It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flight 77 FDR Data - Pentagon Altitudes Fudged

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   
It appears the altitudes for Flight 77 at the Pentagon are fudged!!


Here are the figures. I'm assuming you understand a few things regarding pressure and altimeters etc.. Hopefully my notation is easy to understand as I'm getting tired.


a77.2_complete.csv

Standard Pressure = 29.92 in Hg

Washington Dulles Pressure = 30.23 in Hg (+310 ft from standard)
Reagan National Pressure = 30.21 in Hg (+290 ft from standard)

DULLES:

ALT (29.92) = 52 ft
ALT (30.23) = 362 ft
ALT (30.16) = 302 ft

RADIO ALTIMETER = 0 ft (actually -6 ft due to design of system)


PENTAGON:

ALT (29.92) = 238 ft
ALT (30.21) = 528 ft
ALT (29.73) = 48 ft (ground = 41 ft)

RADIO ALTIMETER = 237 ft


Assuming for a moment that the ALT (29.92) = 238 ft figure is actually already corrected for local pressure, then this still puts the aircraft:

238 - 41 - 75 = 122 ft above the Pentagon!!! Allowing for the RVSM maximum deviation of 75 ft in the altimeter reading, this still puts it 47 ft above the roof of the Pentagon.

But... 238 - 41 = 197 ft AGL according to the altimeter, which is 40 ft below the altitude the radio altimeter reports.

Intriguingly, in another data file I have of allegedly the same FDR, the radio altimeter is reported as INOP.



These figures have to be fudged!!

[edit on 10-9-2007 by mirageofdeceit]




posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Oh Lord, Im too tired to break out the textbooks on altimeters and smash this one tonight.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   
I don't even have the textbooks and I'm not getting it right off. I'll have to look at this tomorrow and as I figure out for myself what says what.

"Intriguingly, in another data file I have of allegedly the same FDR, the radio altimeter is reported as INOP."

It's listed inop in all versions in fact but Readout 2. I'm not sure which way to go on that - was it blanked out from all theother sources but the one (L3) file decoded for Undertow? Or somehow inserted into that file by his anonymous MIC decoder? Lear says rad alt must be operative at all times, and if so then it's verified absence is curious.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999




Oh Lord, Im too tired to break out the textbooks on altimeters and smash this one tonight.



A textbook on altimeters won't help you Swampfox. What you need to know is that Flight Data Recorders record altitude at standard pressure 29.92. It also records what the pilots and copilots altimeters are reading in feet above sea level at the altimeter setting on the particular altimeter and the altimeter setting barometric pressure which is set on that altimeter.

The reason they do this is so that in case of an accident they can compare that the alititude was at 29.92 with what each altimeter (pilots and copilots) said.

Whoever fabricated the FDR data didn't realize this and inserted the altitude of the crash site in the column recording at 29.92 not realizing it should have read 200 or 300 feet because it had not been corrected for local pressure which was 30.21. All whoever fabricated the data knew was they wanted the FDR to say that the airplane crashed into the Pentagon so they put in the Pentagon altitude.

What this means is that if you take the difference between the alittude recorded at 29.92 (crash scene) and correct it to current altimeter pressure 30.21 (Reagan International Airport) the actual, real altitude of the airplane was higher than the Pentagon at the time of the alleged crash.

No Swampfox, a textbook on altimeters won't help you but a couple of hours of basic flight ground school would.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   


No Swampfox, a textbook on altimeters won't help you but a couple of hours of basic flight ground school would.


Ill refrain from the sarcastic remarks im thinking right now. Mr. Lear, I have over 20 years in aviation, taking care of air data instruments, flight data recorders, comm, nav, guidance, weapons et cetera...In addition, its also 20 years of telling arrogant pilots just how dumb they can be at times when it comes to operating their aircraft. I know a little about the subject. Breaking out the textbooks would help me dumb it down for others to understand.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   
In other words, this is one time, im not going to point out to a pilot where he is screwing up.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999





Breaking out the textbooks would help me dumb it down for others to understand.



Oops! Sorry Swampfox. Here let me save you the trouble: when Mickey's big hand goes around once its a thousand feet! Is that dumbed down enough?

Thanks for the post!



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I wanted to apologize the MoD for ranting on his blog about just this issue. It was a case of math breakdown, contraints on paranoia break down, and I'm back to doubting the sources. This issue's got me a bit stumped and I'm letting it lie for at least a day or two. Looking forward to Swampfox's findings. Thanks for the interpretation Mr. Lear. It smells of a cover-up, then?

Here's a rough graph I did:
huge image so it's external



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   
No problem CL. I need to re-write part of my blog post anyway as it doesn't read right. I'm trying to demonstrate that no matter how you screw the figures up (intentionally or otherwise) it just doesn't fit the official story. The point being that this on its own is proof that the FDR data is flat wrong, as if it did go down (no pun intended) the way the official story states, all the numbers would add up without any math required.

The bottom line is, they don't. Did you get CSV file(s) from the NTSB yourself with your FOIA request? You can soon double-check my data against those (and let me know if your final alt figures differ from mine).


[edit on 12-9-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Sorry again, it seemed you were arguing for an overflight, tho I wasn't sure...

I've been lazy with clearing up the NTSB's less than forthcoming "package." It's not a high priority, even though I keep putting myself in the position of source critic. It'll probably be what UT's original one was, and I already have that, so when I do get a letter off to Osterman and any response I'll post it. ESPECIALLY if there's anything new.

Unfortunately I won't be able to compare rad alt readings, as you know it's only in that one source, which I understand was a one-time deal and fairly irreproducable.

And I'm not so sure the numbers should all just linne up with no math. There are pressure setting issues JDX has used to correct it up, for example. But never down. Never.

Rad alt I agree should work fine, but if it proves a flyover, it leaves unanswered the question of what plane that was that hit the building. Which is the one I'm looking at, and if the pressure alt were somehow about 100 feet too high, all else - mag heading, descent angle, all line up pretty well with what happened (see my graph and latest blog post). But that's just me and a heretical take.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   
no need to repeat myself


[edit on 12-9-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Oops! Sorry Swampfox. Here let me save you the trouble: when Mickey's big hand goes around once its a thousand feet! Is that dumbed down enough?

Thanks for the post!


AHahahahahaha... i had to sign in just for the laugh. Classic.

Hope you're well John. Call me sometime. .we'll catch up...


Rob

(CL et al, lots of mistakes, but you're getting there.. )



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   

(CL et al, lots of mistakes, but you're getting there.. )

Any hints?



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


Mistakes: probably. There's enough to go around.


Getting there, yes. I just updated that post with a new graphic - actually yours. I hope you don't mind - I adjusted the impact point and pole 1+2 overpass elevation to match what I think is more accurate, and ran along your non-changing pitch my own slightly changing proposition that accounts for all evidence - including the plane in the CCTV video - and seems plausible by the data up to that point. Final pitch - about -3 degrees. Fairly level. Again, just me projecting onto the known numbers. As we all are. But me with less expertise.



I'm also looking at bank (roll) angles, which are more problematic. It almost seems the FDR is truly wrong there. Is a sudden bank of six degrees minus (right wing rising) impossible to achieve in one second? Anyone?



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   
6 degrees in 1 second is quite possible if you suddenly threw in full control input from level flight. That equates to a full 360 degree roll in 1 minute. For comparison, an Extra 300 (aerobatic aircraft) can roll at a rate of over 400 degrees/second.

[edit on 13-9-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Great! But actually it's not that simple - the reason ask is this:

Time roll
9:37:40 -0.4
9:37:41 -0.7 (-.3)
9:37:42 1.1 (+1.8)
9:37:43 3.5 (+2.4)
9:37:44 6.3 (+2.8)
Previous roll numbers in a range of 3 degrees or less apart, rolling right wing down. Last frame is 6.3 degrees. Problem is the plane hit at a bak of about -6 judging by damage. (I'm learning all these things as I go - I wasn't this smart yesterday).
Given a maximum of two seconds actually, and a minimum of one, with 12 degrees or so to correct to get the right wing high enough to almost clear the generator and hit the building as seen.

So actually I guess I mean to ask if a correction of 12 degrees is possible in 1-2 seconds following a more gradual bank the other way. It seems possible but possibly borderline. If this move is possible, my best guess is it happened. If not, we have an FDR problem I can't explain.

But pitch is no problem:
Time pitch

9:37:40 -6.7
9:37:41 -6.5 (+.2)
9:37:42 -5.3 (+.8)
9:37:43 -4.2 (+.9)
9:37:44 -4.9 (-.7)
my props:
9:37:45 -4 (+.9)
final - 3 (+1.0)

My proposals fit just the proven pattern of changes just fine.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 04:58 AM
link   
I'm finally looking at the Readout 2 csv file (as simple text). Am I reading this wrong?

First 11 params include
Params:
1-COUNTER,
2-ALT,
3-ALTrad,
4-CTLcolumncapt,
5-CTLwheelcapt,
6-CTLcolumnforcecapt,
7-CASraw,
8-CTLwheelforce_capt,
9-GMThr,
10-GMTmin,
11-GMTsec,

First eleven values of final data frame:
151764.000,238,273,-7.9,-21.0,-320.5129,460,-320.51,13,37,45,
This shows a GMT time of 13:37:45 - correct if this is the second truncated in the normal csv file (ends 9:37:44) or a second off.
altitude (of what kind?) is 238, and ALT rad (radio altimeter) as we know is 273 feet AGL. The radio altimeter either works or doesn't.

And the first data frame:
146509.000,120,8186,-3.8,-4.3,-280.4489,0,-239.75,0,26,49,
This shows a GMT time of 0:26:49 - translated to EDT (minus 4 hours) this is 8:26:49 PM. Was this a night flight? (first frame of data in "normal" csv - 8:19:01 am)
And the altitude, which is relevant here, is 120 (Dulles elevation about 290-300 feet msl) and the infallible radio altimeter says 8186. Feet above the ground. It's not in the air. And not a temporary glitch. The numbers go up and down one foot either way for many, many frames, indicating still pre-takeoff (which happened around 8:20:30 in the old csv).




posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   
CL... you may want to check G loads for the last second as your line shows more than 1 G when the data shows less than 1 G. My linear representation is actually giving conservation to the official story. Your positive 1 G line is not represented anywhere in the data except for you trying to fit it to your theory.

Your type of a curve in the reported period of time/speed would no doubt rip the wings off the airplane. Back to the drawing board for you..

Also, your liberty of adjusting the height of elevation at the bridge is very unbecoming when the "bridge" is actually almost level with the pentalwn...




and the underpass is well.. an underpass...






ETA: Further, if you are going to use RO2 for your pitch angles.. you need to use RadAlt for the altitude above ground. Which is 273 feet. Dont want to cherry pick to fit your theory.. now do you?

z9.invisionfree.com...




[edit on 14-9-2007 by johndoex]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Time pitch

9:37:40 -6.7
9:37:41 -6.5 (+.2)
9:37:42 -5.3 (+.8)
9:37:43 -4.2 (+.9)
9:37:44 -4.9 (-.7)
my props:
9:37:45 -4 (+.9)
final - 3 (+1.0)

My proposals fit just the proven pattern of changes just fine.


Your proposals do not match the pitch data for 09:37:44-:45

Here is the real pitch data supplied by the NTSB that we are supposed to have...

-4.9
-5.1
-5.4
-5.6

Also, your final line shows almost level at the wall. You are being deceitful and not representing the data accurately. Then again.. im not surprised.

Cheers!



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Also, i looked over your blog the other day. Your manipulation of facts never cease to amaze me. Although there are too many mistakes on your blog to even bother wasting too much time, i feel i have to set the record straight regarding the following blatant spin of the facts...

I never wrote that article with Fetzer. We wrote and agreed upon the corrections together after i had read the article after its release.

I'll expect a correction soon... or not. Doesnt really matter as im learning its typical of how you spin facts prior to consulting the source.

typos

added link to corrections page



[edit on 14-9-2007 by johndoex]

[edit on 14-9-2007 by johndoex]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join