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.

 

G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible

page: 16
40
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
*snip*

Please Review the Terms and Conditions

Specifically


1d.) Cross-Posting: You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive advance permission from The Above Network, LLC). You will not post-by-proxy the material of banned members or other individuals who are not members, but have written a response to content within a thread on these forums.


Links and material from other forum boards requires prior permission from ATS Admin.

Thank you

Semper

[edit on 9/21/2008 by semperfortis]




posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
*snip*

Please Review the Terms and Conditions

Specifically


1d.) Cross-Posting: You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive advance permission from The Above Network, LLC). You will not post-by-proxy the material of banned members or other individuals who are not members, but have written a response to content within a thread on these forums.


Links and material from other forum boards requires prior permission from ATS Admin.

Thank you

Semper



[edit on 9/21/2008 by semperfortis]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Hi JDX, we're never spoken directly I think, but from my brief analysis so far it would appear that John Farmer's analysis is correct and that indeed there is a significant gap between the end of the FDR and impact. He's correlated several data sources for this claim and I am interested to see what evidence you have to suggest he is mistaken.

It's a big subject though so I appreciate if there's evidence I have missed so far.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Ladies and Gentlemen...

Posting information from other forum boards is weak at best and ultimately against the Terms and Conditions that you agreed to upon signing up at ATS.

Please refrain from using other forum boards as references..

Thank you

Semper



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Hi exponent,

Your questions were answered in the post above where i copy/pasted all my work based on the common arguments in this thread, but it appears a mod deleted it since it was from "another board" (my board). I guess i have to type it all out again? dunno....

Anyway, hopefully this link will stay so your questions can be answered.

*snip*
You are specifically looking for Claim 2.

If not, feel free to browse our forum in the AA77 pinned topics section, you're specifically looking for "Debunking FDR Debunking" claim 2.

If anyone has question, please feel free to email us at pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org as i dont visit this forum often and probably even less now that i cant answer questions properly here.

Note to mods, the above link is to our work, if you need to remove it, please just remove the link. Thank you.

Regards,
Rob

Note to author:

Next one is a warning

[edit on 9/21/2008 by semperfortis]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
If not, feel free to browse our forum in the AA77 pinned topics section, you're specifically looking for "Debunking FDR Debunking" claim 2.


Rob, I have checked out that thread a couple of times, but what I fail to see is where you address the confluence of data sources. You simply quote sources which are addressed by Mr Farmer.

How is it that he is able to get such good agreement between data sources which indicates the FDR stopped several seconds prior to impact?

As a separate question: You are a pilot as far as I know, and as such you will understand the basic mechanics of a level turn. I have debated this with Craig from CIT before but we never reached a solid conclusion. For a given speed and a given turn radius, we can set a minimum angle of bank required for a level turn correct? If we then assume that this turn is not level and involves descent, the bank angle must then increase as the vertical component of the lift vector must decrease in magnitude?

I am not a pilot, but I do have a basic understanding of the physics of flight.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Hi again exponent,

Please review the DME video in the thread mentioned.

Mr Farmer used to consult with us since he isnt a pilot. Once we tried to explain things to him that he didnt want to hear (namely DME), he became very arrogant and started attacks.

Bottom line, Farmer is using what is called "ReadOut2" as the foundation for most of his analysis (as do many of the anonymous 'experts' seen here). However, he never decoded "ReadOut2", we did. We also put this statement as a disclaimer regarding RO2 when we had it decoded.

"We discussed what we can and can not see with this software. One key point is that this software is not intended for accident investigation. Do not think this implies a shoddy piece of code however. These people have been in the recorder business when 11 parameters was a new thing. "

(bold above mine for emphasis, i'd post a link to the full narrative of the meeting, but i dont feel like getting warned, email us for full narrative)

This is why you will never see an article/analysis published to pilotsfor911truth.org based on RO2 (although we do have an article in our forums based on Anti-Sophist argument stating there can be "no more than 2 seconds missing" vs RadAlt from RO2).

All our analysis is based on NTSB provided parameters and data, decoded by the experts at the NTSB, with the proper software to decode such data. It doesnt support the govt story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. The anonymous "experts" here claim the data provided and prepared by the NTSB is littered with errors. Yet they refuse to contact the NTSB regarding such errors. The difference between Farmer and the anonymous "experts" here, is that Farmer did contact the NTSB regarding "missing seconds". I think he filed suit. I personally think that is a great idea because he will soon find out why the NTSB doesnt claim their provided data isnt missing any seconds as he didnt want to hear what we had to say...

Hope this helps...

Again, anyone with questions, please email us and/or visit our forums. We usually reply rather quickly.

Regards,
Rob



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Please review the DME video in the thread mentioned.

I have done so (I believe), it was hardly convincing as no error analysis was performed.


Bottom line, Farmer is using what is called "ReadOut2" as the foundation for most of his analysis (as do many of the anonymous 'experts' seen here). However, he never decoded "ReadOut2", we did. We also put this statement as a disclaimer regarding RO2 when we had it decoded.

It is my understanding he is using several radar hits along with the FDR readout to match up timelines. I find it strange that you seem to think that the NTSB is infallible except when they get things entirely wrong.

Still I plan to conduct my own analysis of the data available. I have a copy of readout 2 and the FDR CSV plus the RADES data. I am no expert, but I do have quite a lot of experience with large data set analysis


edit: I should note that I asked another question I would appreciate you answering


[edit on 21-9-2008 by exponent]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Caught this on the way out, so this will be my last reply... hope this helps you Exponent.


Originally posted by exponent
I have done so (I believe), it was hardly convincing as no error analysis was performed.


Your "belief" noted, as well as your opnion. These people disagree with your "belief" and opinion.

*snip*

The list grows.


It is my understanding he is using several radar hits along with the FDR readout to match up timelines.


Farmer was denied the FOIA request for the RADES data initially. He had to go through a "back door" to obtain it. After further analysis, Farmer admits the Radar data has been manipulated.


I find it strange that you seem to think that the NTSB is infallible except when they get things entirely wrong.


I find it strange that people who have zero experience in Aircraft Accident Investigation feel the NTSB provided and plotted data is litered with errors. Those who do claim to have such experience, refuse to let others verify their credentials and/or debate those who can be verified.


Still I plan to conduct my own analysis of the data available.


Seems like you already made up your mind... but great!

[qiuote] I have a copy of readout 2

RO2 is worthless for "Accident Investigation". See quote from narrative aove.


and the FDR CSV


Good, use that...


plus the RADES data.


RADES data proved to be manipulated according to Farmer.


I am no expert,


Np... really?



but I do have quite a lot of experience with large data set analysis


Are you good with flight instrument cross check? Might want to bring the data sets to your local flight school.




edit: I should note that I asked another question I would appreciate you answering


Its off topic. Feel free to email us or visit our forums for the answer.


Regards,
Rob

MOD Note: Please Review this Link: Terms and Conditions


1d.) Cross-Posting: You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive advance permission from The Above Network, LLC). You will not post-by-proxy the material of banned members or other individuals who are not members, but have written a response to content within a thread on these forums.



iii) You will not post, use the chat feature or use the private message system to solicit members of The Above Network, LLC on behalf of another message board, online community or competitor. You will not attempt to use your membership to encourage or lure other members in any way to other websites or discussion boards in competition with The Above Network, LLC.


[edit on 9/21/2008 by semperfortis]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by syeager9
 


syeager, I'll have to re-read the DFDR reports. Modern DFDRs note what radios are tuned to what frequencies.

The IRS (Inertial Reference System) uses a combination of a three-ring laser gyroscope, and 'radio updating', to calculate position, once initialized.

The FMS uses the Nav radios to tune VORs and TACANs (just for DME) to to update using 'bearing/bearing', or 'bearing/distance'...or a combination of the two, this whilst in the 'NAV' position (On the B737)

On the B757/767 it is a little more sophisticated, and with the addition of GPS updating much more accurate. BUT, not every operator purchased the GPS upgrade. It's pretty much a requirement, now, for extended over-water, of course. Not every B757/767 is certified for ETOPS though. For instance, Continental bought a dozen or so B757-300s that do not have the ADG and other hydraulic and electrical enhancements to allow for ETOPS, but they just wanted the seating capacity, to operate domestically, to Mexico, and the Caribbean. And, the price was right, at the time....they were 'white-tails'....someone else had ordered them, then backed out....

Funny your story is so correct, though....about the DC-3. Business jets have far better avionics too....because they operate under different FARs.

Now, having said all of that, let's turn to this alleged 'G-force' calculations aspect. The Flight Recorder of AAL77 DOES record G-forces. So, why are they to be ignored?? Someone would have to be able to completely 'fake' the Recorder data....all of it, that fits together perfectly, and all done in binary code???

Anyone know how that could have been accomplished?



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Now, having said all of that, let's turn to this alleged 'G-force' calculations aspect. The Flight Recorder of AAL77 DOES record G-forces. So, why are they to be ignored??


We sure aren't ignoring them!

Those who support the official story are.

We state that no matter how you slice it the necessary g forces are not reported by the NTSB to account for the necessary final pull up due to the topography and obstacles.

The NTSB data only shows an average of 1.17 g's for that final segment while the top scientist over at the government loyalist forum, Ryan Mackey, concluded that a constant 4 g's for the final 4 seconds would be necessary to pull it off.

In short, the data is irreconcilable with the physical damage.




Someone would have to be able to completely 'fake' the Recorder data....all of it, that fits together perfectly, and all done in binary code???

Anyone know how that could have been accomplished?


How could anyone here know how to do that?

The notion that the highest levels of government with access to all of the resources of the military and all the time, money, access, and control they could possibly need wouldn't be able to release fraudulent data 5 years after the fact as part of a world wide military black operation doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Basically there is NOTHING that proves this data came from tail# N644AA's black box recovered from the Pentagon after a plane crash.

Nothing but your faith they are telling you the truth.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Hi again exponent,

Please review the DME video in the thread mentioned.

Mr Farmer used to consult with us since he isnt a pilot. Once we tried to explain things to him that he didnt want to hear (namely DME), he became very arrogant and started attacks.

Bottom line, Farmer is using what is called "ReadOut2" as the foundation for most of his analysis (as do many of the anonymous 'experts' seen here). However, he never decoded "ReadOut2", we did. We also put this statement as a disclaimer regarding RO2 when we had it decoded.

...
All our analysis is based on NTSB provided parameters and data, decoded by the experts at the NTSB, with the proper software to decode such data. It doesnt support the govt story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. The anonymous "experts" here claim the data provided and prepared by the NTSB is littered with errors. Yet they refuse to contact the NTSB regarding such errors. The difference between Farmer and the anonymous "experts" here, is that Farmer did contact the NTSB regarding "missing seconds". I think he filed suit. I personally think that is a great idea because he will soon find out why the NTSB doesnt claim their provided data isnt missing any seconds as he didnt want to hear what we had to say...

Hope this helps...

Again, anyone with questions, please email us and/or visit our forums. We usually reply rather quickly.

Regards,
Rob


We have the INS accurate to 1500 to 3000 feet. The RO2 positions are good, but about 1600 feet off at the end of flight; INS was updated by DME. The DME accuracy for Flight 77, 0.23 NM, backed by AIM and studies done. This is why the updates do not get better than 1500 feet on the INS the accuracy of VOR/DME, not good enough at 0.23 NM. It all works together to give you a good idea of the accuracy in the INS system. RO2 points are good, but with 1500 feet uncertainty.

The accuracy of the INS in 77 was about 2000 feet at takeoff, 77 thinks it is in the grass 2000 feet south of the runway on takeoff, this position drifts during flight, it is also driven/updated back toward reality with VOR/DME updates. Albeit, the system accuracy is still limited to the 1500 to 3000 foot range, but these updates keep the INS from drifting further off course.

There were no major maneuvers that would affect the final position on the INS. The INS did not crash, the 330 degree turn was less than standard rate, hence not a big tight turn maneuver, you must of missed the FDR information and used the news hearsay sources on this subject. The descent was also tame from 7000 to 2000 feet, and took 3 minutes. All this is in the FDR, I am surprised you missed it. But even with news sources and timing, you can calculate the maneuvers were not as great as normal operations.

Farmer plots the final INS positions and then by correlating to RADAR (more accurate than INS) he makes a case based on evidence 77 is 6 seconds from the Pentagon. Note the positions Farmer plots are confirmed in your own video, but you claim the INS crashed, but it is operating perfectly normal, the position changes as seen in your video with each second based near the accelerations listed, and off as far as 2000 feet at takeoff to 1600 feet near the Pentagon. You own plots in your own video confirm normal operation of the INS, a crashed INS would be erratic and drift further off. Plus the terrorist only started to accelerate in the last 20 seconds, but that is much less than take off acceleration.

To prove the acceleration of the terrorist did not crash the INS, Maximum of 0.312 longitudinal acceleration at takeoff; the terrorist could only muster a maximum of 0.265 longitudinal acceleration at during terrorist approach to the Pentagon. The vertical acceleration limits were not exceeded either. I am surprised you missed this in the FDR.

With these revelations, you should be about to correct your videos. The real position of 77 is important to correct your 34 G claim based on a faulty position because you think the INS crashed; the INS did not crash(check the FDR). Plus you do not have the radius perpendicular to the flight path, and level off path in your 34 G problem. BTW, I checked out other people's ideas on your circular motion equations (BTW, the car calculator can be used if you understand physics to calculate the G of a plane, you have to understand what values to insert to get an estimate very close to your numbers; that is cool), you can use a lot of different radii to get any G force you want. In addition the first radius you plot is in error, the arc should be shorter; I checked it with geometry, found your figures are off in the drawing in the horizontal nearly 180 feet (the 10 G problem).

At least your physics are getting better, Mackey's work is closer to reality than your instantaneous circular motion 9.6 foot vertical 10 G level off. You know you can use geometry instead of graphs to get more exact figures. Good luck.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig, maybe you've never flown an airplane for real.

A steady-state 30-degree bank will impose about 1.13 Gs. A 60-degree bank will impose, in the same steady-state, exactly 2.0 Gs.

It is, when graphed, an inverse relationship component. Every added degree of bank, beyond, say, 60 degrees, results in a greater and greater G force...it is NOT proportional.

NOW, though...one can achieve a very steep bank, but be descending at the same time...and not feel those G forces.

Ask your pilot friends about how to do aerobatics...ask them the difference, for instance, between a 'barrel roll' and an 'aileron roll'.

Ask them about a hammer-head stall turn...or just your average, everyday loop. I have done these maneuvers, in both a Cessna 150 'Aerobat' and a Citabria. Never came anywhere close to 34 Gs, else I wouldn't be here typing right now. Our G meters got up to...oh, 3.5....and that is well within the design parameters of a B757.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
We have the INS accurate to 1500 to 3000 feet.



Originally posted by Reheat
Since the INS was 2000'-4000' in error...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Can you and Reheat get your story straight?


The DME accuracy for Flight 77, 0.23 NM


..within 1.5nm of the facility? Really? Good stuff! keep up the comedic relief for us real pilots who shoot VOR/DME, LOC/DME, ILS/DME, Crossing restrictions, step downs, DME arcs.... etc etc.

According to your "errors" misintepreted from the AIM (us real pilots notice you never quote the full reference.. good job Beachy!), there would be smoking holes all across the globe for Cat IIIC qualed aircraft, not to mention simple step downs due to obstructions on non-precision approaches. Beachy, is your avatar at JREF the last time you flew? Before color photography? Sure seems so...


backed by AIM and studies done.


Next time quote the whole AIM reference before you look more a fool. Then again, it doesnt really matter as us real pilots already know why you will never put your name to such claims. But then again, we all know who you are, and we all know you're full of it. This is why you refuse to have a real debate aside from behind your screen to confuse the reader.

Tell us again Beachy how the FDR loses power at 0.2 G... ? lmao...

Oh wait.. the "jihadist" boogeyman pulled the breaker! Yeah. .thats it!

please...


The rest of your post is the same old stale BS.


You and Reheat might want to come to a decision on INS errors though...


Regards,
Rob

typo


[edit on 21-9-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
The RO2 positions are good,



Just wanted to address the above quote...

So Beachy, the RO2 positions are good?

Please answer these questions...

Who decoded the RO2?
Who make the disclaimer the RO2 cannot be used for "Accident Investigation"?


After you answer the above and tell the rest here that P4T decoded RO2, how can you still say "its good"? Cherry pick much?


One last question...

Why, if you claim to be an "FDR Expert" are you not able to decode the raw file into your own "ReadOut2" as did P4T? Are you an "FDR Expert" or not?

I'll answer that.. Beachnut and Reheat are frauds.

Folks, this is why Beachy, Reheat, Mackey, et al have refused to and will never debate P4T live. Heck, they cant even get their story straight regarding INS errors... Mackey is getting schooled on JREF by an auto tech who understands data storage!



Regards,
Rob

typo

[edit on 21-9-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


john....you could state your case better without the 'real pilots' slam....you'd look a lot more professional as well.

I am a 'real pilot'....but, of course, anyone with access to Microsoft Flight software may lay claim to that, as well.

So, it comes down to what we SAY, in our posts, that cannot be learned from Microsoft or any online resource, right?

You, in the above post, attempted to ridicule two good members, for a few thousand feet laterally?? You yourself included 0.23NM....equals 1394 feet.

Com'on....you're a pilot! What are your type ratings?

I'll tell you mine.

DC-9, B737, B757/767

Several thousand hours in the DC-9, more in the MD-80 series. (pay was better). Another few thousand hours in the B737 (left seat only) and the B757/767, both seats. As well as lots of time in the right seat of the B727, the A-300, and the DC-10.

You and I both know that the AAL B757, flight 77, did not have GPS updating. It did, of course, have a DFDR. At the low altitudes just before impact, if the FMC was still in NAV....it would have auto-tuned at least the DCA VOR/DME, and the IAD VOR/DME....possibly also the Andrews AFB TACAN, just for DME.

If the perps used MAP on the EFIS system, to navigate to target, then the IRS was updating the entire time. Switching the EFIS display out of MAP, say for an ILS or VOR approach, does result in less IRS updating....but it's an approach, and you rely now on ground-based facilities, as you well know. Whether it be an ILS, or a VOR/DME with step-downs, or heaven forbid! A 'circling' approach! (My airline stopped doing those years ago. Cut way down on training costs.)

Well....'G Force' calculations prove nothing to support the Op's headline.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


The accuracy of the INS can be off 4000 feet, typical is 1600 to 3000 or more. You know this, you are a pilot. On 9/11 77 started over 2000 feet off in the INS, and updates drove it back to 1500 to 1600 feet.

Aeronautical Information Manual states in 2001 (I have a copy from 2001 right next to me this moment) the accuracy of DME is less than 1/2 mile to 3 percent of the distance from the station, which ever is greater. At 100 NM the typical uncertainty in DME can be as high as 3 NM! At 1.5 NM we do not get 3 percent accuracy we are in the less than 1/2 miles range, which the 0.23 NM accuracy is good for! This is backed with DOT information on DME transmitters, normal accuracy, as good as 0.1 NM, but with 77 we have a system, a plane in flight and a receiver with it's own accuracy; studies show the DME systems like 77 has typical accuracy of 0.23 NM. Does this help clear up your problem?; the accuracy is correct.

AIM, look it up, need a 2001 copy?

Darn, I was wrong it says better than ½, or 3 percent, whichever is higher. Darn.

This DME accuracy drives the FAA regulation for storage in a FDR of DME, only requires 1 NM resolution. 77 stores the DME with 0.25 NM resolution.

This means: DME on Flight 77 stored in the FDR; a true DME of 1.854 (THE REAL POSITION OF 77 in NM from DCA VOR) could be stored as 1.5 DME.
DME storages resolution required by FAA, 1 NM in the FDR.
You have flown, the DME in many planes is a single counter in miles; you have to interpolate to get 5.8 DME etc. If you think you have better accuracy you are only fooling yourself.

To use 1.5 DME from the FDR, requires you apply 1500 to 2000 feet uncertainy.

The INS and DME accuracy dovetail. If you really want to get a handle on the DME used in 77, plot them and see you really have less accuracy than what I have listed by the book and with practical studies. But 1500 to 3000 feet in the INS is good for 77. Reheat is not wrong with 4000 feet, this is a discussion of accuracy, not a got you fest. I am giving you good information. I use 4000 feet; but on 9/11 77 was in the 1500 to 2000 range. The INS did not crash. INS position is okay, you must know the limitations. If I were you I would use the 4000 feet if it helps you, but the RADAR data does not support it.

Make fun of discussion?, I was talking about KC-135s, our generator CSD would trip off the Generators in low G flight; beyond our limit G factor. I wonder if any commercial aircraft have similar problems. Caught in a thunderstorm, all the Generators could trip in low or negative G. I doubt 77 had CSDs with that problem. I was looking at the last stick input of the terrorist, it was the biggest down stick movement ever on the flight. However you must temper that with the speed increasing 4 to 5 knots per second, and the resultant low G may not be as high as the stick input implies due to trim associated with higher speeds and engines thrust.

No big deal, this is a discussion and the FDR last data input leaves Flight 77 over 6 seconds from impact, this is confirmed in you DME video when you now know as shown by me the INS did not crash. So the best position as backed by RADAR data from multiple stations, show 77 within 1600 feet of the final INS positions, and all this fits with 1/4 miles accuracy, the best you may expect from the INS.

Making fun of discussion is counter productive when you realize the implications you make are made using faulty evidence, with assumptions you make, such as, the INS crashed, based on more faulty and false assumptions.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by beachnut]

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9/21/2008 by Hal9000]



new topics




 
40
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join