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.

 

Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

page: 49
1
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
So the recorder (matched to the airplane) is not evidence? That's an official report right? That they found it there?


Too bad ther are conflicting reports on where the FDR was found and that the data has been compimised.

You guys really need to keep up with whats going on in the world.




posted on May, 24 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Too bad ther are conflicting reports on where the FDR was found and that the data has been compimised.

You guys really need to keep up with whats going on in the world.


Too bad you're playing loose with the Burden of Proof fallacy. Just be honest and say there is no evidence you will accept because it violates your premise.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Just be honest and say there is no evidence you will accept because it violates your premise.


Right after you admit you will not accept any evidence if it violates the theory of the official story.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Right after you admit you will not accept any evidence if it violates the theory of the official story.


Is this your "I know you are but what am I?" again?



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Is this your "I know you are but what am I?" again?


NO just proving a point, yet again.

Still waiting for any evindece to debate me or support the official story.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I asked for evidence, not opinions and theories.

Please do more research to catch up on whats going on, there are reports of the FDR data being comprimised.


You make a number of claims frequently and one of those concerns the non-existence of any official NTSB reports matching any recovered parts from the Pentagon to AA77.

Yet here we have a distinct component of AA77 being certified as genuine and analysed by an NTSB report for the purpose of supplying data to the FBI.

I haven't seen any NTSB or FBI reports stating that the data or findings were compromised so I ask who made that determination and is it official or just conjecture and speculation from amateur sources?

Please - this IS evidence and not opinion or theory



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Yet here we have a distinct component of AA77 being certified as genuine and analysed by an NTSB report for the purpose of supplying data to the FBI.


What about the conflicting reports of where the FDR was found?
pilotsfor911truth.org...

The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) was found early in the morning of September 14, 2001. Government reports indicate the FDR was found at the entrance hole of the collapsed E ring. "...the two spotted an intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached. Then they saw two odd-shaped dark boxes, about 1.5 by 2 feet long.... Pentagon officials said the recorders, also called "black boxes" were found around 3:40 a.m. under mounds of wreckage in the collapsed part of the building.." (MSNBC Sept 28). "Dick Bridges, a spokesman for Arlington County, Va...said the recorders were found 'right where the plane came into the building.'" (PBS - Sept 14).

However, The ASCE Building Performance Report and a new book published by the Dept Of Defense claims the FDR was found at the exit hole in the C-Ring. "[FDR] found in the building near the hole in the inner C Ring wall leading to A-E Drive." (Undertow quoting new DoD Book).

It is not unprecedented where Flight Data Recorders have been switched/planted. The Institute of Police Forensic Evidence and Criminology have determined that the FDR recovered from the crash of Air France 296 is "either... not... the DFDR of the crashed Airbus A320 on the photograph... or the DFDR presented at the trial is NOT the one from the crashed Airbus A320." (AirDisaster.com)




posted on May, 25 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Nice unbiassed and objective unofficial source there - nothing proven.

Has the NTSB retracted their report in response to loose allegations?

It remains as the official evidence you claim to be seeking and also claim does not exist.

On topic:
You haven't addressed my calculation of the dissipation of the jet blast from AA77 as it crossed the road as yet. I'd appreciate any better figures for the dispersion angle as I worked off the 20' figure you gave me much earlier to arrive at an answer.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Nice unbiassed and objective unofficial source there - nothing proven.


Well if you do not like that then here is some more information from a very experienced pilot. I wil be posting a lot more information.

Quotes from John Lear.

"But the big problem is why is Hani Hanour setting the altimeter? Its only a 310 foot difference. He is about to make a visual approach into the Pentagon which he will be flying visually. The only reason you set an altimeter is to make an instrument approach. He is not going to make an instrument approach he is going to kill himself."

www.abovetopsecret.com...
"Below is the top right hand portion of the beginning of the Flight Data Recorder information.

Under the flight data about half way down are the first 8 channels of the total of about 156 channels of recorded information which starts at one minute before takeoff at 0819.

The fifth column (channel E) is the Pressure altitude which is recorded at 29.92 in.hg. It is the third, independent altimeter. The reason that they record at that figure is because it is what they call standard barometric pressure. It never changes.

What happens is that in case of an accident they compare that standard pressure altitude with the pressure setting on the pilots (channel CF) and co-pilots (channel CG) to get the exact altitude the airplane was at.

If they recorded the altitude as presented on the pilots and co-pilots altimeter they would be getting slightly different information depending on the accuracy of that particular altimeter.

Now if you look at the altitude as recorded by the third independent altimeter you can see it is 41 feet. That is the altitude of the aircraft at 29.92 in. hg. one minute before takeoff at Dulles."

img507.imageshack.us...

Now look at the diagram below. That is the airport diagram and weather information for September 11, 2001. Look at the last line of the airport diagram information. It says that the airport elevation is 313 feet AMSL or above mean sea level.

img84.imageshack.us...

If we take the altitude as recorded at 29.92 in.hg. of 41 feet and correct it for 30.21 in.hg. or 290 feet we come up with 331 feet or about 18 feet from the actual elevation of the airport which is about as close as you are going to get considering the 313 AMSL is an average for the entire airport.

So you can see that if the third altimeters last reading (below), before the alleged crash, was 173 feet at a local pressure setting of 30.22 in.hg. (Reagan altimeter setting taken at 1341Z, 0941 EDT) you would have to add 300 ft. to that altitude which makes 473 feet.

img88.imageshack.us...

Now that FDR only ran one more second and to get to 30 foot Pentagon altitude or 443 lower altitude in 1 second you would have to have a descent rate of almost 27,000 feet per minute. It can’t happen. It didn't happen.

So if a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon then this FDR was not in it. Either that or somebody saw minus 270 feet in the channel E column, didn't understand why, and changed it to 173 feet. But if he wasn't smart enough to know why it was saying minus 270 feet then why did ‘he’ put 173 feet?

Was he thinking the last 143 feet wouldn’t make it to the recorder because of the crash?

If 173 feet is a fabricated number you wonder why ‘they’ didn’t notice the 41 feet at the beginning of the recording and didn’t change it to 313 feet, the actual field elevation of Dulles.

No Boeing 757 ever crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, that is without question.

There was not enough wreckage by a factor of 10 found. And this Flight Data Recorder, allegedly the Flight Data Recorder in American Airlines Flight #77 did not go low enough to have been in a Boeing 757 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. "




[edit on 25-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I've seen that before but I did just read it over in more detail. I have the utmost respect for JL and his achievements but I think he's as fallible as the rest of us which isn't a bad thing IE human.

I checked on the altitude of Dulles (~300' msl) and Reagan (~470' msl) so the standard pressure altitude calibrated to 29.92 in.Hg that produced a reading of 41' prior to takeoff could easily result in a reading ~170' higher at the Pentagon if we allow for localised variations in barometric pressure in addition to the factor of increased elevation.

Maybe Weedwhacker or other suitably experienced pilot could add to this analysis.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Pilgrum, Ill review all the links ULTIMA provided.

This altimeter setting issue is one that the 'pilots for 9/11 tryth' love to trot out.

I do have an NTSB report on the Auto Flight sysytem mode activity, and nav radio tuning activity...and at least one NAV was tuned to the DCA VOR (111.0) manually (the system will also tune in AUTO when it is updating INS position). Often the ATIS is transmitted on the VOR frequency...not sure about National Airport....but I do know the bastards knew how to read a Jeppesen chart...they could tune a COMM radio to the ATIS...

Even Private pilots are in the habit of setting local Altimeter settings!!



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Much appreciated


Something I noticed while going through the DFDR data is that whoever was in the co-pilots seat seemed to know what he was doing and the barometric change at 18000' in descent was very 'snappy' in 3 secs or less while the pilots seat setting change appears to have been fumbled for about 30 secs before it was right.

I trust that what I stated in the previous post is correct in that the recorded pressure altimeter reading being calibrated to a constant 29.92 would register approx 170' higher on the ground at the Pentagon than it would at Dulles. It just all seems to add up too easily to be the subject of argument unless I'm overlooking something.

[edit on 25/5/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Pilgrum, I think...just a guess...the more experienced pilot was in the right seat. Did anyone notice whether the STBY Altimeter was re-set from 29.92?

It's interesting when you look at the history of the KDCA METARs that a 'Special' was issued at 1341Z. Followed on by the automated update at 1351Z. Anyway, using the "Special' METAR of 30.22, that equates to a local alitmeter setting variance of 300 feet.
(The field ELEV at KDCA is 16 feet, BTW)

Asd I drive around in the vicinity of the Pentagon it is obvious that the building is situated on a rise....but I do not know its exact ELEV...and I don't own a GPS. (Besides, I'd be sent to GITMO if they saw me anywhere near the Pentagon with a GPS!!!)

What I'm getting at here, is it seems a lot of red-herrings are thrown out, comparing the Airport ELEV of KIAD and KDCA, blah, blah...but what exactly is the ELEV of the Pentagon?

Here's another thought concerning the DFDR and its ability to accurately record the pitot-static data under those conditions....the B757 was not designed to be operated at 480K at near Sea Level....the compressibility effects could easily account for a few hundred feet variance in the readings...also, the system would not be programmed to account for the RAM-rise either....it was well outside the parameters of the normal flight envelope.

Pilgrum, you may have heard of this website I found, it's great fun for aviation enthusiasts...FlightAware...Only covers North America, but very informative.

edit....oops, had to re-type website...


[edit on 5/25/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Replying to self, as an afterhought to throw out there...

Does anyone know if the CVR from AAL77 was recovered??

That would be most usefull to corroborate (or, conversely, punch holes in the DFDR, if you are inclined to think it is fake) because the CVR will have a time reference, and will hear the various O/S warnings, GPWS warnings, etc.

AND, while I hate to argue with the JL post from a year ago, since he's not here to discuss....I found it lacking in some specifics. What I mean is, he continually referred to the 'alleged' AAL77...but it seems no one asked him exactly HOW a Flight Recorder could be faked. I've asked, no one has come forward.

These things are DIGITAL! Ones and Zeroes, Ones and Zeroes, all binary.

Any computer experts wish to tackle this??

Thanks



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thanks

I just came back to correct my faux pas in relation to the altitude but you caught it already
That's what happens when you don't actually read past what appears in the search engine results window.

As to faking the digital recording - yes it's possible and I have much experience in the binary world. If the data can be translated from binary to a text file then a program could be written to go the other way producing a serial data stream to the flash EEPROM.

Where that gets difficult is that the DFDR was delivered to the NTSB intact and unopened (according to their report) and they removed the flash memory from it for reading after dismantling the housing. I don't think re-writing the data would be possible at all without removing the memory first if the unit is damaged so if any fiddling was performed it would have to be within the NTSB (perish the thought).

I should also add that creating a fake file of over 18 megs of combined analog and status data would be a gigantic undertaking requiring days or weeks to complete if it could be expected to be coherent.


[edit on 25/5/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, I am afraid I must laugh at your post of 25 May 2008 at 0720 EST.

Those paragraphs you pulled from the website are hilarious!!!

Do you know what is situated directly below the cockpit? The E/E compartment....it is FULL of irregularly shaped dark boxes.....commonly referred to as avionics components.

The two recorders are, of course painted a bright orange, and are rectangular....nothing odd about a rectangle.

In a fire, could they be blackened? Certainly. But somewhere there is almost always a hint of the left-over orange paint.

PF 9/11 T seem to bring up dis-jointed testimony....this time, from an unqualified observor, to distract and obscure, and then ridicule the follow-on reports of where the Recorder (s)? were actually found.

Perhaps we should examine their agenda...and their biases?



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
 


Does anyone know if the CVR from AAL77 was recovered??


All I've found on that says it was recovered and the NTSB did manage to download the data from it at their Washington lab. It was then whisked off to the FBI forensic audio lab and no word about it since then.

[edit on 25/5/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhackerHere's another thought concerning the DFDR and its ability to accurately record the pitot-static data under those conditions....the B757 was not designed to be operated at 480K at near Sea Level....the compressibility effects could easily account for a few hundred feet variance in the readings...also, the system would not be programmed to account for the RAM-rise either....it was well outside the parameters of the normal flight envelope.


Very true, as with those at pilots for 9/11 truth that refers to radio altimeter readings attempting to create a track for flight 77.

The system is not designed for that, it won't update fast enough to get a sensible reading on the DFDR.

After all it's designed for a flat and solid (runway) surface at normal approach speeds.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Freaky_Animal
 


yeah, Freaky?? Really, they're trying to use the RA data????

When I say 'they' I'm referring to the PF 9/11 T group....

REALLY??? If so, they are just muddying the waters....besides, if the AAL B757 was CAT IIIA certified, it had three RAs....one for each A/P.

Yes, the RA and IVSI are looked at by the GPWS, but none of the designs expected a suicide mission!!

For non-pilots, the Ground Proximity Warning System has quite a few different modes, depending on whether it's just after take-off, or in the landing phase....and dependant on configuration....

The Radio Altimeter is only very accurate during the Category 3A or 3B approaches....it determines the last 50 feet (not to get too technical, we have two Decision Heights, or DH, in CATIII depends on 'land active' or land passive'...three A/P is 'land active', the DH is 50 feet), during an instrument approach....and it works in concert with the AutoPilots to conduct the AutoLand....that's what CATIII is.

Even in a Category 2 approach, while we set the RA for reference, we still use the Barometric Altimeter to determine the Missed Approch Point (MAP)

Airports with steep drop-offs at the edge of the airport property (KSEA comes to mind) will see wildly variant RA readings on final approach....but the area just prior to the the TCH (Threshold Crossing Height....typically 35 feet) will be flat enough to allow the particular runway to be certified CATII or CATIII, as needed. I can go look up KSEA to see what the current runways are certified for.....

[edit on 5/25/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
the B757 was not designed to be operated at 480K at near Sea Level....the compressibility effects could easily account for a few hundred feet variance in the readings...also,


Just adding my 2 cents worth. But doesn't major compressiblity effects occur above 10,000 feet?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join