Pentagon "NTSB animation" is wrong!

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
There it is, under Hani Hanjour's control we're told and he turns the knob per FAA regs as he descends past 18,000.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Right, but in pilot training for your commercial license, one of the things they're going to teach you is that you reset your altimeter as you cross 18,000. And contrary to what was initially reported Hani Hanjour DID have his commercial license. It was revoked by the FAA for failure to appear for a physical, but he DID complete the training and was licensed. So it actually makes sense that he would reset it around there as he was trained to do.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Right, but in pilot training for your commercial license, one of the things they're going to teach you is that you reset your altimeter as you cross 18,000. And contrary to what was initially reported Hani Hanjour DID have his commercial license. It was revoked by the FAA for failure to appear for a physical, but he DID complete the training and was licensed. So it actually makes sense that he would reset it around there as he was trained to do.

I did not know that about Hanjour, even though it's fairly relevant. Lemme guess - the only one of the four? He's also the only one of the four who didn't filter in through the Dutch flight school in Florida training route. The case for his being a crap pilot has always been extremely thin, so I'm a skeptic on his personal abilities. I should've studied the alleged pilot closer - it's one of my remaining blind spots. Yeah, that makes the reset look more feasable, and the CSV somewhat more plausible. It's still an odd event IMO, but I'm done making a deal of it or of doubting the CSV - it just occurred to me to rop that note in. Thanks for the insights and assists here Z58. I'd like to see what you come up with on the issue.

I was hoping for some new thoughts from someone by now, but ah well, it froze up right there for now. I have blogs to update and such anyway but I'll check back...

Originally posted by Boone 870
Caustic

In an earlier post on this page you said that you believe there is only one animation from the NTSB. I am almost positive that there is a second one on Google video that was posted May 26 and it is not from a pilot for truth. It is one hour and 29 minutes long. I know where it came from, but I'm not sure if I can mention the forum or the member. I would be more than happy to give the person that filed the FOIA request credit. Off to the rulebook to see if I can give him credit.

Three stars!
If this isn't what you meant...

Google Video Link

It's a 1:29:59 uninterrupted animation. Somehow I've never seen that, but it only took a minute to find it. Yes, it's the same one and only, but all intact, or so it seems as I skim. Thank you sir, and have a wonderful Wednesday.

Originally posted by nick7261
It's very gracious of you to want to be fair. Personally, after reading the confrontational, condescending, posts directed your way in past threads I think it is fair to say that the PentaCon video was at least named appropriately.

Yeah, Jack (who’s actually Craig Ranke, the PentaCon interviewer guy) called my review a “poorly done hit piece.” First: it was kinda poorly done. Second: it was a hit piece. I used the phrase “Pentagon-sponsored disinformation,” and I think that set them off. them Tripper was just being tough on me as a strategy to get me to edit it while they were promoting it. I did feel pressured and uptight so my edit sucked even worse, but whatever. I don’t take it personal. I don’t mean it personal. Logic battles misinformation. We are just the vehicles.

I wish they still had the WATS award. Maybe you could have ATS switch out the PentaCon forum for a Caustic Logic forum instead?

Thanks, bro! It is a bit odd for a video to have a forum. I haven't kept up, but it gotta have run out of things to say by now... But I would not want a forum. I did get a couple cool ideas thinking of it tho... Maybe we could get a nick7261 zone goin' on instead. You're more of a renaisance man, more studious and diligent, more conservative appeal, and an occasional flair for the far-flung... If well managed your Forum could rockit into the night.

Are you saying that Hani Hanjour DID reset the pressure reading for the altimeter as he descended ? If so, why isn't this shown in the NTSB animation in that documentary ? Did the programme producers deliberately hide that piece of information, to enable them to peddle their own theories ?

Originally posted by Mogget
Are you saying that Hani Hanjour DID reset the pressure reading for the altimeter as he descended ? If so, why isn't this shown in the NTSB animation in that documentary ? Did the programme producers deliberately hide that piece of information, to enable them to peddle their own theories ?

According to this one FDR source, yes, whoever was in there physically turned the knob for no strategic reason I've seen, just as if following FAA regs just to show he knew them or whatever. Why it's not in the animation is unclear. The onscreen altitude reading does change 300 feet on the FL180 re-set on the ascent as in the data, but NOT the re-set on descent.

The Pilots don't ignore it - they note the discrepancy (tho not exploring the implications of the reset that I've seen - which leads to believe they were about to). They think the omission was to cover up the fact that the plane was really 300 feet higher - this made it look way lower in the animation and more like a possible hit instead of a flyover.

Then the reasoning goes this cleverly faked-out psyop cartoon was sent out to fool the world. But it was only sent to one guy who was friends with and now a member of P49T and the NTSB accidentally corrected for magnetic north backwards to boot, and handed this guy an animation of a flight that couldn't possibly have actually happened and is not backed by any accurate FDR data.

And the reset's not reflected.

BTW animation supporters, we haven't much touched the altitude issues yet. Maybe you can go for that flank, if anyone cares to defend the case that's being torn to shreds here.


[edit on 30-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Well, I'm about to toss something out on the altitude bit for ya.

The pressure setting on 9/11 was 30.22. He reset the altimeter to 30.25 which is a 0.03 difference. The other major problem with altitude is that pressure altitude is speed sensitive. The plane was doing roughly 450+ knots, which could create a significant altitude error.

The other thing to take into consideration is the fact that the first lightpole the plane hit was on an overpass. This would have made it rather taller than the others.

[edit on 5/30/2007 by Zaphod58]

Just a point of clarification, CL - I'm sure it means nothing.

I watched the take off and first few minutes and noticed something I'd missed on the final approach but which is nonetheless there. The aircraft is depicted as flying at an angle relative to the yellow trajectory line. Does this have any bearing at all on the reading discrepancy?

It's how you keep flying straight in a crosswind. You turn the nose into the direction of the wind, and the wind blowing against the plane keeps you flying straight. It's generally no more than a couple of degrees though and wouldn't explain a difference as big as the one Caustic found.

Originally posted by Zaphod58It's how you keep flying straight in a crosswind.

I figured that's what it might be.

If this does make a difference in the way the data is interpreted, then it is worth quantifying. In the early part of the flight, when the aircraft was at altitude, the discrepancy was very pronounced. In the final approach, the low altitude made it appear less so, but it could easily have been several degrees.

For it to be North as they claim, it would have to be about 080 as Caustic said. The cvs data shows a magnetic heading of 070 and a true of 060, which is normal for the DC area. However, if they were on a 080 that would be a 20 degree crab into the wind. The angle in the animation appears to be no more than just a couple of degrees.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Logic battles misinformation. We are just the vehicles.

Logic? What's that? I thought that we were supposed to leave logic at the doorstep before we entered the hallowed halls of CT-world?

Seriously, some people might want to brush up on the entire concept of logical thought. You correctly pointed out the absurdity of the thought process (or lack thereof) in which a single, flimsy piece of evidence becomes the only *real* evidence as long is it supports the CT du jour... and then every other piece of evidence that's contradictory therefore must be part of the evil plot.

Maybe we could get a nick7261 zone goin' on instead. You're more of a renaisance man, more studious and diligent, more conservative appeal, and an occasional flair for the far-flung...

lol... thanks... I have some unique experiences behind the closed doors of global hedge funds, as well as a couple of engineering degrees. A "flair for the far-flung" is a nice way of putting it compared to some of my more conservative friends who just think I'm loopy.


[edit on 30-5-2007 by nick7261 -figured out my own question...]

[edit on 30-5-2007 by nick7261]

PF911Truth claim that altimeter error only happens with a vertical movement. However, a sudden increase in speed, or a high speed at a lower altitude can ALSO cause altimeter error.

Altimeter Error

Assuming a standard lapse rate, an airplane's altimeter will over- or underread by 4 ft per 1°C deviation from ISA per 1,000 ft above the station reporting the altimeter setting.

For example, if you are flying at 11,000 ft indicated altitude using an altimeter setting from a station at 1,000 ft elevation and the outside air temperature is -20°C, your altimeter will be off by -520 ft (4 * -13 * 10), and your true altitude will be slightly below 10,500 ft.
Density Altitude

Airplane performance depends on density altitude. To estimate density altitude (at least at lower altitudes), start with pressure altitude and add 120 ft for every degree Celsius above ISA temperature, or subtract 120 ft for every degree Celsius below ISA.

For example, at 3,000 ft pressure altitude, the ISA temperature is 9°C. If the actual temperature is 20°C, add 1,320 ft (11 * 120) to get an approximate density altitude of 4,320 ft.

Humidity also affects density altitude, but not enough to worry about in a rule of thumb.
International Standard Atmosphere (ISA)

The International Standard Atmosphere is the reference point for most aircraft performance data. When the real atmosphere varies from ISA, it is necessary to adjust the altimeter for pressure altitude and to modify cruise speeds, power settings, takeoff and landing distances for density altitude.

The ISA has an air pressure of 29.92 inHg at sea level, decreasing by 1.00 inHg for every thousand feet (at lower altitudes), a temperature of 15°C, decreasing by 2°C for every 1,000 ft (ditto), and no humidity.

For example, ISA predicts that the air pressure should be 19.92 inHg at 10,000 ft and that the outside air temperature should be -5°C. If the temperature is different than that, or if there is a non-standard pressure lapse rate, there will be a (possibly serious) altimeter error.
Pressure Altitude

To calculate pressure altitude, set your altimeter to 29.92 inHg and read the value from your altimeter (write down the current altimeter setting first, if you're in the air), or alternatively, subtract 1,000 ft from indicated for every inHg above 29.92, or add 1,000 ft to indicated altitude for every inHg below 29.92 (remember, pressure decreases as you go up, so lower pressure seems like higher altitude).

For example, if the indicated altitude is 3,000 ft and the altimeter setting is 28.50, add 1,420 ft ((29.92 - 28.50) * 1,000) to get the pressure altitude of 4,420.

www.megginson.com...

Originally posted by nick7261
And here's what we know about FL77:

* The true direction of runway 30 at Dulles is 290

* The mag heading according to the csv is 300

* Washington D.C. is supposed to have a mag declination of *minus* 10

So based on the wikipedia explanation, wouldn't the -10 magnetic declination mean that magnetic north is 10 degrees *counter* clockwise from true north?

So if FL77 has a magnetic heading of 0/360, it would actually be pointing 10 degrees counter-clockwise from true north, or straight towards the top of the map. I.e., it would have a real heading of 350 degrees if it had a mag heading of 360/0.

But the csv file shows the opposite. It shows the real headings to be 10 degrees *LESS* than the mag headings. For example, on take-off the mag heading is 300 but we know the real heading is 290. The mag heading should have been 280 on take-off if the wikipedia explanation is correct.

Does this make any sense?

If this is the case, then the entire csv file is backwards. All the true headings are roughly 10 degrees less than the mag headings.

In either case, it still doesn't change the relative angles of the take-off and Pentagon approach, which totally debunk the north-of-the-Citgo theory. However, if the csv file is backwards, it might be evidence that the file was created and not the real FDR data.

To find True, you add the declination to the Magnetic. In this case, you have a magnetic of 300. To find True you add 10W to it, which is -10. So you have 300+-10=290. For an EAST declination you would use 10 instead of -10. So in this case you're going to have a True reading of 10 degrees LESS than your magnetic heading. Once you pass a certain point and get an EAST declination, THEN you're going to have an INCREASE to your magnetic heading. So if Washington was on an EAST declination instead, you'd have a magnetic of 300+10=310.

If you look at a compass, and 0/360 is straight up, and you go COUNTER clockwise, you're going to be getting SMALLER numbers. Put the top of your monitor as 0/360, the bottom as 180. If you go right (clockwise) you're going to hit 090 at the right edge, and 270 at the left edge.

originally posted by ashmok
By "flight path studies" they don't mean animations. They're entirely different documents - see www.gwu.edu... for the releases (& they're on the NTSB site somewhere, too).
Oh, and there is a Flight 93 animation also. Not sure about 11 & 175, though.

Exactly. For this animation to have been sent, it'd have to fit on a CDR along WITH the flight path study document (probably in PDF form as I have). One hour 17 minutes at least. And not announced in the cover letter. As for the 93 animation, I'd like to see that - how it was made, etc. As for 11 and 175, there were no black boxes admitted, so probably no FDR animations from the NTSB. So far, I've seen no good evidence they ever made any animations...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The pressure setting on 9/11 was 30.22. He reset the altimeter to 30.25 which is a 0.03 difference. The other major problem with altitude is that pressure altitude is speed sensitive. The plane was doing roughly 450+ knots, which could create a significant altitude error.

I'd be interested to see where you're getting this. In the CSV I saw 30.21 at the beginning, then 29.92 (then maybe the other re-set at what, 24,000?) and then on descent, at 9:24:16, a switch to 30.23. Can local pressure change enough in an hour to warrant a 2-point change? I don't think it's a big deal, but if you do give us links or references. I'm trying to see how these sources all line up.

Re the plane’s angle with its trajectory line: In the final seconds it seems to be yawing around that line very little. To figure how that affects the compass, and presuming the movements here are accurate – I’d need to know where in the plane the compass was. I’m rather tempted in fact to ignore the 1-3 degrees either way this might mean. And it's already showing 70 overall mag as 80 real, 20 degrees off, so I wouldn't put much stake in its wobble.

Re: mag correction – thank you for that breakdown. I got paranoid last night that we all had it backwards, reading a minus declination as minus when it should be positive (as a double negative), but thinking it out about like you just showed clarified we are right on and the animation is twice as off as I at first thought, helping to cancel out the embarassment of forgetting about something that major...



[edit on 30-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Okay, and silly me, in frothing over getting that mystery 1:29 animation, I forgot that this is also known as Pandora's Black Box Chapter One. The main video is chapter 2 with parts of the animation warpped with more Loose Change style montages, charts, news clips, etc. and a narrator who sounds like he's trying to sound all piloty. And if you look out the left window, you'll see a great view of total fraud.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
And if you look out the left window, you'll see a great view of total fraud.

I guess the question is who is guilty of the total fraud.

After sitting back and looking at the big picture, the "official" pieces of evidence all match -the structural damage to the Pentagon, the NTSB flight study, the csv file, the light poles, video frames, ATC interviews, etc.

Of all the evidence, excluding eye-witnesses, there is only *ONE* bit that doesn't match-up with everything else, and that's the supposed NTSB animation. The NTSB has never released this to anybody else, and there is a huge gap in the evidence that it was actually sent by the NTSB.

So what is there more evidence of at this point... a total fraud perpetrated by the government, or a total fraud perpetrated by those who claim the animation video is evidence that FL77 didn't hit the Pentagon?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I'd be interested to see where you're getting this. In the CSV I saw 30.21 at the beginning, then 29.92 (then maybe the other re-set at what, 24,000?) and then on descent, at 9:24:16, a switch to 30.23. Can local pressure change enough in an hour to warrant a 2-point change? I don't think it's a big deal, but if you do give us links or references. I'm trying to see how these sources all line up.

That lines up with everything I've found. The 30.21 was at takeoff. That's the reading the tower gave the pilots before departure. The 29.92 is the standard for 18,000+, then the 30.23 is what Hani Hanjour reset it to after he was in control of the plane. Going from FDR data, we know that 30.21 was takeoff, while it's possible for the pressure to change rapidly (2 points isn't a very big change actually), the question is did Hanjour just guesstimate the setting, or was that the ACTUAL reading. From what I've found the actual reading was still either 30.21 or 30.22 at the time of impact.

As for the pressure changing so fast, DC in late summer or early fall, always gets some nasty thunderstorms daily some weeks. That could explain the pressure changes.

The biggest problem with figuring this out is that I'm finding three readings for DCA (Reagan National) on 9/11. Depending on the station I have found 30.21-30.23 all as pressures listed. I'm going by DCA since it's so close to the Pentagon. The pressure shouldn't be that much different for the two. I used the readings PF911Truth show on their webpage.

This is what I've been looking for. Sorry, it's on two pages, so I'll put it all in one quote, with both pages linked.

Hysteresis Error.— Hysteresis error is a lag in altitude indication due to the elastic properties of the material within the altimeter. This occurs after an aircraft has maintained a constant altitude for an extended period of time and then makes a large, rapid altitude change. After a rapid descent, altimeter readings are higher than actual. This error is negligible during climbs and descent at a slow rate or after maintaining a new altitude for a short period of time.

www.tpub.com...
www.tpub.com...

I would have to say that Flight 77 definitely made a rapid decent.

If you're not already aware, snowygrouch from pf911t will be doing a radio interview with Talksport here in the UK on 3rd June. He's going to be...

...on for a while to discuss the F77 FDR and some of the usual 9/11 towers stuff.

Here is the thread over at the pf911t forum, where the details of how to listen are posted.