|
|
Topic started on 21-10-2009 @ 11:51 PM by Reheat
|
As I mentioned in another thread an Australian has decoded AA77's FDR raw data and read 5 more frames of data than the pffft decode.
It was partial frames, but the most important data was there to include Radar Altitude. This shows the actual height above what's beneath the
aircraft (normally terrain), or to the layman the height above the ground.
This data also showed that the time of impact was later than initially published by the NTSB and ASSumed by pffft as many of us have said after the
RADES and area radar data was released.
I'm just an ATP rated pilot, so I'll allow the "technologist" Turbofan  to reveal what the data from the FDR shows in this new decode. After
all, he believes it was perfect as has been touting all over the Internet for over a year.
Explain this data to everyone here, Mr. "Technologist". Remember now, you told everyone that Stutt was "on your side".
Pssst: AA77 impacted the Pentagon as we've known all along.
|
copyright & usage
|
Click here for more 9/11 Conspiracies topics
Hot Topics
|
Top Topics
|
This Week
|
Subscribe
|
Home
|
reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 11:55 PM by wholetruth
|
wow how convenient after all this time.
who's the "australian" and what are his credentials and how did he manage to suddenly find something that no one else has after all this time?
so the data now includes 'impact' ?
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 12:02 AM by CaptainAmerica2012
|
reply to post by wholetruth
Just another debunker OS loyalist trying to support an overly debunked and recanted 911 commission/ official story. He never got the memo.
Man this stuff is getting old. Debunkers should go get some new training and stop posting on 911 forums that seek an investigation.
Whats next calling everyone twoofers?
Rades , FDR whatever. The point is that Bin Laden had nothing to do with 911.
Then who did?
[edit on 22-10-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 12:08 AM by Rewey
|
Man... Aussie's are AWESOME!
I TOLD you guys...
Rewey
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 09:24 AM by SPreston
|
Originally posted by wholetruth
wow how convenient after all this time.
who's the "australian" and what are his credentials and how did he manage to suddenly find something that no one else has after all this time?
so the data now includes 'impact' ?
Final frame of alleged FDR was much too high to possibly dive into the Pentagon 1st floor and also miss the building foundation, let alone knock down
the five light poles.
At an official 780 fps, the aircraft would have to dive down almost vertically and pull up at a high G rate to catch the #1 light pole and then fly
level inches above the lawn, in just several seconds timespan to move the aircraft control surfaces and reach the Pentagon 1st floor wall. Just
not possible even in a fighter jet let alone a large 100 ton commercial aircraft.
The ' australian' is from the Forum of Magicians and Illusionists and is being ' pushed' by the mysterious and anonymous Reheat
himself, which should speak volumes.
Nah, this official scenario ' pushed' by Reheat and company is just not possible.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 09:39 AM by jthomas
|
Originally posted by Reheat
As I mentioned in another thread an Australian has decoded AA77's FDR raw data and read 5 more frames of data than the pffft decode.
It was partial frames, but the most important data was there to include Radar Altitude. This shows the actual height above what's beneath the
aircraft (normally terrain), or to the layman the height above the ground.
This data also showed that the time of impact was later than initially published by the NTSB and ASSumed by pffft as many of us have said after the
RADES and area radar data was released.
I'm just an ATP rated pilot, so I'll allow the "technologist" Turbofan to reveal what the data from the FDR shows in this new decode. After
all, he believes it was perfect as has been touting all over the Internet for over a year.
Explain this data to everyone here, Mr. "Technologist". Remember now, you told everyone that Stutt was "on your side".
Pssst: AA77 impacted the Pentagon as we've known all along.
Now we get to watch a new round of 9/11 Denial as "Truthers" here go to every length to shoot the messengers and evade dealing with the evidence
that conclusively demonstrated AA77 hit Pentagon.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 10:27 AM by _BoneZ_
|
reply to post by jthomas
Does it ever occur to you or the other government loyalists that the FDR might be fake? Why accept something at face value without question?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 11:23 AM by trebor451
|
Originally posted by Reheat
I'm just an ATP rated pilot, so I'll allow the "technologist" Turbofan to reveal what the data from the FDR shows in this new decode. After
all, he believes it was perfect as has been touting all over the Internet for over a year.
Explain this data to everyone here, Mr. "Technologist". Remember now, you told everyone that Stutt was "on your side".
Pssst: AA77 impacted the Pentagon as we've known all along.
Where's TF? I would have thought PfT would have their excuse made up by now. I wonder if Mr Stutt is now a "government shill"...from Oz.
Also...reading Cap't Bob's comment on the possible ramifications of erroneous data:
We have tried to inform them, but they turned a blind eye
You think it might be because of your credibility???.
[edit on 22-10-2009 by trebor451]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 11:35 AM by Reheat
|
reply to post by SPreston
For the few rational folks here, attempting to use a barometric altimeter under these conditions is the epitome of stupid. It is unreliable because
of compressibility.
I'm sure Turbofan, " the technologist", will explain why a barometric altimeter is unreliable under the conditions experienced by AA 77 in it's
final phase of flight.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 11:54 AM by wholetruth
|
reply to post by Reheat
who's the "australian" and what are his credentials and how did he manage to suddenly find something that no one else has after all this time?
so the data now includes 'impact' ?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 12:05 PM by trebor451
|
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by jthomas
Does it ever occur to you or the other government loyalists that the FDR might be fake? Why accept something at face value without question?
Why would it be fake? If it were fake, PfT would have just said "It doesn't matter what is on it. Its fake!"
Naw...PfT is trying to prove a negative (the aircraft never hit the building) with what they call a negative (fraudulent FDR). Its really pretty
funny the lengths they are going to to "prove" this is fake.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 12:15 PM by wholetruth
|
found this at pilots :
Your last 4 seconds do not add up to impact.
1. The second to last 4 seconds of travel according to your CSV is 2.25 DME, then the next/last 4 seconds is only .25 DME? (yes, i pulled up GE, fits
perfectly with impact point. Neat how that works when Beachnut has been yelling the DME is in error for the past 3 years)
2. Your numbers still show a descent rate in excess of 4200 fpm.... which is still more than a 5 degree slope, still too high to hit light poles
working backwards from the "impact" hole.
and.... finally...
-99 + 300 = 201. Still too high to hit the pentagon.
Roof of the Pentagon is roughly 110 feet above sea level. 35 ground elevation + 77 height of pentagon. (yes, i also looked at radalt, something fishy
going on there as well. They dont match Pressure altitude descent rates and (edit to add) is too high to hit the light poles based on speed. Keep in
mind Radalt is altitude above ground or any object on the ground in which the radar is bouncing off... you have to look at true altitude to get a more
precise figure and correlate.
Speed also becomes more of an issue in terms of structural integrity and control effectiveness being more than 20 knots faster... not to mention now
it doesn't correlate with any other "official" information or documentation. (/edit)
But, your last 4 seconds of decode is more in line with what the CIT witnesses describe for altitude as the NTSB plotted altitudes seemed a bit high
compared to witness statements.
Thanks for putting it together.
Assuming your decode is accurate....
guess this explains why reheat ignored my questions........
[edit on 22-10-2009 by wholetruth]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 12:31 PM by jthomas
|
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by jthomas
Does it ever occur to you or the other government loyalists that the FDR might be fake? Why accept something at face value without question?
I am not surprised that it never dawned on you 9/11 "Truthers" that we skeptics are not your fantasy "government loyalists" and that we have
NEVER taken anything for granted that you 9/11 Deniers claim.
Let us know when you decide to stop trying to shift the burden of proof from your shoulders and get around to refuting the massive evidence that AA77
hit the Pentagon.
Sheesh...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 12:39 PM by wholetruth
|
reply to post by jthomas
and.... finally...
-99 + 300 = 201. Still too high to hit the pentagon.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 12:50 PM by jthomas
|
Originally posted by wholetruth
reply to post by jthomas
and.... finally...
-99 + 300 = 201. Still too high to hit the pentagon.
Funny. Four feet above ground level is still four feet.
And there is absolutely no evidence of any so-called "flyover."
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 12:56 PM by wholetruth
|
reply to post by jthomas
i dont want to violate the rules and say anything about your intelligence but you really have no comprehension of what youre looking at, do you?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 01:35 PM by jprophet420
|
Originally posted by Reheat
As I mentioned in another thread an Australian has decoded AA77's FDR raw data and read 5 more frames of data than the pffft decode.
It was partial frames, but the most important data was there to include Radar Altitude. This shows the actual height above what's beneath the
aircraft (normally terrain), or to the layman the height above the ground.
This data also showed that the time of impact was later than initially published by the NTSB and ASSumed by pffft as many of us have said after the
RADES and area radar data was released.
I'm just an ATP rated pilot, so I'll allow the "technologist" Turbofan to reveal what the data from the FDR shows in this new decode. After
all, he believes it was perfect as has been touting all over the Internet for over a year.
Explain this data to everyone here, Mr. "Technologist". Remember now, you told everyone that Stutt was "on your side".
Pssst: AA77 impacted the Pentagon as we've known all along.
Now all you have to do is post your source and you'll have something for us to form an opinion on, and for the 5% of us that are enlightened,
research.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 01:37 PM by jprophet420
|
reply to post by jthomas
Dude, we're the skeptics, you're the conspiracy theorist. You believe in the conspiracy theory involving hijacked planes. We are skeptical of that
theory.
DOI.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 01:56 PM by wholetruth
|
reply to post by jprophet420
i'll provide a source since i'm not lying and insinuating or misrepresenting anything :
pilotsfor911truth.org...
which after tracking this down i've developed serious doubts about the author of this thread as the "newly decoded" additional seconds only further
corroborates claims that the plane did not hit light poles or the pentagon.....
maybe thats why the originator of this thread won't source it?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 02:46 PM by trebor451
|
Originally posted by wholetruth
i'll provide a source since i'm not lying and insinuating or misrepresenting anything :
If you are going to provide a source, would it be asking too much if your source were something reputable? Professional? Believable? Debateable,
even? I understand you are in the tank for Balsamo, but bringing that tank to the table as a "source" of professional competence is, well,
absurd.
[edit on 22-10-2009 by trebor451]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
