAMES that crossed the lawn was a steam or rocket powered sled of some sorts. What it wasn't...was an airbourne airliner flying in OUR atmosphere which has KNOWN physical characteristics when it comes to flight.

Weed Whackers...

The light poles have always been very problematic to me..if the speeds of the airliner? were as noted in this stage of flight, it just seems tome that these thin aluminum poles would be sheared right off without that much curvature imparted upon the hollow tubes themselves. Someday, someone will run a test on this aspect of the story...

Anyway, another layer of the 9/11 ONION gets peeled away...

Robin Hordon

Submitted by Robin Hordon on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 4:59am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Even if the laws of physics were suspended for one day

there is no way someone who has never flown a Boeing 757, would be able to fly it into the Pentagon the way the Official Myth claims he did.

In regards to the light poles, those were easy. The majority of light poles on US Hwys are call 'break-away poles'. There are designed so that if a vehicle crashes into them, they will 'break-away' at the base and fall away from the roadway. It would have been a relatively simple task to preset small explosive charges at the base of a few of them, to create the 'evidence' that a plane hit them, when it flew into the building, leaving a trail of fallen poles to conveniently mark it's flight path.

Submitted by DoYouEverWonder on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 6:20am.

» login to post comments | 5 points

wellll....

Agreed about the laws of physics having to be suspended for the official story to be true but you might recall my thread on the light poles from a while back.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/12064

In summary the damage to the poles themselves (and of course the cab that was allegedly hit by a pole) is inconsistent with a real-time downing so I think we can pretty accurately rule out explosive charges.

The tops of the poles were severed and look "pinched" therefore had to have been pre-fabricated.

That could not have been done with explosives.

And if you look closely at the "breakaway" base when compared with the same style pole from the same area that actually did break away you can see that the uniform damage that has a sooty appearance indicates it was removed with a torch.

Buuuuuut....let's not digress.

This thread is about the aeronautically impossible descent angle required for the jet to overcome the topography and obstacles.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Submitted by Craig Ranke CIT on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 10:13am.

» login to post comments | 8 points

Great post!

Thanks for the expert insight Robin!

Why so many non-experts within the movement seek to marginalize and divide us on the Pentagon issue that offers a cornucopia of smoking guns I will never know.

Peace!

www.ThePentaCon.com

Submitted by Craig Ranke CIT on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 10:02am.

» login to post comments | 1 point

verifying the VDOT Antenna was present

Someone please demonstrate that the VDOT Antenna was present on 9/11. Are the photos above from 9/11? It would appear they were taken before or after, as there is no smoke in the picture.

Submitted by 911dust on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 11:07am.

» login to post comments | 8 points

yep

The VDOT employees told us as did eyewitness Edward Paik who was working across the street but here are a couple of images.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Submitted by Craig Ranke CIT on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 1:01pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Quite an important point

"Someone please demonstrate that the VDOT Antenna was present on 9/11."

Submitted by Vesa on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 2:16pm.

» login to post comments | 5 points

did you miss my post above?

It was there.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Submitted by Craig Ranke CIT on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 3:59pm.

» login to post comments | 3 points

Yes I missed it

I think I started writing my question before your post appeared. Thanks for clearing that up.

Submitted by Vesa on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 5:50pm.

» login to post comments | 5 points

you are quite welcome Vesa.

Thanks for staying on top of all this complex but critical information.

www.ThePentaCon.com

Submitted by Craig Ranke CIT on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 6:40pm.

» login to post comments | 6 points

Excellent. Good work and

Excellent. Good work and thanks.
________________

JFK on secrecy and the press

Submitted by Alvin R on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 11:40am.

» login to post comments | 5 points

Common Arguments Addressed

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=11360

http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum

Submitted by rob balsamo on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 12:14pm.

» login to post comments | -8 points

Navy Annex Approach

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

I was under the impression that witnesses placed the plane at just slightly over the Navy Annex. For example, CIT's witness Paik's approach resembled this diagram:

Despite what CIT would have us believe however, his flight path is close enough to matching the light pole damage and south of CITGO gas station approach as this diagram shows. Yes, he marked a slight angle change at the end of his account, but to place 100% certainty in a witness statement 5 years after the fact is just not a credible position. In other words, you must examine the total body of statements and compare them to get a bass line of corroboration.

In fact, other witnesses confirm this basic approach.

“[It] approached from the west, coming in low over the nearby five-story Navy Annex on a hill overlooking the Pentagon.”

“Personnel working in the Navy Annex, over which the airliner flew, said they heard the distinct whine of jet engines as the airliner approached... I saw this [plane] come flying over the Navy Annex.”
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.ht...

All witness statements confirm a very very low approach from the aircraft, so it is very unlikely that the plane would have flown OVER this obstacle. If it did indeed hit the Pentagon, it would have missed it.

As for the other "North" of CITGO gas station witnesses, they are extremely problematic as I have detailed. http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smo... Mr. Lagasse, for example, claims that no light poles were knocked down (where they were knocked down) and claims that OTHER light poles were knocked down. This clearly indicates his memory is in error, and that if Lagasse witnessed the plane flew where the light poles were actually located, this would actually account for a SOUTH approach.

As I've already explained, Paik's account is very close to being a plausible SOUTH approach as well. As for Mr. Turcios...

Robert Turcios claims the plane flew on the North side of the Gas station, where he worked. However, CIT has claimed that he was deliberately edited out of the footage by the perpetrators. A more plausible explanation is that he was on the other side of the station as seen in this video below, and saw the plane on the South side. Of course, this can't be proven, because the video quality is poor, but what it doesn't show is the the witness in the location he claimed to have been. Either the government orchestrated a hoax in which they deliberated edited a witness out of a video, or he was wrong in his testimony. It's pretty obvious which is more plausible, and once again, the "smoking gun" north of CITGO gas station approach is anything but a smoking gun.

I also direct you to the close to 100 witnesses who claimed the plane impacted the Pentagon. http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.ht... Not to mention the stand-still traffic jam right in front of the building.

As for the light poles, this is among the most compelling evidence for an impact. Let me explain why. It is not simply that they were knocked down. It is in fact, that they were knocked down in such a way to correspond with the internal structural damage inside of the Pentagon. So, in order to believe that these light poles were "staged", you are arguing that they first of all managed to do this without anyone reporting it, and did it in such a way as to fake the damage to correspond to the structural damage inside of the Pentagon. Now for the obvious question: If they changed the flight path of the plane (as some alleged), why bother faking the damage like this at all? There is of course, no plausible explanation for this.

_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Submitted by Arabesque on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 11:33pm.

» login to post comments | 6 points

Why don't you respond to the topic?

Not a single thing in that convoluted post addressed the topic.

You have posted blatant deceptions and I would have no problem addressing them all but it would only serve to throw the discussion off track.

Why do you insist on derailing the thread with irrelevant propaganda?

Care to meet me in the CIT forum to discuss your off topic claims in detail?

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=41

Submitted by Craig Ranke CIT on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 11:54pm.

» login to post comments | -9 points

Hmmm, Not so Fast

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

I do believe the math is wrong in Mr Balsamo's example....This is more accurate and results in a very plausible G load.

Top of VDOT Height = 304 MSL (above sea level)
Top of Pole 1 height = 80 MSL

Difference = 224 feet descent required.

Distance between VDOT - Pole 1 = 2400 feet

2400/Speed 781 feet per second (according to Flight Data Recorder) = 3 seconds

224/3 seconds = 75 fps descent rate x 60 = 4480 fpm descent rate needed to reach top of pole 1 from top of VDOT Antenna.

Pole 1 distance to Pentagon = 1016 feet

1016 feet/781 fps = 1.3 seconds

4480 fpm (75 fps) descent needs to be arrested within 1.3 seconds.

So, the rate of change of descent velocity (fps per second) needs to be
75 / 1.3 = 57.7 fps per second (75 fps change, in 1.3 seconds).

57.7/32 fps accel due to gravity = 1.8 G's + 1 G = 2.8 G's needed to arrest descent within 1.3 seconds.

Distance traveled by an object uniformly decelerating to 0 (we're talking about vertical distance here, of course) = v(initial)*t/2 , or 1/2 * (initial velocity) * time to reach velocity 0 = 1/2 * 75 * 1.3 = 48.75 ft (let's say 49) However, 49 feet vertically is not available.

Top of pole 1 height = 80 MSL
"Impact hole" height = 33 (pentagon ground level) + [b]7[b] feet (approximate mean wing bottom impact height) = 40 MSL

80 feet (top of pole 1) - 40 (height of "wing impact hole") = 40 feet vertically available to arrest descent rate of 4480 fpm.

When a moving object is uniformly accelerating from velocity v(intital) to 0, the distance travelled in terms of a and v(initial) is v(initial)^2 / (2 * a). Thus with a given v(initial), the distance traveled is inversely proportional to a. So, to reduce the descent from 49 feet to 40 feet, we must increase the acceleration by the same proportion.

49 / 40 = 123% (G Load from upward acceleration required to arrest 4480 fpm descent rate within 1.3 seconds and 40 feet vertically needs to be increased by 123%.)

123% x 1.8 G's + 1 G = 3.2 G's needed to arrest descent. Not 11.2 G's as incorrectly calculated above.

On top of this error, the assumption that the aircraft flightpath carried it exactly over or near enough to the VDOT tower to actually hit it is just that, it's only an assumption. You only need to be off to one side by one foot more than half a wingspan's width in order to miss it. I frankly doubt the path can be know exactly enough over the ground given the instrumentation available to assume it had to hit the antenna.

This of course also totally denies the fact that the FDR of Flight 77 along with ID'd remains of those on board were found AT THE CRASH SCENE.

Submitted by AirlinePilot- on Sat, 03/15/2008 - 2:41am.

» login to post comments | 9 points

I see Myriads JREF Calculations have made it here...

You should really credit the source, but i can understand why you do not.. I'll post our reply here which should be on JREF shortly... or perhaps you can post it there "Airline pilot"? JREF bans P4T from posting.

Quote
Thank you for your replies.

R Mackey has the aircraft pulling 3.49 G's from the VDOT antenna to the pentagon

Myriad has the aircraft at 1 G from the VDOT antenna to pole 1 and then pulling 3.2 G's from pole 1 to the pentagon.

R Mackey numbers make more sense. However, very different requirements from what the FDR shows. Same with Myriad numbers.

When told JREFer G requirements do not appear in the FDR data, Anti-Sophist drops in for his usual "Debunked" speech.

Anti-Sophist claims there is up to "2 seconds missing" from FDR data -
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2237875&postcount=337
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2239284&postcount=341
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2002910&postcount=43

When confronted with FDR data, Anti-Sophist drops a link to the above thread (as do many of his "colleagues" at JREF) and yells "Debunked!".. He refuses to acknowledge the fact that his own words place the aircraft too high.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=4801

Anti-Sophist is unable to address Radar Altitude and passes it off to Beachnut.

Beachnut has claimed the aircraft is 2600, 2800, 3000, and 3000+ feet from the wall when the data ended. He claims this is why the altitude shows too high. His claimed distance is based on 1.5 DME from DCA VOR. He keeps changing distance due to the fact each position is still too high if data terminated at each point. When shown the altitude is still too high quoting his own words at those points, he goes back and deletes his post/claims.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102924&page=3 (starts at post 102)

Video presentation based on 1.5 DME
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8467167311585730947
Beachnut impersonates the NTSB leaving his typical debate style comment - "Pilots For 9/11 Stupid". Its possible it wasnt Beachnut, but the signature is there.

R Mackey's or Myriads numbers do not show up in the FDR data at all. The last second of data shows less than 1 G. Myriad and R Mackey both require more than 3 G's sustained over a period of time. Mackeys requiring more time based on speed (VDOT to Pentagon). Some may make the excuse that the FDR is missing data (as seen above from Anti-Sophist and Beachnut), yet the NTSB themselves have refused to explain "time missing" and in fact say they want everything "as accurate as possible when providing information through the FOIA". They account for the clock annotation error and Autopilot MCP errors. They do not account for any other possible errors or "time missing".

The NTSB produces this type of information on a regular basis. They show vertical accel recorded up till time of "impact" in which they calculated based on FDR, Radar and ATC transcripts.This data shows less than 1 G. The fact that the vertical accel was recorded up till time of "impact" as calculated by the NTSB is consistent with claims made by the manufacturer, ED-55 and TSO-124.

Since it was mentioned in this thread, the FDR recovery and location are also in question.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/FDR_location_091607.html
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/location_2.html

It would be interesting to see R Mackey plug in the numbers based on NTSB plotted altitude at VDOT Antenna (699 MSL), last data sample (480 MSL) and Radar Altitude (273+135= 408 MSL) in place of VDOT Antenna height.

With that said, we do thank R Mackey and Myriad for your time critically analyzing the math and we will be re-checking our calculations and revise the article if required. The english police can save their criticism for your regulars on this board. The rest, feel free to continue the ad homs.

Regards
/Quote

http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum

Submitted by rob balsamo on Sat, 03/15/2008 - 11:02am.

» login to post comments | 10 points

Scientific not faith based arguments please.

>>>>>>>>>>the fact that the FDR of Flight 77 along with ID'd remains of those on board were found AT THE CRASH SCENE.

Prove it.

You make this statement out of nothing but pure unadulterated faith in the government.

Nobody knows where any of it really came from.

The people who found the alleged black box did not analyze the data and the people who analyzed the DNA did not recover it from the Pentagon.

The suspect completely controlled the chain of custody and provided all of this information on their own time therefore it is invalid evidence in support of their story.

No court of law would accept DNA analysis reports that were conducted solely by the defendant!

www.ThePentaCon.com

Submitted by Craig Ranke CIT on Sat, 03/15/2008 - 11:47am.

» login to post comments | 1 point

Rob: A Couple Of Questions

Rob:

Is there any info utilized by the government that places the tower coordinates within AA 77's trajectory toward the Pentagon?

Can you expand upon this coment?:

"We also worked out the numbers if the aircraft were at ground level at the antenna. The G loads required would be ~4.3 G's."

If anyone can provide a link to info indicating the height of the tower, it would be appreciated.

Submitted by Aidan Monaghan on Sat, 03/15/2008 - 6:26am.

Recent Headlines

Recent Media

Action Items

Blogads

Banner Exchange

User login

9/11 Inquiry Sites

9/11 Regional Sites

9/11 Related Sites

9/11 International Sites

9/11 Memorial Sites

News and Blogs

RSS Feeds

Web Stuff

Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible