Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mimi
climber
|
|
jdx, they were placed in a witness pro program, eh!!!!!!111111111????
Hmmm, somethin' tells me your potato been bakin' too long.
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
jdx, They are unable to do any research whatsoever.
if the internet is your idea of conclusive research and proof then you are a whackjob.
thats ok though, you sure blew RJ's load.
kind of hate to see the poor guy melt down so at least you helped his self esteem out.....
|
|
johndoeX
Social climber
NY
|
|
Jul 2, 2010 - 06:50pm PT
if the internet is your idea of conclusive research and proof then you are a whackjob.
What is yours? Fox News and CNN?
LMAO!
Actually, I rely on math, physics, aerodynamics, my many years as a Flight Instructor and pilot, the experts who i consult.. etc etc... you would know this if you did some research.
By the way, I was referring to the fact Skippy couldnt figure out who i was on the list at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core. I mentioned it for the past several pages, as did Monolith, this is why i cited his lack of research ability.
Pay attention.
|
|
Port
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
wow. Good find Skip.
|
|
johndoeX
Social climber
NY
|
|
LMAO!
The above is posted by Pat Curley at Screwloosechange.
He is right. He hasnt a clue of math, but will parrot anyone who claims they know what they are talking about and blindly supports the govt story, just like you.
Unfortunately, the person he parroted is Will Clinger. A supposed Computer Scientist Professor at Northeastern University who almost got fired for hosting his erroneous and libelous webpages at NEU.
Note, NEU no longer hosts his BS.
You know why?
Because he hasnt a clue of Aviation and NEU wants no association with his frivolous and libelous claims.
Will Clinger tried to pay an ISP to host his BS after NEU dumped his BS. The ISP also canceled his account, and Will was PAYING for the host.
Now Will Clinger is so desperate, not only is he paying a host, but is also digging further in his pocket to pay a private server and lawyer, to libel me. Too funny...
I would go after him further, but, its just fun to watch him pay to publicize our work. Especially when he screws up so much.
Case in point, Will Clinger thinks Flight Director Pitch is the direction the aircraft is pointing.
I dont expect any of you to understand...
But these people do...
http://pilotsofr911truth.org/core
The list grows.
Finally, if you think trained Jet pilots are "in this for the money", when they give the work away for free, streaming on the web.. .you may want to look in the mirror regarding who exactly is the "wack-job".
Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two, Flight Of American 77
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7751
Flight Of United 93 Now On Google Video, Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Three
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10228
9/11: Attack On The Pentagon - Official Release, Full Film Now Available to the Public on Google
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15054
9/11: The North Flight Path (official Release), Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15854
Full Film - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, Embedded and Streaming here!
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19732
We make a lot more cash flying Jets, Einstein.
|
|
Port
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
Mistake 1
Balsamo believes the government's official flight path places the aircraft directly over the VDOT antenna, and supports his belief with a picture provided by CIT. In reality, several eyewitnesses have said the aircraft flew over the Navy annex or the road that lies between the Navy annex and the VDOT antenna. For future reference, let us note that the elevation of the Navy annex is about the same as the base of the VDOT antenna (135 feet above sea level) and that the Navy annex is a five-story building.
So far, the only implausible element of Balsamo's calculation is his insistence upon a flight path directly over the tallest obstacle in the area. All that remains is to calculate lower bounds for the g-load required:
to descend from 304 feet above sea level to near the top of pole 1 (80 feet above sea level) while travelling 2400 feet at 781 ft/sec, and
to continue that descent from near the top of pole 1 (80 feet above sea level) to 33 feet above sea level while travelling 1016 feet at 781 ft/sec.
At 781 ft/sec, the first 2400 horizontal feet would be covered in 3.07 sec, which Balsamo rounds down to 3 seconds. The last 1016 feet would be covered in 1.3 seconds.
The 224-foot drop from 304 to 80 feet therefore occurs in about 3 seconds, and the 47-foot drop from 80 feet to 33 feet occurs in about 1.3 seconds. The average rate of descent during the 224-foot drop is about 75 ft/sec, and the average rate of descent during the 47-foot drop is about 36 ft/sec.
Note that the 36 ft/sec figure results from Balsamo's assumption that the plane flew just over the top of pole 1. In reality, the plane struck pole 1, so the actual drop from pole 1 to the Pentagon was less than 47 feet, and the average rate of descent was less than 36 ft/sec.
Mistake 2
For no reason at all, Balsamo assumes the instantaneous rate of descent at pole 1 is the same as the average rate of descent for the previous 3 seconds. That is implausible, because the plane should be leveling out at the end of those three seconds in preparation for descending at an average rate of less than 36 ft/sec over the final 1.3 seconds.
Balsamo can argue for whatever flight path he wants, but he can't choose one particular (highly implausible) flight path and then argue that the g-loads computed for his particular flight path are the lowest for all possible flight paths. To calculate a lower bound for g-loads, he must consider the flight path(s) whose g-loads are smallest. He doesn't even try to do that.
Mistake 3
Having decided, however implausibly, that the rate of descent is 75 ft/sec at pole 1, he then multiplies 75 ft/sec by 1.3 seconds to get 97.5 feet. That is the vertical distance the plane would descend during the last 1.3 seconds if its rate of descent were 75 ft/sec throughout those 1.3 seconds. That would have put the plane more than 40 feet underground by the time it reached the Pentagon, which did not happen.
Balsamo then resorts to mathematical nonsense: He pretends his calculated 97.5 feet of distance is the same as an acceleration of 97.5 ft/sec2. He then divides 97.5 ft/sec2 by 32 ft/sec2 to get 3 g, and adds 1 g for gravity to get 4 g.
The guy doesn't even know how to check his units.
Mistake 4
However, 97.5 feet vertically is not available.
 Rob Balsamo, Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible (emphasis in the original)
Balsamo then goes back to treating his bogus 97.5 ft/sec2 as a distance, 97.5 feet. For reasons that he explains (but do not make sense), he then reduces the 47-foot drop to a 35-foot drop. Because Balsamo will use the 35 feet as a divisor, this nonsensical adjustment increased the g-load as calculated by Balsamo.
Mistake 5
Finally, Balsamo divides 97.5 feet (or is it 97.5 ft/sec2 ?) by 35 feet to obtain the dimensionless number 2.8 (or is it 2.8 per second squared?), and for no reason at all multiplies his 4 g by this meaningless number 2.8 to obtain 11.2 g.
Once again, Balsamo doesn't know how to check his units. And yet, in the video, you will hear Balsamo sneering at engineers, scientists, and mathematicians who actually know what they're doing and have performed the calculation correctly.
Balsamo's Mistaken Conclusion
Having calculated a g-load of 11.2 g by making at least five serious mistakes, Balsamo notes that 11.2 g would "rip the aircraft apart", and concludes (incorrectly) that it is "impossible for any transport category aircraft to descend from top of VDOT to top of pole 1 and pull level" at the Pentagon.
The easiest way to refute Balsamo's conclusion is to perform the calculation correctly, and to provide mathematical descriptions of specific flight paths whose g-loads are well within the capabilities of a Boeing 757.
|
|
Port
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
If you don't rock climb, why are you even here?
|
|
johndoeX
Social climber
NY
|
|
Yes, I do. He graduated and this was on his personal website.
Wrong Parrot.
Didnt you say he was a grad from MIT?
Hint, he is a Professor at NEU. He almost got fired.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
Rok, please say I'm knott one of the "You have here the 5 or 6 biggest name calling, sneering and impossible to argue with people on Stupidtaco."
WB, OBL knows. And so does KSM.
|
|
johndoeX
Social climber
NY
|
|
If you don't rock climb, why are you even here?
Because we are getting a lot of hits from this thread thanks to those who understand rational thought, despite your attempts to obfuscate.
So I thought I'd join in on the fun...
And fun it is...
So far, we have skippy who cant do any research whatsoever, and when he does, he still gets it wrong.
We have you as his cheerleader... going down in flames with him...
And then we have some who cannot even construct a coherent post...
All coming from those who blindly support the govt story.
This is fun... (all my pilot and FA friends here for the 4th weekend are getting a great laugh at your expense as well)
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Thanks funny JohnDoe
You post just like a regular around here!
;-)
Karl
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
jdx, I am not trying to obfuscate. And I am not simply swallowing the government's story.
You can continue to belittle those who counter your nonsensical and egotistical cynicism regarding the inside job concept of this crime all you like. You can believe what you want but as soon as you try to establish the truth behind your beliefs, you have an argument. It is incumbent upon us citizens to weigh whatever truth is available to explain what we all observed through the media. Eyewitnesses are unreliable. We all know that. But there are enough witnesses that saw planes and wreckage and knew people who were on those planes.
The hijackers are not having tacos with Carlos Castenada and Jim Morrison down in Cabo.
Doesn't this boil down to people's beliefs rather than something rationally defensible?
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
skipt,
i dont agree with you on everything, but i do agree that JDX is a whackjob trying to gain more hits.
you know math JDX? f%%%, you and RJ learned it off the interweb you clueless mutherf^ucker. i wouldnt trust you to fly my radiocontrolled plane you dipsh&&.
and mimi,
you dont have to carry the honor of being associated with me....but it sure beats being associated with wolfboy.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Then?
Let us have plane in this scenario.
Now what?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Oh c'mon guys quit fighting over nothing.
Let's have plane in the scenario.
Now what?????
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
jdx = massive troll
Have you become bored with your poli blogs and have decided to taint the ST?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!