New FDR Decode

reply to post by turbofan

With EGT's, the system can monitor every exhaust runner and adjust fuel to the specific cylinder individually.

You have just shown us you really have no idea what you're talking about whe nit comes to aviation, airliners and jet engines.

Oh, and I think you should re-google the RADALTs on the B757/767 in particular.

There are three.

Left one is displayed on the Capt's panel, right one is desplayed on the First Officer's panel. Center is NOT dispalyed anywhere...guess what it's used for??? (I am not telling, it would give it away too easily...)

reply to post by R_Mackey

Originally posted by R_Mackey's imposter

Originally posted by iSunTzu
I will stick with the math, a 53 foot error...

174' MSL (last True Altitude Reading) - 53 Error as claimed by iSunTzu/Beachnut = 121' MSL

35' Pentagon Ground elevation + 77 Pentagon Height + 6' Gear + 4' RA return off the top of the Pentagon = 122' MSL.

Your 53 foot error just proved the flyover.

Ahhh, a flyover that nobody saw.
Ahhh, a flyover that would have been impossible for the parking lot camera to have missed.
Ahhh, a flyover that was instituted by a "stealth" 757, that produced no radar returns from any nearby radar sites. Or one that stayed at tree top level, while flying - unnoticed, of course, on THAT day - over downtown Washington, DC.

Most importantly ... Ahhh, the flyover that is somehow "proven" - in that amazing little Willie Wonka factory sitting atop your shoulders - by the FDR taken from the wreckage of the buildings...??!!!

LoL...

Originally posted by R_Mackey's imposter
@tomk,

Next time you wish to post pictures of static ports, use a picture that people can see.


The above from N509US, a NWA 757

Ahhh, I see. Your picture that shows exactly the same ports shown by the pictures that I posted.
Those ports?

Originally posted by R_Mackey's imposter
The port is virtually on the belly. Forward and below the wing chord.
[edit on 1-11-2009 by R_Mackey's imposter]

Ahhh, I see. The way that YOUR photo shows its position in relation to the wing. Oh, wait ... Your image doesn't show the wing at all.

For that relationship, you have to go back to the picture that I posted...



Wherein you see that the ports (just under the 3rd & 5th passenger windows) are NOT "virtually on the belly. Forward and below the wing chord."

But instead you see that the static ports are just under the chin crease in the fuselage.
And you see that the centerline of the leading edge of the wings join the body just under the chin crease in the fuselage.

Which puts the static ports "virtuallyin line with the wings." Not [b/under the wings at all. Yes forward of the wings. About 20' forward, using the fuselage diameter as a scale.

Which means that, when the plane rotates to 10° for takeoff, the static ports will be about 42" ABOVE the wing chord.

In other words, the static ports will be in the freestream air, unaffected by any "plowed up" pressure increase underneath the wing.

Which is, "oops", exactly what I said in my post.

And I notice that you had zero response to any of the other points that I made. Don't worry, Fake Mackey. Your nonsense, shown above, demonstrates exactly why that is.

Now, why don't you answer the only interesting questions of this whole charade:

1) Why are you lying about being Ryan Mackey?
2) Why is it that truthers so frequently feel the need to lie about things? Their background, their experience, their identities, excerpted quotes, evidence, etc. etc. etc.
3) What possible benefit to anyone arises from lying? (Please leave "DVD sales" out of the discussion.)

Those are, frankly, the only questions that I am interested in hearing you answer.

Can't wait...

tom

[edit on 2-11-2009 by tomk52]

reply to post by weedwhacker



No, you're just too basic to realize I'm talking about the Exhaust Gas
Temperature Probes/Sensors [EGT's] in the turbofan engine...and how they
would pick up the fact that white smoke is pouring out the rear of a
turbofan engine after being "struck by a lightpole(s)".

The poor self-proclaimed pilot thinks I mean a turbofan has exhaust runners
and cylinders!

Stick to pretending to be a pilot, or whatever you do best. Please don't
try to understand how EGT's work and how much temperature loss the
EGT would record if WHITE SMOKE WAS POURING OUT THE ENGINE
as opposed to the temperature of a normally operating engine at FULL
THROTTLE.



As for Reheat and Trebor, just keep yapping without providing sources.
I gave you links, you just blabbed onward and asked questions instead
of answering my questions.

Oh...here is some contact info for Avionics MFG's which I personally
contacted years ago. Still have them saved in my mail folders for
reference!

Give these guys a call and record your conversation if you're such the
pilots you claim! Try to tell them their products can't perform within
(or better than) bench test limits in "real life" situations

William Brankin
Office Tel: (1) 941 377 5521

Kurt Carr
(319) 295-5000

Rafael Lopes
Tel. +1(613)225-0070 x291

I'll leave out the company info so you can do a little research for once
and pick up the phone

Bonus star to any GL that can match the phone number with a company
name AND department! Come on "researchers", no cheating...don't use
Google! Earn that star!

[edit on 2-11-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by tomk52
Ahhh, a flyover that nobody saw.

R. Turcious, "saw plane pick up over road sign"
R. Rosevelts, "commerical airliner over south parking lot immediately
after explosion about 100 feet above"

CIT has further research showing people were heard screaming the
plane continued over the Pentagon.

Several Witnesses claim plane was slow and banking (FDR support?)

Nobody Saw?

I guess Rosevelts was imagining this plane right after the explosion?

Ahhh, a flyover that would have been impossible for the parking lot camera to have missed.

You mean the fake 5 frame video? The one that shows a small object level
with the ground, with a trail of smoke...again not supported by FDR parameters?

How much witness evidence do you want to toss out to make your theory
hold water?

Originally posted by turbofan
How much witness evidence do you want to toss out to make your theory
hold water?

I would suggest that that's more a question for you to answer, Tino. You've been tossing out eyewitness testimony for years until you come across a nugget that might support your assertion. Then that nugget becomes gold in your eyes instead of the fool's gold it really is.

None so blind......

Originally posted by turbofan
How much witness evidence do you want to toss out to make your theory
hold water?

Coming from the same person that has thrown out thousands and thousands of pieces of evidence, including witness statements.

Did you read this letter?

Killtown,
I am certainly aware of people like yourself who believe that those of us who suffered on 9/11 must be part of some giant plot, either as dupes or plotters. I was in the Pentagon when the plane hit, I held parts of that aircraft in my hands, covered with fuel and oil, and I helped with the triage area. I helped a guy with a headwound, aided ambulances coming in, and suffer to this day with ongoing nightmares on a very regular basis. When one has seen what I saw, and had to do what I had to do, the images, the smells, the sounds, resonate in your mind forever.

I do not object to your desire to dispute the facts of that day. While I feel you are hopelessly naive and silly, that is your right. But please know that your page on the Pentagon crash is deeply offensive to the survivors such as myself. Again, it's not that you argue. But your tone is one of mocking, of making light of the greatest suffering I ever saw in my 25 years of military service. Your fake "quotes," your quips, all mock the pain of those of us that were there, and served that day. I am very likely one of the people in some of your photographs, and I assure you our thoughts were not about the grass (a silly claim you make, by the way), but were deeply, intensely worried about the people hurt, the people left inside. I will never forget that day, and while I can forgive your foolishness in not understanding the facts, the science, the reality of that day, I find it much harder to forgive your willingness to laugh at those who were so terribly hurt that day. Such an attitude shows you to be a cruel and heartless person, in addition to silly one.

LT Col Hal Bidlack
USAF Retired

Will you contact Lt Col Bidlack Turbofan? Or, do you think while the perps were running around planting plane pieces around, they had cans of jet fuel and oil to cover them with?

reply to post by ImAPepper


Sure, I'll call him. I've called some avionics MFG's, so why not this guy?

What's his phone number, and/or area of residence?

Internet letters are "awesome"...just about as awesome as kids on the
internet pretending to be pilots!

Hey Pepper, if a Pressure Altimeter can be within 20 feet accuracy under
1000 feet in a bench test, can you tell Reheat why it would be any different
in 'real flight'?

Maybe try to tell him these are extreme limits as well, and that the equipment
is designed to operate under more typical tolerances smaller than those
max. limits in the chart I linked.

reply to post by Fitzgibbon


Can you link me to any real eye witness testimony on "your" side?

I don't mean internet quotes...I mean video.

The last few video accounts the GL's have put forth have been less than
stellar (IE: Keith Wheelhouse, Lloyd England, Mike Walters). All of them
proven liars and do not support the official story.

So, go ahead. Make me a believer and connect me with a real witness
that support the OGCT.

reply to post by turbofan


“The altimeter shall be subjected to a steady rate of decrease of pressure approximating 750 feet per minute.”

With Flight 77 going 3600 feet per minute is the error 336 foot error for 77’s dive?

Table III_Friction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tolerance
Altitude (feet) (feet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000....................................................... ±70
2,000....................................................... 70
…
30,000...................................................... 140
35,000...................................................... 160
40,000...................................................... 180
50,000...................................................... 250
------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have a known error of 53 foot while 77 is on the ground and in flight after takeoff.


The fake Mackey already told us the pressure altitude in not good enough to be used for auto landing after claiming it was very accurate. Is the system according to a car mechanic good enough for auto landing?

Why was DNA for 77 passengers in the Pentagon with the FDR? What fantasy do you have to spin to make your failed over flight work?


Your Radar Altimeter nonsense was hysterical.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by Fitzgibbon

 

Can you link me to any real eye witness testimony on "your" side?

Ah! I see! No video means no support, eh? Considering the number of eyewitnesses who proclaimed what they saw at the time and since, I think it's counterproductive for me to have to do the search to find two to trounce your two 'witnesses'.

Originally posted by turbofan
I don't mean internet quotes...I mean video.

Because we all know that it isn't true unless it's on video? Life must've been a female dog during Nuremberg, eh?

Originally posted by turbofan
So, go ahead. Make me a believer and connect me with a real witness
that support the OGCT.

Tino,

Irrefutable evidence that a normal person would accept as reasonable wouldn't convince you because you choose to believe your conspiracy theory to the exclusion of all else.

Fine. That's your prerogative. However, don't naysay others because of your shortcomings.

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by tomk52
Ahhh, a flyover that nobody saw.

R. Turcious, "saw plane pick up over road sign"
R. Rosevelts, "commerical airliner over south parking lot immediately
after explosion about 100 feet above"



Nobody Saw?

I guess Rosevelts was imagining this plane right after the explosion?

Ahhh, a flyover that would have been impossible for the parking lot camera to have missed.

You mean the fake 5 frame video? The one that shows a small object level
with the ground, with a trail of smoke...again not supported by FDR parameters?

How much witness evidence do you want to toss out to make your theory
hold water?

Oh....don't even go there, Turbo. Whatever scintilla of respect you had on these boards just went down the tubes with this BS.

Turcois? Did not say anything even remotely resembling a "fly over". For you to use him as a "fly-over" witness is absolutely absurd.

Roberts? How convenient you omit his testimony that says he saw the aircraft "over lane 1" in South parking, headed back in a westerly direction:

Aldo: For a quick five seconds. But you definitely- and you saw it over the south parking lot. . . over lane one?

Roosevelt: In the south- in the south parking lot over lane one.

Reference here

Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest. . . coming out.

Reference here

For the directionally challenged, here is lane one of South parking with a directional pointer indicating southwest.. Special prizes for anyone who can see how the aircraft in this position can "fly over" the Pentagon like Turbo says:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dff43e120bca.jpg[/atsimg]

Many of CITs other witnesses say *nothing of Robert's aircraft, flying "southwest over Lane 1" at "fifty to less than 100 feet" - Lagasse, Brooks, Turcois (you'd think after he saw the aircraft "fly over" he's also see it arc off to the southwest), Lincoln Leibner, anyoen who was in South Parking. You PfT people just keep digging the hole deeper.

CIT has further research showing people were heard screaming the
plane continued over the Pentagon.

Who were these mysterious people? Plural? Screaming? Oooook.

Several Witnesses claim plane was slow and banking (FDR support?)

Who were these people?

Can the FDR be supported when people claim the aircraft was "slow"?

Keep it up, bud!




[edit on 2-11-2009 by trebor451]

Originally posted by Balsamo
Why does Warren's data show four RA's?

Why does the pilots for truth sponsored independent decode, which verifies Warren's work, of the FDR from 77 have FIVE RA read outs? This is cool to be in the presence of the supreme researcher for truth with an over flight fantasy but he never studies the data enough to keep from falling into the big pit. I can answer the question but have to charge engineering consulting fees you can’t afford. …

For the last decoded second in your pilot for truth decode you have 5 (FIVE) values for RA in 5 Column.

Here is the list of the column named and the value presented in the last second.

ALTN_EICAS_COMP 492
ALTradcaptL 273
ALTradcaptC 352
ALTradio 416
ALTrad 273 (352, 416 and 492 are listed in previous seconds in this column)

Some of the columns would be out in AQA-land, as columns go in excel (far out).

The pilot for truth decode erroneously repeats the values in later seconds so you will see 4 values repeated for each single sample, except ALTrad. (Something to do with math, .25hz thingy)

Why does pilot for truth sponsored decode have 5 columns of RA? Because it was decoded that way due to the way the FDR gets data? To understand the FDR takes years and the file with some of the clues on each value stored and how to decode it has 1,110 parameters; this is just the beginning since the actual system is proprietary, you have to do more to get the decode right.

I just briefly skimmed through most of the posts since they are mostly off topic and those which are on topic, are not sourced.

However, I see these issues are still ignored.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Finally, this all assumes the aircraft we are talking about is N644AA. First you have to prove it was N644AA in order to claim the altimeter was operating outside the aircraft envelope.

Start with providing serial/part numbers.

Then you have to prove the altimeter was in error by more than 150 feet.

Air Data Calibration And Measurement

Then you have to convince 757/767 Pilots from American Airlines who have actual flight time in N644AA that the 757 can exceed Vmo by more than 130 knots.

So far all you have is a theory to fit perhaps your already established belief.

I'll add one more, please prove the object from which the last RA is measuring. Hint: Use PA for cross check.

No one has provided any proof of the above. Please let us know when you do.

@tomk

You may want to look up the term dihedral. The static port is below the wing chord. Period. If you still feel otherwise, please diagram a front view of the 757 showing the static port location "virtually" in line with the wings.

Since some are still a bit confused, the Baro Altimeter regulated by the ADC is very precise. This is why it is used for precision approaches.

reply to post by Balsamo

What is the top speed of a 757 in a dive with full throttle? Your experts never provided evidence for anything on 911. Your experts (2 to 7 pilots with fantasy conspiracies?) say a 757/767 can't go as fast as 77 and 175 and they offer no proof. How do they explain the FDR? How do they explain away the fact there is a RADAR track proving each flight ended where they found the Passenger DNA? No wonder those few fringe pilots never came forward they have nothing to refute anything.

You say, “Then you have to convince 757/767 Pilots from American Airlines who have actual flight time in N644AA that the 757 can exceed Vmo by more than 130 knots.” I don’t have to convince conspiracy minded pilots of anything, they have to step up and prove their doubts with evidence not talk.


The FDR for N644AA was decoded and independent investigators have confirmed the 25 hours of flight confirm it is Flight 77 FDR.

Why does that pilot for truth sanctioned decode have 4 RA columns? Can your 767/757 conspiracy minded terrorist loyalist pilots explain that?

Originally posted by iSunTzu
reply to post by Balsamo

 

Violation of ATS T&C 2a.

2a.) Identity Spoofing: You will not ..... forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to disguise the origin of any posting. Doing so will result in removal of your post(s) and immediate termination of your account.

Your experts never provided evidence for anything on 911. Your experts (2 to 7 pilots with fantasy conspiracies?) say a 757/767 can't go as fast as 77 and 175 and they offer no proof.

Unsourced assumption. Strawman.

How do they explain the FDR? How do they explain away the fact there is a RADAR track proving each flight ended where they found the Passenger DNA?

Unsourced assumption. Strawman.

No wonder those few fringe pilots never came forward they have nothing to refute anything.

Violation of ATS T&C 2.

Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

they have to step up and prove their doubts with evidence not talk.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

The FDR for N644AA was decoded and independent investigators have confirmed the 25 hours of flight confirm it is Flight 77 FDR.

Unsourced claim.

Why does that pilot for truth sanctioned decode have 4 RA columns?

Unsourced claim.

Can your 767/757 conspiracy minded terrorist loyalist pilots explain that?

Violation of ATS T&C 1g, 2, 2g.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by iSunTzu
reply to post by Balsamo

 

Violation of ATS T&C 2a.

2a.) Identity Spoofing: You will not ..... forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to disguise the origin of any posting. Doing so will result in removal of your post(s) and immediate termination of your account.

Your experts never provided evidence for anything on 911. Your experts (2 to 7 pilots with fantasy conspiracies?) say a 757/767 can't go as fast as 77 and 175 and they offer no proof.

Unsourced assumption. Strawman.

How do they explain the FDR? How do they explain away the fact there is a RADAR track proving each flight ended where they found the Passenger DNA?

Unsourced assumption. Strawman.

No wonder those few fringe pilots never came forward they have nothing to refute anything.

Violation of ATS T&C 2.

Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

they have to step up and prove their doubts with evidence not talk.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

The FDR for N644AA was decoded and independent investigators have confirmed the 25 hours of flight confirm it is Flight 77 FDR.

Unsourced claim.

Why does that pilot for truth sanctioned decode have 4 RA columns?

Unsourced claim.

Can your 767/757 conspiracy minded terrorist loyalist pilots explain that?

Violation of ATS T&C 1g, 2, 2g.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Pure, absolutely unadulterated Balsamo.

MODS...please take action on this "sockpuppet" of someone who has been banned in the past.

reply to post by Balsamo

Does this mean the pilots for truth pilots, who "offer no theories", will not be presenting proof that it is impossible for Flight 77 to be flying full throttle in a dive and achieve the speed of 483 KIAS?

FDR show 483KIAS for Flight 77 at full throttle, that is a lot of knots and so far no one can refute it except for talk.

The video showing the impact of Flight 175 shows a speed in a dive of 590 mph, 520 KIAS, but the dive speed for the 767 is 420 knots so 175 is only 100 knots over a demonstrated speed from certification. No one has proved it is not 175 (RADAR tracked 175 to the WTC) and no one has proved 175 can’t fly as fast as it was seen flying.

Why is there a 53 foot altitude error on takeoff and climb out?

Originally posted by Balsamo
Since some are still a bit confused, the Baro Altimeter regulated by the ADC is very precise. This is why it is used for precision approaches.

Those who have flown precision approach will understand the altimeter is not part of the reason it is call a precision approach.

You already told everyone the altimeter is not accurate enough to determine touchdown, so the RADAR altimeter is used.

Got a 4 foot reading from the FDR on the RADALT, if you want that to be 10 feet above the Pentagon, the 3600 foot per minute decent rate means your 10 feet over the Pentagon is 1/3 of a second away from roof impact. The error is due to the decent and speed, not to mention the 1.7 Gs.

I was surprised when the 53 foot error showed up during takeoff and climb out. What can you do? At these low speeds the errors are small 20 to 70 feet as Turbo pointed out, AND this is why we never fly our precision approaches at 483 KIAS full throttle, gear up, pulling 1.7 Gs.

Yes, we do not want to fly precision approaches at 483 KIAS, thank you very much Balsamo.

this should put an end to this thread, From mister Mackey himself


forums.randi.org...

Wow, my very own impostor. How childish. I can't prove that it is Cap'n Bob, but that's a darn good guess: * The impostor has obviously been humiliated by me in the past * The only Truthers posting in that thread are PfTers and SPreston * The impostor comments quite knoweldgeably about conversations that took place years ago between John Farmer and Cap'n Bob, and it ain't John Farmer * The impostor is quite the idiot about aerodynamics, much like Cap'n Bob * The impostor posts links to PfT nonsense frequently Just for fun, guess which of the following out-of-context quotes are the impostor, and which are the real Cap'n Bob. I'll bet you can't. Originally Posted by A PA is based on Pressure and is the height above (or below) the standard datum plane as represented by 29.92. PA changes with local pressure changes. Since there is an 80 foot difference and the local pressure on take off at IAD was 30.20, its clear the pressure the night before was somewhere around 30.12/13. Originally Posted by B Put 41 feet into the left altimeter indicated altitude, put 30.20 into the right "New Altimeter Setting". Note True Altitude on top. Put 120 into simulator on left indicated altitude. Put 30.12 into simulator "New Altimeter Setting" on right. [...] Its well within 20 feet as Turbofan described. Originally Posted by A But if you want to continue to assert 41 PA with a 30.20 altimeter is "significantly" different than 120' PA with a 30.12 Altimeter on a field with an elevation of roughly 300 feet, be my guest. You are wrong. Originally Posted by B In other words, if the local pressure at IAD was 29.92 the night before, the PA in the FDR column would read roughly 300 feet, while at take off, it would still show 41 when the local pressure changed overnight to 30.20. So, the question asked, "Which is more accurate.. .the 41 feet at take off, or the 120 on landing?" Answer - Both. They both show the same True Altitude when corrected for local pressure. Originally Posted by A Finally, this all assumes the aircraft we are talking about is N644AA. First you have to prove it was N644AA in order to claim the altimeter was operating outside the aircraft envelope. Originally Posted by B This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, [...] There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Originally Posted by A Since some are still a bit confused, the Baro Altimeter regulated by the ADC is very precise. This is why it is used for precision approaches. Originally Posted by B "below 500 AGL" all call-outs are based on Baro Altimeter and there is never "one eye on the RadAlt" during such an approach. Baro Alt is ultimate authority. Answers below: Cap'n Bob: A, B, B, B If by some miracle you, dear reader, are still in the Truth Movement, this is the kind of person you're associating yourself with -- frauds, forgers, and bullies. If what the Truth Movement stood for was actually valid, none of this nonsense would be needed at all. Think about it. So, in closing, I do not post at AboveTopSecret, and I increasingly take no note of the Truth Movement. Many of them are simply sick. This kind of impersonation is just another example. Although it seems to me this is also another example of poor strategy... By trying to disguise himself as me, Cap'n Bob or whomever isn't fooling anybody, but he can't take a shot at me, either. Must be frustrating.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Since some are still a bit confused, the Baro Altimeter regulated by the ADC is very precise. This is why it is used for precision approaches.

This is why only aircraft with an ADC fly precision approaches!

I'll pass this along to my WWII friends who were flying precision approaches in the 1940's.

I'll also pass this along to myself and all of my compatriots who have flown 100's of precision approaches before the invention of ADC's.

There is nothing as funny as a wanna be who pretends to have "big boy" knowledge of aeronautical subjects. It's no wonder you don't have an ATP rating! You even need a refund for your private rating (if you even, in fact have one.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by trebor451
MODS...please take action on this "sockpuppet" of someone who has been banned in the past.

So, let me get this straight. The mods here banned Rob Balsamo, Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth, who can be readily verified as a pilot, who also happens to question the government story, but never banned any of you?

Originally posted by trebor451
I have no doubt you'd fail that career requirement test in spectacular fashion simply based on your demonstrated lack of any ability whatsoever to carry on a logical, coherent and lucid debate here on basic issues regarding 9/11.

Violation of ATS T&C 2.

Originally posted by trebor451
The fact that nobody wants to "debate" you is because you are a group of immature children who are not worth spending any serious time on.

Violation of ATS T&C 2.

Hmmm... interesting.