Re: Missing 757
From: G. R. L. Cowan (gcowan_at_eagle.ca)
Date: 09/10/04
- Next message: BCC: "Root question"
- Previous message: Keith Ramsay: "Re: How long would it take a computer to completely "solve" chess?"
- In reply to: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Missing 757"
- Next in thread: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Missing 757"
- Reply: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Missing 757"
- Reply: Edward Green: "Re: Missing 757"
- Reply: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Missing 757"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:46:05 -0400
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
> K. Jones wrote:
> > "Dan Bloomquist" <EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> > news:413FC41E.9050108@lakeweb.com...
> >
> >>
> >>I guess we could do the math:
> >>http://lakeweb.com/F77/images/lampposts.png
> >>But what it means may be something else. Every picture I've seen of the
> >>lamp posts has shown them down but undamaged. The ones I saw were not
> >>hit by anything.
> >
> > Down? The bases of lamp posts are frangible. If the craft didn't knock
> > them down as claimed, then work crews/whatever would have had to unbolt, and
> > lower them down. This requires cranes, etc, and some time, on a travelled
> > highway. Someone would have come forth to say they saw work crews
> > dismantelling light towers, no plane knocked them down..........
>
> I'm not making assumptions. Maybe it was possible the wake knock them
> down. We know they fell at the time because of the witnesses, so the
> crew thing is out. But it is very unlikely they were 'hit'. If they had
> been hit a great deal of kinetic energy would have been imparted to them
> causing damage and displacement.
>
> >
> >
> >>>Certainly would suggest weather it was fighter-sized or jumbo sized (if
> >>
> > it
> >
> >>>was the wings that clipped it)
> >>>
> >>>I haven't had a chance to look at your math, only currently have maybe
> >>
> > 1/2
> >
> >>>hour free time each evening to play on the computer, but
> >>>anyone know what the max G's a 757 can pull? I have a hard time
> >>
> > believing
> >
> >>>it can pull any significant G's.
> >>
> >>Me either, at least, not the official 6 Gs. Now, this isn't science, it
> >>is subjective. But say the guy does the following:
> >>
> >>You aim your aircraft at the ground pitched at exactly 23 degrees. You
> >>have to do this 'and' just clear the hill. You are traveling at 800fps
> >>so as soon as you are at the top of the hill you pull up at 6 gravities
> >>for two seconds and level out for the last half second to hit your
> >>target. But you do the impossible because you want to make them wrong
> >>about your incompetence as a pilot.
> >
> >
> > Not sure about the proposed arc of travel. The pitch of the aircraft
> > (attitude) does not particularly denote decent angle. (ie, persons saw the
> > plane "level", are they referring to it's path relative to the ground, or
> > the vehicle itselfs pitch......lotsa people imagine a "fighter plane" type
> > dive in order to decend....It truth, the nose could even be pointed up, as
> > the craft decends (ie, "belly-flopping"). I might not have clued in to the
> > picture here, but, as in your drawing, you're proposing a flight arc such as
> > in the lower left quadrant of the circle. Do we know it didn't follow a
> > decent "arc" such as might be in the upper right quadrant of the circle?
> > (like the decent arc of say, a baseball, at some point just after it's
> > reached it's max height).
>
> Because the damage to the building, eye witnesses, lampposts, From the
> annex to the clover leaf is about 500 meters. 300 more meters to the
> pentagon. Guess the top of the lamp posts at about 20 meters above the
> ground. The aircraft is getting very close to level at this time.
>
> >
> >
> >>Why? Why not just point the damned thing in a straight line?
>
> >>It is the best we have. Photos of the site are some of the only
> >>dependable physical evidence I can think of. By the way, I took a look
> >>at this:
> >>http://lakeweb.com/F77/images/part.jpg
> >>http://lakeweb.com/F77/images/american_letters.jpg
> >>
> >>The only thing this could be is the 'n' at the end of 'American' because
> >>of the letter spacing. Now, notice how the 'n' keeps curving beyond the
> >>rivet lines. Not so on an American Airlines 'n'.
> >
> >
> > It's a graphic. I doubt they're laid on the skin to the exact inch on each
> > craft.
>
> The rivet holes will be in line with the airframe. This frame is rather
> accurately built. If someone from alt.aviation could give us a rough
> count of rivets per inch and the size of the 'n' we could do more work
> on this.
>
> > Or it could be part of a letter from the other side of the craft.....
>
> It is still on the straight part of the airframe.
>
> >>I'll repost the numbers using feet: BUT, before I do, here is something
> >>I ran across last night. I don't remember building number 7 as there was
> >>so much going on that day:
> >>
> >>http://wtc7.net/videos.html
> >>
> >>Back to the math and I'm sure someone at sci.math would have been all
> >>over me like white on rice had I made a mistake. From that, I'm figuring
> >>I got it right. x= at^2 is a check that confirms it, (The Gs are less
> >>but I'll explain why if someone wants to know):
> >>
> >>First, this is surveillance of the pentagon attack:
> >>http://www.apfn.org/images/pentagon21.gif
> >>
> >>If you look at the first frame on the right, you can see the aircraft.
> >>The flight path is level. Now, here is a contour map:
> >>http://terraservice.net/image.aspx?t=2&s=11&x=802&y=10760&z=18&w=1
> >>
> >>The flight path goes over the navy annex on the left. The contour lines
> >>are ten meters apart so a minimum drop of 300 feet. I drew a picture:
> >>http://lakeweb.com/chris/geo1.gif
> >>
> >>And did this math (Revised for new elevations):
> >>Start with ADB= 2*ABC.
> >>ABC= tan^-1 (300/1500).
> >>Bisect ADB to work with a right triangle.
> >>R= csc( ABC ) * AB/2, 3800 feet.
> >>(You will notice here I had the wrong number the first time so nobody
> >>checked.)
> >>
> >>force in Gs = 1 + v2/rg
> >>1 + 800^2 / ( 3800 * 32 )= 6.2 Gs
> >>1 + 500^2 / ( 3800 * 32 )= 3.0 Gs
> >>1 + 300^2 / ( 3800 * 32 )= 1.7 Gs
> >>
> >>These are from the official speed to the (approximate) stall speed. I
> >>don't know, can a 757 pull 3 Gs at 500fps (300kts) ??? And, of course,
> >>we assume the pilot was an expert to pull this off.
> >>
> >>Keep in mind, I was doing the math to confirm the official story, but I
> >>seemed to have failed.
> >>
> > Ok, to pull this off, let's see. We do know that particular craft, and all
> > passengers and crew, are in fact, 'missing'. Flight 77 needs to be
> > "hijacked" and removed from where it was last tracked by traffic control
> > (within miles of the pentegon?), and flown away to someplace without being
> > tracked by any radar, or seen by any potentially 1000's of people on the
> > ground.
>
> The transponder was off. If it was not F77 that hit the Pentagon, who
> knows what happened to it.
>
> > The hundreds of people on that craft have to be murdered. Now,
> > some dozens of tons of plane have to be disposed of, where it could never
> > ever be found again. I don't imagine it's that easy to move something that
> > size very covertly. Now a "replacement' craft, needs to be painted to look
> > the same, come into the same vicinity as where they lost contact with flight
> > 77, and then destroyed by striking the pentegon.
>
> The plane disappeared some 45? minutes earlier. The aircraft that hit
> the pentagon had just shown up. Nobody was tracking it earlier.
>
> > How do you account for the
> > second missing craft? This isn't some motor-scooter forgotten in a barn
> > somewhere. There is a lot of information within various companies and
> > agencies about each and every craft. Someone is going to wonder where the
> > hell the replacemnt craft just "dissapeared" to. ....Oh yea, and noone
> > anywhere on the ground etc, can see this "replacement craft" fly to it's
> > destination. Just how many, probably hundreds of people have to be in on
> > this plan? And all agree, and never break silence?
>
> I've thought about it. It is mind boggling. This is one of the most
> powerful arguments I know of that something fishy isn't going on. And if
> the hijackers had just flown in from the river side, we wouldn't be
> having this discussion.
>
> > And to what end? As an excuse to start the "war on terror"? Ya had more
> > than enough with just one world trade center building, let alone two, why
> > the hell would you complicate it with another one on the pentegon? And such
> > a complicated plan at that? If ya really wante to do the pentegon too, then
> > I can think of lots of easier ways....launch a missle, and claim the
> > terrorists fired the thing....bought from post-break up USSR or
> > something.......
>
> I can't imagine a group doing this much less justifying it. As far as
> the missile goes, that would have been harder to explain than hijackers.
>
> >
> > Or, some nuts really did hijack flight 77, and suicidally smacked it, by
> > sheer luck perhaps, into the side of the Pentegon......
> > Even without the math, the circumstantial evidence, as is, verses any other
> > hypothetical diabolical plot, satisfies me.
>
> I don't like this either. But if my calculator and photos I can look at
> with my own eyes says what was suppose to have happened, couldn't have
> happened, what do I do?
>
> >
> > Have fun guys, I really can't get overy interested in any conspiracy thing
> > with this, Occams razor works for me.
>
> Ok Kev. Thing is, the simpler solution should be a solution. I can't get
> the numbers to add up.
If the path from the broken lampposts to the impact is traced back,
it looks as if the pilot had been following the eight or so highway
lanes, probably their northern edge, that appear in purple
on the Microsoft Terraserver photo you linked
(http://terraservice.net/image.aspx?t=2&s=11&x=802&y=10760&z=18&w=1 ).
Pigeons follow roadways, why shouldn't mass murderers?
Following this theory, I would explain away Frank Probst's report
of seeing it over the Navy annex as referring to a very much earlier
sighting, three to four thousand milliseconds earlier,
when the aircraft was approaching from the west
or slightly north of west, descending,
and turning left to line up on him.
What doesn't add up about that?
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
"Boron: A Better Energy Carrier than Hydrogen?"
- Next message: BCC: "Root question"
- Previous message: Keith Ramsay: "Re: How long would it take a computer to completely "solve" chess?"
- In reply to: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Missing 757"
- Next in thread: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Missing 757"
- Reply: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Missing 757"
- Reply: Edward Green: "Re: Missing 757"
- Reply: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Missing 757"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
