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 path of the plane that approached the pentagon

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
There has been a fair amount of controversy in regards to the Pentagon attack. One of the few things that everyone seems to agree on is that a plane -did- approach the pentagon immediately before the pentagon erupted in flames. However, there is disagreement as to what flight path the plane took. There are 2 main theories:

1- The plane approached the pentagon from the south side of the nearby Citgo gas station. This is in accordance with the official story, but at odds with all the credible witnesses, and would have to break the laws of physics as well, as it would have had to have pulled out of an impossible dive in order to both hit the 5 light poles and enter the pentagon low and level as allegedly recorded by the pentagon parking lot video.

2- The plane approached the pentagon from the north side of the nearby Citgo gas station. This would concord with 13 credible witnesses and would also be aerodynamically possible, as explained by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (I can try to look up the link where they do this later if requested)

I've decided to branch out of a rather large thread, "What hit the pentagon?", to focus exclusively on what flight path the plane most likely took towards the pentagon, as well as any evidence of what happened at the point in time where it arrived at the pentagon (the 2 main theories being that it crashed into the pentagon, and that it flew over it and probably landed at Reagan International Airport).

With that in mind, my next post will be a response to one of weedwhacker's posts from the "What hit the pentagon?" thread.




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x
 


Sorry scott... used shorthand AND made a mistake RE: the MMO for a B757:


Lost you here, laugh :-). Mach .88 I get. But what does FL350 mean? And how do you figure out what the standard temperature is at any given altitude? Also, I'm not sure what I'm trying to solve or how I should go about solving it ;-).


Had another airplane in mind, and typed M.88 INSTEAD of M.86 which IS the actual published MMO Limitation for the Boeing 757.


Ah ok. Out of curiosity, do you know a place online where I can see this for myself?




Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by scott3x
But what does FL350 mean?


Sorry again, I forget that the shorthand won't make sense to everyone...."FL" means 'Flight Level'.

Term 'Flight Level' refers to a pressure altitude when the altimeters are set in the Kollsman window to 29.92 in. hg. (inches mercury) or 1016 mb (millibars) as is the reference in most of the World, other than the U.S.


Interesting. There's an issue concerning this setting of the altimeter, and you bring it up further below I see...



Originally posted by weedwhacker
This is the internationally accepted STANDARD Sea Level Pressure.

Flight Levels are used above certain altitudes (depending on nation) for simplicity, especially in high-speed flights. Altitmeter corrections due to prevailing local differences are not needed this way, and eveyone is on an equal footing, with reference to their respective altitudes.

In North America, the change/over altitude is 18,000 (FL180) because this comfortably clears the highest mountainous terrain.

(Internationl pilots who fly overseas will know, for instance, that the "transistion altitude" varies by country...in the UK, fo rinstance, it is 6,000 feet (FL60).

Hope this unsolicited lesson isn't too offensive.
AND hope it clears up some terms...

ON TOPIC....this is a question raised RE: American 77.

DID the hijacker piloting the airplane reset any of the altimeters to the 'local' setting? (30.22 that morning, reported at KDCA - National Airport) Or, did the guy leave them at where they would have been set by the real pilots during the climb -- 29.92???

FYI, the difference there is about 300 feet. 1,000 feet equals about ONE inch, as a rule of thumb, at lower altitudes (like below 10,000 feet)


A very good point. In the NTSB data, they aren't reset anyway. I've transcribed some of Pilots' for 9/11 Truth's videos. In the following post, I'll put up a part that deals with precisely this issue.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Here is the transcription that I mentioned I would put up in my last post:

From Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77, starting at 40:40, regarding the alleged black box data:


Let's take a look at the altitude. The altimeter in the animation, according to the flight data recorder, shows 180 feet one second prior to impact. Let's see if this is accurate. All aircraft have an altimeter that measure aircraft height above sea level, according to barometric pressure.

Note in the animation provided by the NTSB that the aircraft altimeter shows 300 feet while it's sitting on the runway, ready for take off. This is the field elevation above sea level for Dulles Airport, as the pilots have set the local barometric pressure of 30.21. To set the altimeter to the local barometric pressure, pilots use this window. This altimeter shows 29.92. To change that to the correct local barometric pressure, they use this nob.

This is a diagram from the FAA that shows the layout and classes of controlled and uncontrolled airspace. Once above 18,000 feet, all aircraft set their altimeters to 29.92. This is shown in the animation provided by the NTSB. As the pilots climb through 18,000 feet, they set their altitude to 29.92 from their previous barometric setting and the altimeter snaps back. Watch again. Note the aircraft doesn't change in pitch. There it is. They just set 29.92 in the window.

The hard data file that we have from the NTSB shows the altimeter being set on the climb through 18,000 and on the descent through 18,000 feet. Let's see if that's the case in the animation. Upon descent, we should see the same type of snap back we saw on the climb, however in reverse. As the aircraft descends through 18,000 feet, once the local barometric pressure is set, it will indicate actual altitude above sea level. Let's watch to see if this altimeter is being set during descent in the animation [the altimeter doesn't snap back after descending 18,000 feet]. The trend continues. There is no snap back. The altimeter is still set to 29.92. We will have to manually correct for this from here on out, as the aircraft is actually 300 feet higher than indicated.

Considering the hard data file that we have shows the altimeter being set through 18,000 feet, and the animation does not, that is a blatant coverup to make the animation aircraft appear lower than it actually is.

So let's correct this altimeter to the local barometric pressure. Reagan national was recording 30.22 at the time. This is an altimeter simulator, both aircraft are at 180 feet, both altimeters are at 29.92. When we put in the correct local barometric pressure of 30.22, we'll get the aircraft's actual altitude, the true altitude. You'll notice that it's at 455 feet. That's its true altitude. We'll put in the local temperature as well, and we'll notice that the correction is at 479 feet above sea level. That is the correct altimeter setting. The wrong altimeter setting was 29.92.

So what does this mean, true altitude, actual altitude, indicated altitude, height above sea level. Well, when we compare it to the ground elevation and the light poles, it shows 43 feet above sea level. The flight data recorder shows the aircraft at 479 feet above sea level. Unless those poles were almost 440 feet, according to the flight data recorder provided by the NTSB, the aircraft was too high to hit the light poles. And to get an idea of what it looks like in the airplane when you set the altimeter to the correct local barometric pressure. Put 30.22 in there, and it gives you your actual height above sea level.

Now let's take a look at vertical speed. Measuring from a speed within the aircraft envelope and noting the altitude and time, we can get the vertical speed. Watch how this aircraft is flown during this final maneuver. It actually increases vertical speed. Never shows the aircraft levelling. We note the final altitude and the time, and we get a calculation of 4,620 feet per minute for that leg. However, when we look at the DOD video, it appears something is level across the lawn. The flight data recorder shows that the aircraft never levelled off. Watch again. Never see it pull up. As a matter of fact it pushes down further, using the same vertical speed.

And if the aircraft was low enough to hit the light poles, based on the same vertical speed, it would have crashed long before hitting the pentagon.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
In the last post, Rob Balsamo from Pilots for 9/11 Truth mentions that the plane that approached the pentagon would have crashed long before it hit the pentagon if it had actually hit the light poles. He explains why in another video from PFT, 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon, starting at 8:52:


Placing the aircraft on the south path, lowered from the FDR altitude of 699 feet above sea level at this point in space to the top of the VDOT antenna, we can examine the pull up needed at pole 1 and measure the radius using a 3 point ark radius tool provided with this 3d animation software program.

Remember, the scale of this presentation is 100 feet= 1 cm box. To get an idea of how we demonstrate this in 3d software, we switch to an orthogonal view. An orthogonal view is different than a perspective view in that it eliminates the effect of distance from a viewpoint. Therefore, we can accurately determine radius of an ark and precisely draw an ark based on the pull up needed in this view.

Here is the ark drawn in the orthogonal view. We will remove the topography and obstacles in order to get a better view of the ark drawn. Again, we we will demonstrate the accuracy of the scale and topography at the end of this presentation.

The radius of this ark is 20.85 centimeters. But remember the scale of this presentation is 1 cm= 100 ft. So we need to multiply 100 to 20.85 and we get a radius of 2,085 feet.

With the radius, we can use a simple formula required for measuring acceleration as "a = v^2 / r". This is the proper formula to use for such a problem.


Using the velocity as provided by the NTSB for both scenarios, 781 f/s, we need to square that, then divide by 2085, to get 292.5 f/s squared. We then divide that by 32 f/s squared to get 9.14 G.

[The math involved]:
781*781 = 609,961
609,961/2085 = 292.5 f/s squared
292.5 f/s squared/32 f/s squared = 9.14G

G force calculation for this pull up equals 9.14 Gs. We also need to add 1 G for earth's gravity, for a total of 10.14 Gs required.

Transport category aircraft are limited to 2.5 positive Gs. Although a 757 could perhaps withstand more G forces then 2.5, it's highly unlikely it could withstand more than 5 or 6.

Remember, this calculation is for the least challenging pull. If we hypothetically lower the aircraft altitude from the NTSB plotted altitude, to the lower height of the VDOT antenna.

As we can see G loads required to pull out of a dive from the top of the VDOT antenna are impossible for a 757. It is off the charts if we account for altitude as plotted and produced by the NTSB.

Placing the aircraft at the FDR altitude, the most challenging pull, we can measure the radius of the ark needed to pull out of such a dive.

Again, we switch to the orthogonal view, for accurate measurements and we get a radius of 576.9 feet. Plugging that radius into the same formula, and adding 1 g for earth's gravity, we get 34 Gs.

781*781 = 609,961
609,961/576.9 = 1057.3
1,057.3/32 = 33G

Impossible.

This is the proper way to determine G loads in a 2 dimensional problem such as aircraft pulling out of a dive.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


scott, nice thread and good to branch it off of another thread to examine directly.

This will take some work.

Regarding your first "South of Citgo" comment:


This is in accordance with the official story, but at odds with all the credible witnesses


No, not ALL credible witnesses. Many more disagree with the "North of Citgo allegations. In your opening you mention CIT's 13 witnesses. Those are the only witnesses that they (CIT) wished to include in their "investigation". In other words, CIT wished to have a pre-determined outcome, to fit their pre-conceived version of "facts" -- so they used only those witness' statements that were supportive of their case.


... and would have to break the laws of physics as well, as it would have had to have pulled out of an impossible dive in order to both hit the 5 light poles and enter the pentagon low and level as allegedly recorded by the pentagon parking lot video.


That is another problem that needs to be explained, because it stems completely from a misrepresentation by "Pilots For Truth" in their video that you reference later....that's where I come in, to the best of my ability.

adding___________________________________________________


2- The plane approached the pentagon from the north side of the nearby Citgo gas station. This would concord with 13 credible witnesses and would also be aerodynamically possible...


Actually, they (CIT) wish for you to believe that the airplane flew over the Navy Annex structure (or slightly North of it). The terrain is such that it is elevated well above the roadway area where Route 27 (Washington Boulevard) is, and the light poles were downed. In addition, the Navy Annex is a series of seven parallel rectangular buildings (barracks) that are FIVE STORIES HIGH!!!! They are oriented roughlt North/South, nearly perpindicular to the ground track (I will use that term from now on, since it is more descriptive than "flight path", UNLESS we are refering to a three-dimensional aspect).

I have not yet learned how to use the features to pull images from GoogleMaps to illustrate, so bear with me please.

Anyone can go to GoogleMaps and look for themselves. In the "street view" you can put your little 'pedestrian' guy on Joyce Street, to start. At 854 S. Joyce St you will see the 'Citgo' gas station. (It has since been re-named "NEX") Spin around, and you can get a feel for the topography, and elevations of terrain and structures. Please note: The large three arcing spires - the Navy Memorial - did not exist and were not unders construction on 9/11/2001.

You can also move...let's call him 'Joe'...over onto Rte 27 (Washington Blvd) and explore the views.

The NTSB animation has a slight ground track shift error, in its depiction of the view as it "follows" behind the representative airplane. This is important to note --- because it completely buries one of the PFT's claims...more on that. Later.

Keep in mind, as you look both at the top-down satellite view, and 'Joe's' view, that the airplane mostly followed the highway known as Columbia Pike (Rte 244). The three-leaf cloverleaf intersection where Rte 244 and Rte 27 cross is where the light poles were.

I think you'll also see the VDOT antenna array....IF it was actually existing in that same location on 9/11/2001, it still is not in the way, as you will see....

Take your time and enjoy the views.


[edit on 1 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Why does every post that questions the official line on 9/11 end up under close scrutiny due to demand?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Rob37n
 


Rob......welcome to a Forum titled "9/11 Conspiracies".

It is the forum that gets the 'attention'----because it has a level of heat, at times....



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 



Ah ok. Out of curiosity, do you know a place online where I can see this for myself?


Jane's All the World's Aircraft is a valuable and accurate source on everything!! Unfortunately, you have to pay...unless someone is nice enough to post a snippet from them, which is easily found via Google search:

www.janes.com...

Lots of goodies to know there...glad you made me hunt for it!


Doesn't tell you everything, of course. Which is good!



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Here is R.mackey's (NASA engineer) math on this subject. JREF

And a thread discussing it. JREF

BTW I am a US citizen, but I spend 4 or 5 months a year in Australia. Endless summer for the last 20 years.

Speaking as a G freak aerobatic pilot. Balsamo is an idiot, I dont need the math to see that. How could any pilot think that 33 G's is a correct answer.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


Ok...going to do this bit by bit....

Just refer to the post I'm referencing to, please.


Originally posted by scott3x

Here is the transcription that I mentioned I would put up in my last post:

From Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77, starting at 40:40, regarding the alleged black box data:


Allright, using the transcript from "Pandora's Black Box", we will see where I agree and disagree with P4T....




Let's take a look at the altitude. The altimeter in the animation, according to the flight data recorder, shows 180 feet one second prior to impact. Let's see if this is accurate....


Well, firstly it's a little difficult to say it was exactly one second before impact. As I said, there is going to be some discrepancy in exact position based on the SSFDR, because IT gets its position info from the Inertial Reference System (IRS) which did not GPS updating at that time, on that particular airplane.

I'd rather not waste space describing the IRS, and its functions and inherent accuracy ranges...except to say that for purposes of gross navigation it is sufficient, by itself, to be accurate within a mile, sometimes a little more or less...certainly enough to be usable for extended over-water flights, for instance. BUT, of course --- it also is provided, on the AAL 77 airplane, with various radio updating from land-based sources, further refining its accuracy to within less than 1/2 mile. Still, that's as much as 3,000 feet horizontally, so even if it's off by only 500 feet? Not unusual, because as I said it wasn't used for accurate events like instrument approaches and such --- not back then.

All of the above relates to the positional references in the NTSB video used in Pandora's Black Box, that's why I mention it. Remember, the possible position error applies laterally in this instance too. (I recall also that the NTSB, when making that video, made mistakes in t he airplane's magnetic heading. I'll check on that...)

So, the P4T video goes on and on, and they describe the events accurately, and they dazzle and razzle with all the technical stuff...same stuff I get accused of!!!

However, let's look at this assumption by them:



The hard data file that we have from the NTSB shows the altimeter being set on the climb through 18,000 and on the descent through 18,000 feet.


I have to take their word on the "hard data file" because I've not seen it. but, while it is natural for a professional pilot to re-zset the altimeters to local barometric setting as you pass through FL180, I hardly expect the terrorist pilot would have been that disciplined.




Let's watch to see if this altimeter is being set during descent in the animation [the altimeter doesn't snap back after descending 18,000 feet]. The trend continues. There is no snap back. The altimeter is still set to 29.92.


OK...correct, it sure does not look like the altimeter that was recording to the SSFDR was re-set from 29.92 to 30.22 (prevailing setting). Of course, in the descent it wouldn't "snap back" as they imply....what you would likely see is the altimeter reading hesitate slightly, since as you are turning the Kollsman knob, you are moving the 'hands' back as they unwind in the other direction. Capice?? Minor point, just noted from experience.

But THEN they say:



We will have to manually correct for this from here on out, as the aircraft is actually 300 feet higher than indicated.


Hold on there a second, buckaroos!! How do you know that the terrorist pilot didn't RE-SET one or all of the altimeters at some point from here prior to impact? They assume that the altimeters were not re-set at all, and that is the crux of the rest of this subject, from them.




Considering the hard data file that we have shows the altimeter being set through 18,000 feet, and the animation does not, that is a blatant coverup to make the animation aircraft appear lower than it actually is.


Whoa! Strong allegation, there! Hope they can provide more 'proof'.

Well, the rest continues on the assumption that the altimeter(s) were NEVER re-set....so it's just an opinion there, and desperation on their part.

~~There is another point, and I am uncertain since I never needed to know ALL the details of exactly how the SSFDR recorded, it wasn't required knowledge.

But somewhere in the deep, dark recesses of memory I recall as how the Air Data Computer (where all of the pitot/static inputs went to be processed, then sent to respective instruments) only used 29.92....and of course, the Kollsman window settings only affected the instrument AS SEEN BY the pilots.

I know that the trnasponder Mode C reported standard altitudes...that is, for the ATC people on their radar, if they assigned you 10,000 feet, and the altimeter setting was 30.22, they would see 10,300 feet, because YOU had re-set properly. The ATC folks understand this, and how it works. They only question your altiude if it varies by a substantial amount, different than assigned. (Or is WAY off compared to others at your assigned altitude).


I'm not going to repeat their vertical speed comments...I timed it for myself, once and it looked perfectly reasonable. Didn't save my notes, so I'll have to look again.....

(Would be a heckuva lot easier if we had the VVI info!!!!)
___________________________________________________________

BB codes


[edit on 1 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


This has been covered in at least two videos.

Go to "thepentacon.com" and go to the video section which shows a
flight path reconstruction based on witness testimony.

Also look on YouTube/Google for a video called, "The North Approach"
which I co-produced and has been checked by aero engineers and math
profs.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Well, firstly it's a little difficult to say it was exactly one second before impact. As I said, there is going to be some discrepancy in exact position based on the SSFDR, because IT gets its position info from the Inertial Reference System (IRS) which did not GPS updating at that time, on that particular airplane.


Don't go there WEED! The last recorded DME value was 1.5 nautical
miles from the airport beacon transmitter. The plane also recorded
two data frames at 781 feet per second after this value was stored.

You don't use INS/IRS because it is not referenced from any ground
position. DME in fact is a ground reference.

DME is accurate to within +/- 0.1 nm as per manufacturer data.

Oh boy, as I read on I can see you HAVE NOT studied this!!???????!



I have to take their word on the "hard data file" because I've not seen it. but, while it is natural for a professional pilot to re-zset the altimeters to local barometric setting as you pass through FL180, I hardly expect the terrorist pilot would have been that disciplined.


Well, the terrorist WAS that disciplined. Get out your copy of the NTSB
CSV file and check the BARO COR columns.

IT WAS SET 20 MINUTES BEFORE "IMPACT"... I'll tell you the problem
with this once you're up to speed on the data "Weed"


OK...correct, it sure does not look like the altimeter that was recording to the SSFDR was re-set from 29.92 to 30.22 (prevailing setting). Of course, in the descent it wouldn't "snap back" as they imply....what you would likely see is the altimeter reading hesitate slightly, since as you are turning the Kollsman knob, you are moving the 'hands' back as they unwind in the other direction. Capice?? Minor point, just noted from experience.


IT DOESN"T HESITATE. IT DOESN"T EVEN MOVE BACK. Watch the animation AGAIN. You would DEFINITELY see the change in a few hundred feet.



Hold on there a second, buckaroos!! How do you know that the terrorist pilot didn't RE-SET one or all of the altimeters at some point from here prior to impact? They assume that the altimeters were not re-set at all, and that is the crux of the rest of this subject, from them.


That's BS Weed! WE know because the NTSB Animation doesn't show this.

We also KNOW because the raw data file was decoded by P4T Experts
and show RADAR ALTITUDE. This is not adjusted by the pilot and it
MATCHES the correction made for Pressure Altitude.




Considering the hard data file that we have shows the altimeter being set through 18,000 feet, and the animation does not, that is a blatant coverup to make the animation aircraft appear lower than it actually is.


Whoa! Strong allegation, there! Hope they can provide more 'proof'.

Well, the rest continues on the assumption that the altimeter(s) were NEVER re-set....so it's just an opinion there, and desperation on their part.


NO it's not desperation. I BET you don't even have a copy of the CSV
file! LMAO!


What value is at column F, row 37 , Weed?

NOBODY ANSWER THIS PLEASE



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


OK....here we go with some accurate info.


The last recorded DME value was 1.5 nautical
miles from the airport beacon transmitter.


You are obviously referring to the DCA VOR/DME that is located on the airport. So, the 1.5 miles is about right. Of course, from its postion relative to the DCA DME, it was North/Northwest of the station.

Let's examine this in more detail shortly...but first:


The plane also recorded two data frames at 781 feet per second after this value was stored.


Oh, now we're going to have to talk about the data frames in the SSFDR? OK, I will find the excellent JREF post on that, later.....



You don't use INS/IRS because it is not referenced from any ground position. DME in fact is a ground reference.


!!!!! DME by itself is inadequate to plot a position. It is Distance Measuring Equipment...distance information only, with NO lateral reference. THAT comes from the VOR info. (VHF OmniRange). In other words, for the DME to define a position, you also must know the radial you are on, as transmitted from the VOR.



DME is accurate to within +/- 0.1 nm as per manufacturer data.


So glad you brought that up! One NM is 6,067 feet. One tenth of that is about 607 feet. SO....+/- 607 feet means an error (per the manufacturer's data) of 1,214 feet. Correct? OK....now, the VOR/DME located at National Airport:

Here is the airport diagram for National Airport.

Also, here is all the data for the VOOR/DME, including its Lat/Long position so you can plot it on the airport diagram:


DCA
WASHINGTON VOR/DME
WASHINGTON, DC
Location
Lat/Long: 38-51-34.031N / 077-02-11.166W (38.8594531/-77.0364350)
Elevation: 9 ft.
Variation: 09W (1985)

Operational Characteristics
Type: VOR/DME
Class: L-VORW/DME
Frequency: 111.00
TACAN channel: 047X
Altitude code: L (low)
Use at high altitude: yes
Hours of operation: 24
Voice: no
Morse ID: -.. -.-. .-
NOTAM facility: DCA
FSS:
FSS hours of operation: 24



HOW was this NavAid tuned? Well, two ways: MANually, by the pilot, or AUTOmatically by the FMC (Flight Management Computer) when the EHSI selector on the center pedestal is NOT in position 'FULL HSI' or 'EXP HSI'. The FMC tunes while in AUTO just for IRS position updating.....

Since it 'knows' where it is, it uses NavAids near by...but it is constantly re-tuning, to continually refine position info. I have contended that the terrorist selected to 'FULL HSI' so that the CRT screen would look familiar to him...even though it is a computer screen, it now 'looks' like a regular HSI.

When selected, the associated NAV radio tuning panel becomes active, and can be MANually tuned....it appears this was done.

ALL of this (and other clues) indicates Human activity in the cockpit AFTER the take-over.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 





We also KNOW because the raw data file was decoded by P4T Experts and show RADAR ALTITUDE.


Well, we have only YOUR word for it that they were "Experts"!! Why not have one of them post here?



This is not adjusted by the pilot and it MATCHES the correction made for Pressure Altitude.


I'd like to see the RA data too. So, you are unclear - the RA matches what correction made for Pressure Altitude? P4T is claiming that the airplane was more than 400 MSL at the point in the animation where it reads 180 feet...so which is it?



Considering the hard data file that we have shows the altimeter being set through 18,000 feet...


We have only your word for that, since I have never seen the hard data file. Have a linky????



NO it's not desperation. I BET you don't even have a copy of the CSV file! LMAO!


(Aren't you running out of donkeys yet? You keep laughing them off!!!)

No, I don't have a copy of the 'CSV' file. I'd like to see one. Linky????
_______________________________________________________
edit for turbofan....

I found an excellent bunch of information, but as it is from another forum I won't cross-post.

In it are some external references cited, so I think it's OK to bring those along...at first glance, this is going to be good info from someone who KNOWS exactly how Flight Recorders work, and he discusses the CSV file...I'll read it and then put it into my words.

His cred? An MS in Electrical Engineering, worked as a civilian with the UASF on F-15s in data recording and telemetry. He's designed, built, tested and maintained flight data acquisition units. He comments that the FDR in question is a "very low-bit-rate version."

(I want to point out a very odd coincidence also, that I just noticed from the other forum...OK, someone else already linked it on a different ATS thread...it is from "JREF". Well, this was from back in 2006...I never even HEARD of the place -- although I had heard of James Randi before, as a debunker of faith healers and stuff -- I had no idea that blog existed UNTIL quite some time after I found ATS!!! SO, imagine my surprise to see a user there -- banned, I might add -- with the name "weedwacker", Note the spelling... Anyway, that dude was not and never was ME!!! In fact, it's one from the OTHER side! LOL!!!)



[edit on 1 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
What's the current number of NoC vs. SoC witnesses?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I think all the technical aspects of things like this should be left with Pilots 4 Truth or at least be examined by people who know what they're talking about. Otherwise you just end up with a bunch of amateurs taking bits and pieces of information and getting confused. Once you get truthers contradicting each other, that just fuels the fire for the debunkers to jump on the bandwagon and then the original purpose of getting to the truth gets lost.

My own belief is that the government never thought their original story would get picked to pieces or questioned, so they made up this sloppy sequence of events to just cover what happened.

I think a plane did approach the Pentagon, but on the other approach that's being talked about, not the one in the OS. As it got near, a missile was fired to hit the precise target and the plane flew over the Pentagon instead. A missile is the only probably explanation of the perfect entry and exit holes and lack of debris.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x
 


scott, nice thread and good to branch it off of another thread to examine directly.


Thanks :-)



Originally posted by weedwhacker
This will take some work.


I see that you weren't kidding, laugh :-).



Originally posted by weedwhacker
Regarding your first "South of Citgo" comment:


This is in accordance with the official story, but at odds with all the credible witnesses


No, not ALL credible witnesses. Many more disagree with the "North of Citgo allegations.


Can you cite -one- credible south side witness? I've gone over this excercise before with someone else, they came up wanting in my view.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
In your opening you mention CIT's 13 witnesses. Those are the only witnesses that they (CIT) wished to include in their "investigation".


Where did you hear this?



Originally posted by weedwhacker
In other words, CIT wished to have a pre-determined outcome, to fit their pre-conceived version of "facts" -- so they used only those witness' statements that were supportive of their case.


Again, where did you hear this?



Originally posted by weedwhacker

... and would have to break the laws of physics as well, as it would have had to have pulled out of an impossible dive in order to both hit the 5 light poles and enter the pentagon low and level as allegedly recorded by the pentagon parking lot video.


That is another problem that needs to be explained, because it stems completely from a misrepresentation by "Pilots For Truth" in their video that you reference later....that's where I come in, to the best of my ability.


Ok, we'll deal with that later then :-)



Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by scott3x
2- The plane approached the pentagon from the north side of the nearby Citgo gas station. This would concord with 13 credible witnesses and would also be aerodynamically possible...


Actually, they (CIT) wish for you to believe that the airplane flew over the Navy Annex structure (or slightly North of it).


Over it, and they're only going by witness testimony.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
The terrain is such that it is elevated well above the roadway area where Route 27 (Washington Boulevard) is, and the light poles were downed. In addition, the Navy Annex is a series of seven parallel rectangular buildings (barracks) that are FIVE STORIES HIGH!!!! They are oriented roughly North/South, nearly perpindicular to the ground track (I will use that term from now on, since it is more descriptive than "flight path", UNLESS we are referring to a three-dimensional aspect).

I have not yet learned how to use the features to pull images from GoogleMaps to illustrate, so bear with me please.

Anyone can go to GoogleMaps and look for themselves. In the "street view" you can put your little 'pedestrian' guy on Joyce Street, to start. At 854 S. Joyce St you will see the 'Citgo' gas station. (It has since been re-named "NEX") Spin around, and you can get a feel for the topography, and elevations of terrain and structures. Please note: The large three arcing spires - the Navy Memorial - did not exist and were not under construction on 9/11/2001.

You can also move...let's call him 'Joe'...over onto Rte 27 (Washington Blvd) and explore the views.

The NTSB animation has a slight ground track shift error, in its depiction of the view as it "follows" behind the representative airplane. This is important to note --- because it completely buries one of the PFT's claims...more on that. Later.


Alright.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
Keep in mind, as you look both at the top-down satellite view, and 'Joe's' view, that the airplane mostly followed the highway known as Columbia Pike (Rte 244). The three-leaf cloverleaf intersection where Rte 244 and Rte 27 cross is where the light poles were.

I think you'll also see the VDOT antenna array....IF it was actually existing in that same location on 9/11/2001, it still is not in the way, as you will see....

Take your time and enjoy the views.


Laugh :-p. I got on Joyce Street; perhaps there's a spot where you can see the pentagon on it, but if so, I didn't find it.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x
 



Ah ok. Out of curiosity, do you know a place online where I can see this for myself?


Jane's All the World's Aircraft is a valuable and accurate source on everything!! Unfortunately, you have to pay...unless someone is nice enough to post a snippet from them, which is easily found via Google search:

www.janes.com...


Thanks a bundle :-)



Originally posted by weedwhacker
Lots of goodies to know there...glad you made me hunt for it!


Glad you hunted for it too, laugh ;-). When it comes to 9/11, everyone is always asking for sources, so it's nice to have some ;-).



Originally posted by weedwhacker
Doesn't tell you everything, of course. Which is good!


Yeah, I'd probably get bored with it long before getting to the end of it :-p.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 



Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Here is R.mackey's (NASA engineer) math on this subject. JREF

And a thread discussing it. JREF


Thanks for the info waypastvne. You do need to have an account at JREF to see the first linked post, but I do have one, so I could see it. Commenting on it is a bit beyond me at present, but I'll comment on comments you make below...



Originally posted by waypastvne
BTW I am a US citizen, but I spend 4 or 5 months a year in Australia. Endless summer for the last 20 years.

Speaking as a G freak aerobatic pilot. Balsamo is an idiot, I dont need the math to see that. How could any pilot think that 33 G's is a correct answer.


Balsamo simply stated that -if- both the NTSB data was correct -and- the light poles were knocked down by the plane that approached the pentagon, the plane would have had to have pulled up from a 34 G dive. Clearly he doesn't believe that the plane could have actually pulled it off. The conclusion seems clear to me: either the NTSB data is incorrect, the plane didn't hit one or more of the alleged light poles that were nevertheless knocked down by -something- or both.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x
 


Ok...going to do this bit by bit....

Just refer to the post I'm referencing to, please.


Originally posted by scott3x

Here is the transcription that I mentioned I would put up in my last post:

From Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77, starting at 40:40, regarding the alleged black box data:


Allright, using the transcript from "Pandora's Black Box", we will see where I agree and disagree with P4T....




Let's take a look at the altitude. The altimeter in the animation, according to the flight data recorder, shows 180 feet one second prior to impact. Let's see if this is accurate....


Well, firstly it's a little difficult to say it was exactly one second before impact. As I said, there is going to be some discrepancy in exact position based on the SSFDR, because IT gets its position info from the Inertial Reference System (IRS) which did not [have] GPS updating at that time, on that particular airplane.

I'd rather not waste space describing the IRS, and its functions and inherent accuracy ranges...except to say that for purposes of gross navigation it is sufficient, by itself, to be accurate within a mile, sometimes a little more or less...certainly enough to be usable for extended over-water flights, for instance. BUT, of course --- it also is provided, on the AAL 77 airplane, with various radio updating from land-based sources, further refining its accuracy to within less than 1/2 mile. Still, that's as much as 3,000 feet horizontally, so even if it's off by only 500 feet? Not unusual, because as I said it wasn't used for accurate events like instrument approaches and such --- not back then.

All of the above relates to the positional references in the NTSB video used in Pandora's Black Box, that's why I mention it. Remember, the possible position error applies laterally in this instance too. (I recall also that the NTSB, when making that video, made mistakes in the airplane's magnetic heading. I'll check on that...)


Ok...




Originally posted by weedwhacker
So, the P4T video goes on and on, and they describe the events accurately, and they dazzle and razzle with all the technical stuff...same stuff I get accused of!!!


Lol :-)



Originally posted by weedwhacker
However, let's look at this assumption by them:



The hard data file that we have from the NTSB shows the altimeter being set on the climb through 18,000 and on the descent through 18,000 feet.


I have to take their word on the "hard data file" because I've not seen it.


Hopefully we can remedy that.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
but, while it is natural for a professional pilot to re-set the altimeters to local barometric setting as you pass through FL180, I hardly expect the terrorist pilot would have been that disciplined.


I see that turbofan has responded to this bit...


Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by scott3x

Let's watch to see if this altimeter is being set during descent in the animation [the altimeter doesn't snap back after descending 18,000 feet]. The trend continues. There is no snap back. The altimeter is still set to 29.92.


OK...correct, it sure does not look like the altimeter that was recording to the SSFDR was re-set from 29.92 to 30.22 (prevailing setting). Of course, in the descent it wouldn't "snap back" as they imply....what you would likely see is the altimeter reading hesitate slightly, since as you are turning the Kollsman knob, you are moving the 'hands' back as they unwind in the other direction. Capice?? Minor point, just noted from experience.


And yet, turbofan has stated that there was no hesitation either...



Originally posted by weedwhacker
But THEN they say:



We will have to manually correct for this from here on out, as the aircraft is actually 300 feet higher than indicated.


Hold on there a second, buckaroos!! How do you know that the terrorist pilot didn't RE-SET one or all of the altimeters at some point from here prior to impact?


By observing it all the way down I imagine. I assumed that's that Rob Balsamo meant when he said: "The trend continues. There is no snap back." However, we don't need to rely on assumptions here, I imagine. I imagine that you could get your hands on the same data that PFT got with their Freedom of Information Act request. It's just a matter of arranging it in my view.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
They assume that the altimeters were not re-set at all, and that is the crux of the rest of this subject, from them.


I think you're assuming that they're assuming, laugh :-p. If you could look at the data yourself, I think the truth of the matter would be resolved rather quickly.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join