|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Oct 29th, 2006 01:41 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
"Is that enough discussion about this?" I don't know I wasn't aware we were going to need to have a discussion on the importance of relativity, it's not even like I made the comment expecting it to make or break the argument(remember when it was in paranthesis like these). and thanks for the answers by the way Ranxer. "By the way where is that thousands of engineers that you speak of?" Remember the official report written by a bunch of engineers? I remember we were talking about it not too long ago. Regardless of bushes war on "science"(which i didn't read so sorry if im not responding correctly), they are an organization of engineers, not a political organization. There were supposedly thousands of engineers along with other relevant workers who all worked on it. Okay I read that link Geggy. that war on science link was about the government "disagreeing" with environmental standards, geggy ;( i think that is microsoft flight simulator that's how they did all of the simulations on that page. |
|
| Oct 29th, 2006 10:23 AM | ||
| Chojin | is that microsoft flight simulator | |
| Oct 29th, 2006 09:23 AM | ||
| ranxer |
The elevation changes all over the place.. they don't say where they get the elevation at the pentagon but here's the point of inquiry about the flight data recorder 'official' simulation from pilotsfor911truth.org "The screenshot below shows the very last frame of the recorded data. Its stops at 9:37:44 AM EDT (Official Impact Time is 09:37:45). You will notice in the right margin the altitude of the aircraft on the middle instrument. It shows 180 feet. This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet above sea level according to the US Geological Survey. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB.  [/img]
|
|
| Oct 29th, 2006 06:22 AM | ||
| El Blanco |
Bullshit strrawman and unsubstantiated accusation. ASCE is not a government agency. Many of their members work with the government because the government builds things. Its the governing body (or close to one) for structural engineers. They establish standards for professional conduct, publishing, etc etc. |
|
| Oct 29th, 2006 06:12 AM | ||
| Geggy |
Quote:
By the way where is that thousands of engineers that you speak of? Are there any structural/civil engineers who aren't a member of a government affilitated club, ASCE, who support the official explanation? |
|
| Oct 29th, 2006 06:11 AM | ||
| Preechr |
Hell, I dunno... You can't believe anything you read on the internet. You know that. Didn't seem right to me either. Ok... Here we go: http://www.washington.org/index.cfm?...ype=530&IDPG=0 THAT one is clearly marked "Official," so we know it's true. From 390 ft to sea level. That being said, the Pentagon, from my memory, is situated at a pretty low elevation relative to the surrounding area. The whole damn place is nothing but a filled-in swamp. I'd say the average elevation is pretty close to barely above sea level. Is that enough discussion about this? |
|
| Oct 28th, 2006 09:37 PM | ||
| kahljorn | really the thing i read said the mean elevation of dc is 0-420 ft or 125 meters. | |
| Oct 28th, 2006 08:27 PM | ||
| Preechr |
http://www.aviewoncities.com/washing...ngtonfacts.htm "Altitude: 2m / 9ft " That's a far cry from 480 feet, I guess. |
|
| Oct 28th, 2006 07:33 PM | ||
| Grislygus | My explanation is that it's a bureaucracy. If there HAS been a fuck up, and someone says something they're not supposed to, then that person's head will be the one to roll if the truth comes out. | |
| Oct 28th, 2006 07:14 PM | ||
| ranxer |
i'm shocked.. you actually watched the vid and gave it a reasonable critique.. this is not the usual i-mockery treatment. a fair shake? rare. but i agree with yas.. this isn't a smoking gun, just one dude's haphazard persuit of his truth. I'm also still not sure about the altitude discrepancy but wonder why the hell the ntsb couldn't really defend the release that he signed off on. |
|
| Oct 28th, 2006 03:43 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
I like when people think they have a relevant opinion in a matter like this. LOOK GUY IM A PILOT I THINK I WOULD KNOW ABOUT THESE THINGS. LOOK GU YIM AN ENGINEER I THINK I WOULD KNOW ABOUT THESE THINGS. LOOK GUY IM A BUILDING I THINK I WOULD KNOW ABOUT THESE THINGS. What about all the other engineers and pilots? its like when geggy said that he has engineers (probably apprentice engineers at the bottom of their class who had a "bright idea) who say it must've been demolition, and yet there's thousands of professional people with degrees and brains saying otherwise. The worst part about it all is that those Engineers and pilots never present any information. I mean, really, it shouldn't be that hard to disprove some scientific/mathematic calculations of the crashes if you're an actual engineer, because the math and science is put right in front of them. Shouldn't they be capable of disproving that if they are "Engineers" or know anything about what they are talking about? So the fact they haven't gone through it and checked the math and equations and clearly pointed out something wrong to me implies it's all a lie made up by idiots. I mean, it's possible that Geggy's right about all this i guess but nobody on his side is really making a good case for it, and if they can't make a case it means one of two things: They're lying, or they're inept, and regardless of which one it is you shouldn't accept their opinion. I think the altititude thing means they were flying at 480 above sea level (which doesn't really mean anything because the land could've been 450 above sea level) and pressure? Not sure how pressure calculates in could've been the internal pressure of the plane versus the outside pressure?  "and is in direct conflict with the official story of striking down light poles on its path to impact." lol. I didn't know that was the "Official story" i just thought that was something many of the witnesses said happened. Also i thought that it only happened directly around the pentagon? i don't really get it. If a plane is flying at a low building from a high altitude it's still possible it could've interacted with the light poles. "don't investigate and then call those who do nuts." yea gret we'll call people and ask their opinions that will do a lot to prove things. how high and mighty their inept souls must be. |
|
| Oct 28th, 2006 02:29 PM | ||
| Grislygus |
He actually expected to get anything other than a runaround? My high school couldn't even get the bureaucracy for the fucking school district to get hot water to their cooking classes. Of course there's going to be a runaround. Nice that he kept at it, though. Quote:
On the first half of the video: Other than that, why exactly is this damning evidence? The caller keeps repeating the fact that there are "all these questions" and yet he only speaks of one. Furthermore, the bureaucracy minion that he talked to was obviously a clueless schmuck who doesn't read what he signs. The content wasn't enough for a whole video, it should have been cut down and had more relevant information replacing the "Oh I'm sorry, could you repeat what you just said and let me think of something" bits. Furthermore, the pics of the burning pentagon is pure sensationalism. They were just put in to appeal to emotions and disquise the fact that the video was lacking in actual content. Beyond that, the simulation only needed to be shown once. The point was made, it was a good point, every repetition of it was pointless distraction. On the second half: More bureaucratic bullshit, only damning evidence to those with an axe to grind. What was the agency that the NTSB did it for? Could they have elaborated or answered some of the discrepencies? A call to that agency (with the inevitable runaround) would have been more damning in conjunction with the NTSB runaround. The caller made lame questions, he needed to be more pointed. "No Comment!" on unnamed discrepencies as well as one named problem with altitude doesn't impress me. And the caller keeps saying "Well, uh, I was told to get a hold of Jim Ritter 'cause he signed it". What the fuck? Tell me this asshat isn't part of pilotsfor911truth.org. If so, they need to get their asses in gear if they want to prove anything. The pictures of the poles don't add anything. Distraction. The question about "personal feelings" is bullshit, of course he's not going to answer it, bureaucratic minion or not. So is the "are you yourself aware of the discrepency" bullshit. Keep it professional. So, basically, the video is useless. By itself, the argument is far more compelling than this amature video. I'm not in a position to argue the facts of it, I am not experienced in the aviation field whatsoever. In fact, I'm actually quite curious as to a factual debate, because the evidence at hand does seem peculiar. However, the video is making me extremely skeptical of pilotsfor911truth. |
|
| Oct 28th, 2006 12:19 PM | ||
| ranxer |
Don't ask for accountability of our government nice to see that some folks never give up diggin for the truth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPF4Lo4wkJ4 Phone call was made 10/26/06 to the NTSB to get answers based on the Flight Data Recorder information/animation they provided of American Airlines Flight 77. AA77 was reported to have struck the Pentagon and is in direct conflict with the official story of striking down light poles on its path to impact. The actual flight path shown in the animation based on the Flight Data Recorder also conflicts with the physical damage on the ground. Here is what the NTSB had to say... the flight data released by our government says there's no way that the light poles could be struck by flight 77.. where's the truth? the NTSB can't comment on discrepancies in the official reports. www.pilotsfor911truth.org Don't ask questions, don't investigate and then call those who do nuts. |
|
